[CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP biogeochemistry and chemistry

Karl Taylor taylor13 at llnl.gov
Tue Mar 28 14:35:54 MDT 2017


Hi James,

In CMIP6 there is no reason that a surface variable can't be requested 
independent of a 3-d variable.  For example we could request CO2(x,y,z)  
and CO2s(x,y,t) for 3-d and 2-d fields, respectively.  The standard 
names could be the same for these, but the CMIP6 variable names and 
"long_names" would be different.

best regards,
Karl

On 3/27/17 7:22 AM, James Orr wrote:
> One reason for the added "surface_*" ocean biogeochemistry variables 
> is that they allow us to reduce the data burden. That is, for many 
> variables, monthly fields are needed at the surface but are not 
> absolutely necessary at depth.
>
> Hence in the revised version of the OMIP-BGC description paper, most 
> monthly 3-D fields have been demoted; they are no longer requested at 
> Priority 1. Instead we prefer to keep the annual-mean 3-D fields as 
> Priority 1 and add the corresponding monthly surface fields also at 
> Priority 1.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Durack, Paul J. wrote:
>
>> This sounds great, thanks Alison!
>>
>> I’ve pulled John Dunne into this discussion (I think he’s a 
>> subscriber) as he’s going to have the final say with the biogeo names 
>> – as a heads up, there was some discussion about whether the 
>> “surface_” names should be requested (in addition to the 3D fields), 
>> it was a late edition prior to the names being submitted for 
>> consideration. I have also cc’d Martin (who I’m sure is also a 
>> subscriber) so he has a heads up that these changes are going to be 
>> occurring soon (I will be pulling the final info back into the source 
>> google sheets that Martin is currently using for much of the ocean 
>> variable data request).
>>
>> I’ll keep an eye open and respond to any list queries quickly so we 
>> can expedite the process for the April update.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>> On 3/23/17, 12:05 PM, "Karl Taylor" <taylor13 at llnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>    Dear Jonathan,
>>
>>    You raise some good points, and like you I'm sure I'd benefit from 
>> one
>>    of Alison's careful summaries before taking this discussion further.
>>    I'm sure I'll be happy with whatever Alison recommends either way 
>> on this.
>>
>>    cheers,
>>    Karl
>>
>>
>>    On 3/23/17 9:59 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>>    > Dear Karl
>>    >
>>    > I'm sure this question has been discussed before. I agree it 
>> seems surprising
>>    > to have special names for surface quantities which also appear 
>> in 3D. I think
>>    > there are two reasons why this is the right thing to do in some 
>> cases:
>>    >
>>    > * There is more than one way that "the" surface i.e. the bottom 
>> of the
>>    > atmosphere can be defined by a coordinate. It is height=0 m, 
>> depth=0 m,
>>    > over the sea it is quite near to altitude=0 m, it is 
>> approximately 1000 hPa
>>    > air pressure, and in all sorts of different atmosphere and ocean 
>> model
>>    > vertical coordinates it is described in different ways e.g. 
>> sigma=1 in the
>>    > atmosphere. Any of these might legitimately be used as the 
>> vertical variable
>>    > within the medium, so there are consequently lots of synonymous 
>> ways to label
>>    > the surface quantity. Generic software would have to know about 
>> and look for
>>    > all of them, and that's not really practical or convenient. To 
>> label them in
>>    > the standard name is much easier and clearer. Of course, if you 
>> have a 3D
>>    > variable which *includes* the surface as one of its levels, 
>> that's fine -
>>    > you can use the non-surface standard name with the coordinate 
>> (whatever it
>>    > is) indicating the surface. Also if the generic software can be 
>> sure which
>>    > vertical coordinate is being used, again the non-surface 
>> standard name is fine,
>>    > as for "surface air temperature", which is air_temperature with 
>> a height
>>    > coordinate near the surface.
>>    >
>>    > * There are also plenty of standard names for quantities 
>> measured at other
>>    > named levels, such as the toa, the tropopause, the sea floor and 
>> the cloud
>>    > top. These are also geophysically defined, like the surface, but 
>> they can't
>>    > be characterised by a coordinate value, so we have to label them 
>> in the
>>    > standard name. It would be inconsistent to treat the bottom of 
>> the atmosphere
>>    > differently.
>>    >
>>    > Having said that, I can't recall the discussion about the new 
>> OMIP surface
>>    > names, so I think we should wait for Alison's summary.
>>    >
>>    > Best wishes
>>    >
>>    > Jonathan
>>    >
>>    > ----- Forwarded message from Karl Taylor <taylor13 at llnl.gov> -----
>>    >
>>    >> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:27:08 -0700
>>    >> From: Karl Taylor <taylor13 at llnl.gov>
>>    >> To: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk, durack1 at llnl.gov
>>    >> CC: j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
>>    >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP 
>> biogeochemistry and
>>    >>     chemistry
>>    >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0)
>>    >>     Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
>>    >>
>>    >> Hi all,
>>    >>
>>    >> I haven't heard the arguments on how to treat the "surface" 
>> standard
>>    >> names, but my thoughts are:
>>    >>
>>    >> 1) if the variable is found within a medium (e.g., ocean,
>>    >> atmosphere, ice) and its value varies continuously as you move 
>> away
>>    >> from the surface, then there is no need for a distinct
>>    >> standard_name.
>>    >>
>>    >> 2) If the variable is a flux between two media at the surface 
>> (e.g.,
>>    >> heat flux from atmos. to ocean) or is a property defined in 
>> terms of
>>    >> a difference between the two media (e.g., CO2 partial pressure
>>    >> difference between sea water and air at the surface), then the
>>    >> standard name should include "surface".
>>    >>
>>    >> I know we may have made some exceptions to this in the past, so
>>    >> perhaps these should be considered flexible "rules" we normally 
>> try
>>    >> to follow (but not invariably).
>>    >>
>>    >> According to 1), all the "surface_mole_concentration" variables
>>    >> could become simply "mole_concentration" and we would require a
>>    >> scalar coordinate variable be defined as depth = 0.   If a
>>    >> concentration shows a sharp discontinuity at the surface, then 
>> there
>>    >> would be good reason, perhaps, to include "surface" in its
>>    >> standard_name.
>>    >>
>>    >> Hope this is helpful,
>>    >> Karl
>>    >>
>>    >> On 3/23/17 4:07 AM, alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>>    >>> Hi Paul,
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Jonathan Gregory and Paul Griffies jointly submitted proposals 
>> for
>>    >>> the OMIP physics names last year so they are already in my
>>    >>> workflow. I don’t think they attracted any comments on the 
>> mailing
>>    >>> list, so I guess it is up to me to work through them in my usual
>>    >>> way. I am half way through writing a posting to the CF mailing
>>    >>> list summarizing the status of all the remaining biogeochemistry
>>    >>> names. I am accepting names where possible, getting others to a
>>    >>> state where I just need you to give the ‘OK’ and they can be
>>    >>> accepted, and for the rest I am pointing up any final unresolved
>>    >>> issues so we can really focus the discussion on those. Further to
>>    >>> my email yesterday, there are actually 61 ‘surface’ proposals, so
>>    >>> clearing up that one question will allow about half the names to
>>    >>> be agreed quite quickly. Please bear with me until I have posted
>>    >>> my message to the list. I’ll then go through the physics names 
>> and
>>    >>> we can discuss those in a second thread.
>>    >>>
>>    >>> I’m also in the process of looking through some non-CMIP
>>    >>> oceanography names for the NEMO model, and have just accepted a
>>    >>> bunch of wave names, so this is a good time to get as many ocean
>>    >>> related names into the table as possible.
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Best wishes,
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Alison
>>    >>>
>>    >>> ------
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Alison Pamment
>>    >>> Tel: +44 1235 778065
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email:
>>    >>> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk <mailto:J.A.Pamment at rl.ac.uk>
>>    >>>
>>    >>> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>>    >>>
>>    >>> R25, 2.22
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>>    >>>
>>    >>> *From:*Durack, Paul J. [mailto:durack1 at llnl.gov]
>>    >>> *Sent:* 22 March 2017 22:58
>>    >>> *To:* Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
>>    >>> *Cc:* Taylor, Karl E.; j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
>>    >>> *Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>>    >>> biogeochemistry and chemistry
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Thanks Alison, this is great news!
>>    >>>
>>    >>> I originally submitted 107 standard names for consideration
>>    >>> (mostly the biogeochemical and chemical domains). There are also
>>    >>> some physics (OMIP-physical, and FAFMIP) related names that were
>>    >>> also appended, so I’ll have to collect all these amendments and
>>    >>> then propagate them back to the google sheets where the master
>>    >>> list is contained. Martin can then read these revised inputs, and
>>    >>> the OMIP/ocean variable request will be updated.
>>    >>>
>>    >>> What would be the best way for me to capture all the submitted 
>> (so
>>    >>> mine and the other separate ones) and then final standard names?
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Thanks again for pushing on this!
>>    >>>
>>    >>> P
>>    >>>
>>    >>> *From: *"alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
>>    >>> <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>" <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
>>    >>> <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>>
>>    >>> *Date: *Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 4:37 AM
>>    >>> *To: *"Taylor, Karl E." <taylor13 at llnl.gov
>>    >>> <mailto:taylor13 at llnl.gov>>, "j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
>>    >>> <mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>" <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
>>    >>> <mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>
>>    >>> *Cc: *"Durack, Paul J." <durack1 at llnl.gov 
>> <mailto:durack1 at llnl.gov>>
>>    >>> *Subject: *RE: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>>    >>> biogeochemistry and chemistry
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Hi Karl,
>>    >>>
>>    >>> I think most of the OMIP names are in a pretty good state and 
>> some
>>    >>> are already published. There are probably more that can be
>>    >>> published quite quickly, so I will go through the list again and
>>    >>> accept as many as possible so they will be included in the next
>>    >>> standard name table update, which will be on Monday next week
>>    >>> (postponed from this week because of the Copernicus wave names).
>>    >>> The update will appear on the CF website on Tuesday.
>>    >>>
>>    >>> There is one group of names where there is a question regarding
>>    >>> whether we need new surface quantities or whether we could manage
>>    >>> with existing names. I need to post about those separately as 
>> I do
>>    >>> feel the existing names should really be used, but some of the
>>    >>> OMIP modellers wanted new names, and there wasn’t consensus in 
>> the
>>    >>> discussion. I think it’s a straight forward either/or choice, so
>>    >>> it’s not something that should take weeks to discuss, but I feel
>>    >>> it needs to be highlighted again in order to respect the CF
>>    >>> process. It affects about 30 of the names from recollection.
>>    >>>
>>    >>> For some time now I’ve been doing monthly updates to the 
>> table, so
>>    >>> anything that isn’t included in the March update can go into the
>>    >>> April one in another three or four weeks time. It is fine to go
>>    >>> ahead and start using names once they have been accepted because
>>    >>> they will then definitely be included in the next published
>>    >>> version of the table. So from the OMIP point of view, the main
>>    >>> thing is to make sure we can accept all the names. I think it’s
>>    >>> perfectly realistic to say we can get to that point in the next
>>    >>> two weeks, including reaching a decision on the
>>    >>> surface/non-surface names.
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Best wishes,
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Alison
>>    >>>
>>    >>> ------
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email:
>>    >>> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk <mailto:J.A.Pamment at rl.ac.uk>
>>    >>>
>>    >>> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>>    >>>
>>    >>> R25, 2.22
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>>    >>>
>>    >>> *From:*Karl Taylor [mailto:taylor13 at llnl.gov]
>>    >>> *Sent:* 21 March 2017 21:11
>>    >>> *To:* Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); Jonathan Gregory
>>    >>> *Cc:* Durack, Paul J.
>>    >>> *Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>>    >>> biogeochemistry and chemistry
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Hi Alison and Jonathan,
>>    >>>
>>    >>> There appear to be 114 proposed standard names needing approval
>>    >>> before the OMIP data request for CMIP6 can be completed.  (For a
>>    >>> list of these: 
>> http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefilter=&proposerfilter=&descfilter=&unitfilter=&yearfilter=&commentfilter=OMIP&filter+and+display=Filter
>>    >>> and eliminate 2 variables referencing "geoMIP").
>>    >>>
>>    >>> There are at least 2 groups on the verge of running their models
>>    >>> and at the same time saving the data needed for CMIP6.  There is
>>    >>> now a real danger that these groups will fail to include the OMIP
>>    >>> request (or rely on the current version of it, which is missing
>>    >>> some very important variables).  It is therefore urgent that we
>>    >>> now approve the OMIP-proposed standard names immediately.
>>    >>>
>>    >>> Please let me know how I can help make this happen.  Can we set a
>>    >>> realistic deadline?  Can CMIP6 just assume that all these 
>> standard
>>    >>> names will eventually be approved and finalize our OMIP data
>>    >>> request?
>>    >>>
>>    >>> thanks very much for all that you are doing.
>>    >>>
>>    >>> best regards,
>>    >>> Karl
>>    >>>
>>    >>>
>>    >>>
>>    >>> On 3/16/17 11:15 AM, Durack, Paul J. wrote:
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Hi Alison,
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Sorry to nag, but I was just hoping to get some guidance 
>> from you
>>    >>>     about finalizing these OMIP standard names.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     If you can let me know what needs to be done, I’ll try and
>>    >>>     prioritize this!
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Cheers,
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     P
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     *From: *CF-metadata <cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>
>>    >>> <mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of "Durack,
>>    >>>     Paul J." <durack1 at llnl.gov> <mailto:durack1 at llnl.gov>
>>    >>>     *Date: *Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 12:36 PM
>>    >>>     *To: *Alison Pamment <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>>    >>>     <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>>    >>>     *Cc: *"cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" 
>> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>>    >>>     <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>,
>>    >>>     Stephen Griffies <stephen.griffies at noaa.gov>
>>    >>>     <mailto:stephen.griffies at noaa.gov>, 
>> "martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk"
>>    >>>     <mailto:martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk> <martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk>
>>    >>>     <mailto:martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk>, "gokhan at ucar.edu"
>>    >>>     <mailto:gokhan at ucar.edu> <gokhan at ucar.edu>
>>    >>>     <mailto:gokhan at ucar.edu>, "Taylor, Karl E." 
>> <taylor13 at llnl.gov>
>>    >>>     <mailto:taylor13 at llnl.gov>
>>    >>>     *Subject: *Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>>    >>>     biogeochemistry and chemistry
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Hi Alison,
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     I just checked the query of the OMIP standard name request at
>>    >>> 
>> http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=all&commentfilter=OMIP
>>    >>>     and it seems we still have some items under discussion.. 
>> How can
>>    >>>     we kick these along to get them finalized so I can get the
>>    >>>     information updated so Martin can finalize the OMIP/Ocean 
>> data
>>    >>>     request?
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Cheers,
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     P
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     *From: *John Dunne - NOAA Federal <john.dunne at noaa.gov>
>>    >>>     <mailto:john.dunne at noaa.gov>
>>    >>>     *Date: *Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:59 AM
>>    >>>     *To: *Alison Pamment <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>>    >>>     <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>>    >>>     *Cc: *"cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" 
>> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>>    >>>     <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>,
>>    >>>     "Durack, Paul J." <durack1 at llnl.gov> 
>> <mailto:durack1 at llnl.gov>,
>>    >>>     Stephen Griffies <stephen.griffies at noaa.gov>
>>    >>>     <mailto:stephen.griffies at noaa.gov>, "gokhan at ucar.edu"
>>    >>>     <mailto:gokhan at ucar.edu> <gokhan at ucar.edu>
>>    >>>     <mailto:gokhan at ucar.edu>, James Orr <James.Orr at lsce.ipsl.fr>
>>    >>>     <mailto:James.Orr at lsce.ipsl.fr>
>>    >>>     *Subject: *Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>>    >>>     biogeochemistry and chemistry
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Hi Alison,
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Thanks for following up!  Some thoughts below...
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM, <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
>>    >>>     <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         Dear All,
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         Many thanks to all those who have commented in this
>>    >>>         discussion. I think we have reached, or are very close to
>>    >>>         reaching, agreement on many of the names. In this 
>> posting I
>>    >>>         have not addressed the "sea_surface" names which are 
>> proving
>>    >>>         to be the only contentious issue - I will deal with 
>> them in a
>>    >>>         separate message (to follow shortly). We need to raise 
>> the
>>    >>>         profile of that discussion in order to reach a fair 
>> and timely
>>    >>>         decision.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         The link to the full list of names with their units and
>>    >>>         definitions is
>>    >>> 
>> http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefilter=&proposerfilter=Durack&descfilter=&unitfilter=&yearfilter=&commentfilter=OMIP&filter+and+display=Filter.
>>    >>>         The list has been updated to show the latest status of 
>> the
>>    >>>         names. The next update to the published standard name 
>> table
>>    >>>         will take place on 15th November when all names marked as
>>    >>>         'Accepted' will be added. Any names that are accepted 
>> before
>>    >>>         that date will be included in the update. Another 
>> update will
>>    >>>         take place in December.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         The numbering of the sections below refers to my 
>> previous summary:
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         1. The following names are now accepted for inclusion 
>> in the
>>    >>>         standard name table.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> mole_concentration_of_bacteria_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water,
>>    >>>         mol m-3
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_molecular_oxygen_in_sea_water_at_saturation,
>>    >>>         mol m-3
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon_in_sea_water,
>>    >>>         mol m-3
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_grazing_of_phytoplankton,
>>    >>>         mol m-3 s-1
>>    >>>         > ocean_mass_content_of_dissolved_organic_carbon, kg m-2
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> ocean_mass_content_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon,
>>    >>>         kgm-2
>>    >>>         > mole_concentration_of_cfc11_in_sea_water, mol m-3
>>    >>>         > mole_concentration_of_cfc12_in_sea_water, mol m-3
>>    >>>         > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc11, mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc12, mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         2a. Phosporus names
>>    >>>         The following names are now accepted for inclusion in the
>>    >>>         standard name table.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus_in_sea_water,
>>    >>>         mol m-3
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_phosphorus_due_to_biological_production,
>>    >>>         mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         In addition, the spelling has now been corrected in all
>>    >>>         'phosphorus' names.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         2b. Definitions relating to new chemical species
>>    >>>         I agree with Roy's amendments to my suggested carbon13 
>> and
>>    >>>         carbon14 definitions. The new chemical species 
>> definitions for
>>    >>>         carbon13, carbon 14 and sulfur_hexafluoride have been 
>> added to
>>    >>>         the appropriate names and the following four names are 
>> now
>>    >>>         accepted for inclusion in the standard name table:
>>    >>> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon13_in_sea_water,
>>    >>>         mol m-3
>>    >>> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon14_in_sea_water,
>>    >>>         mol m-3
>>    >>> mole_concentration_of_sulfur_hexafluoride_in_sea_water, mol m-3
>>    >>> surface_downward_mole_flux_of_sulfur_hexafluoride, mol m-3
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         Looking at the carbon 13 and 14 names again, I suggest a
>>    >>>         slight amendment to the following two proposals:
>>    >>> 
>> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon13_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_abiotic_component
>>    >>> 
>> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon14_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_abiotic_component.
>>    >>>         I think these should be, respectively, 
>> expressed_as_carbon13
>>    >>>         and expressed_as_carbon14 rather than simply
>>    >>>         expressed_as_carbon. Is that right? Up to now we have 
>> always
>>    >>>         used the generic term 'expressed_as_carbon' in 
>> standard names
>>    >>>         which makes no distinction between isotopes but is that
>>    >>>         precise enough for these names?
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     I'm conflicted.  Jim, please make sure I have this 
>> right... On the
>>    >>>     one hand the names Alison proposes are more precise, but 
>> on the
>>    >>>     other hand my understanding is that calling abiotic 14C
>>    >>>     "expressed_as_carbon14" is technically incorrect by giving 
>> people
>>    >>>     the mistaken impression that the absolute concentration 
>> should
>>    >>>     be correct when in fact modeled 14C is referenced to a 
>> 14C:12C
>>    >>>     ratio of 1.0 rather than the real world reference (14C:12C 
>> ratio
>>    >>>     1.17x10^-12).  I thought was chosen to minimize numerical
>>    >>>     issues.  In contrast, my understanding is that the 
>> proposed 13C
>>    >>>     tracer is in fact simulated as a true concentration such that
>>    >>>     model delta13C should be referenced to PeeDee Belemnite 
>> (13C:12C
>>    >>>     ratio = 0.0112372)... I have not implemented 13C, so I am 
>> not sure
>>    >>>     this is right.  In any case, it seems like a clarification
>>    >>>     description would be helpful.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         2c. 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_[in]organic_carbon names
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         I wrote:
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > My question here refers to the following five 
>> proposals:
>>    >>>         > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon, 
>> mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sediment_dissolution,
>>    >>>         mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sedimentation,
>>    >>>         mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sediment_dissolution,
>>    >>>         mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sedimentation,
>>    >>>         mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > We have a couple of existing names for tendencies of
>>    >>>         inorganic carbon content,
>>    >>>         > both of which are for dissolved_inorganic_carbon. Am I
>>    >>>         correct in thinking that
>>    >>>         > your names also refer to dissolved amounts? If so, 
>> we should
>>    >>>         include it, e.g.
>>    >>>         > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon 
>> should be
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon,
>>    >>>         and so on.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         John wrote:
>>    >>>         > These terms are intended to allow users to construct a
>>    >>>         complete carbon budget, and were not intended to 
>> distinguish
>>    >>>         between particulate and dissolved. Should we restrict 
>> > the
>>    >>>         definitions and add more terms? add "total" to the 
>> name before
>>    >>>         "inorganic"? Please note that the names listed above with
>>    >>>         "sedimentation" are incorrect.  As they are
>>    >>>         > intended to represent loss from the ocean, they 
>> should not
>>    >>>         have "runoff_and". Like in Paul's spreadsheet, they 
>> should just be
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> "tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_sedimentation"
>>    >>>         and
>>    >>> 
>> "tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_sedimentation".
>>    >>>         > These are effectively both "particulate" since they 
>> just
>>    >>>         represent pelagic sinking in current models to my 
>> knowledge,
>>    >>>         though it is possible that models might include insitu
>>    >>>         > benthic organic production and/or inorganic 
>> precipitation
>>    >>>         which could be represented as a dissolved loss.  Of 
>> course,
>>    >>>         "sediment dissolution" would be just dissolved, but
>>    >>>         > runoff could be either particulate or dissolved... 
>> did you
>>    >>>         want to distinguish between them?
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         OK, thank you for the clarification. Since you intend to
>>    >>>         include both particulate and dissolved carbon, the 
>> names are
>>    >>>         in fact fine (I just wanted to check). In CF, an 
>> unqualified
>>    >>>         term is always interpreted as a 'total' amount and if 
>> only a
>>    >>>         component is intended, e.g. dissolved, particulate, it 
>> should
>>    >>>         be included in the name.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         Existing sedimentation names do not specify 
>> 'particulate' but
>>    >>>         it is included in the definition using the following 
>> sentence:
>>    >>>         ' "Sedimentation" is the sinking of particulate matter 
>> to the
>>    >>>         floor of a body of water.' Is that adequate? If we 
>> included an
>>    >>>         additional sentence 'Some models may also include insitu
>>    >>>         benthic organic production and/or inorganic 
>> precipitation',
>>    >>>         would that be useful or would it just confuse people?
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         You say that some of the names themselves are listed
>>    >>>         incorrectly, so again just to clarify, is the 
>> following correct?
>>    >>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon, mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sediment_dissolution,
>>    >>>         mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_sedimentation,
>>    >>>         mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sediment_dissolution,
>>    >>>         mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_sedimentation,
>>    >>>         mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Yes.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         2e. Limitation names
>>    >>>         Jonathan has suggested that we include the term 
>> 'growth' in
>>    >>>         these names, to which John has agreed. Also, Jonathan is
>>    >>>         suggesting the use of our well established "due_to" 
>> syntax for
>>    >>>         the solar irradiance names e.g.,
>>    >>> 
>> growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance.
>>    >>>         I think this is clear. So the names would then be as 
>> follows:
>>    >>>
>>    >>> growth_limitation_of_picophytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance
>>    >>>         (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>> 
>> growth_limitation_of_calcareous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance
>>    >>>         (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>> growth_limitation_of_diazotrophs_due_to_solar_irradiance
>>    >>>         (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>> growth_limitation_of_diatoms_due_to_solar_irradiance
>>    >>>         (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>> 
>> growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance
>>    >>>         (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>> nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_picophytoplankton (canonical
>>    >>>         units: 1)
>>    >>> nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_calcareous_phytoplankton
>>    >>>         (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>> nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_diazotrophs (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>>         nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_diatoms (canonical 
>> units: 1)
>>    >>> nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton
>>    >>>         (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>> iron_growth_limitation_of_picophytoplankton (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>> iron_growth_limitation_of_calcareous_phytoplankton (canonical
>>    >>>         units: 1)
>>    >>>         iron_growth_limitation_of_diazotrophs (canonical 
>> units: 1)
>>    >>>         iron_growth_limitation_of_diatoms (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>> iron_growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton
>>    >>>         (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         OK?
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     OK
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         John asked a question about where the definition text 
>> should
>>    >>>         go - the answer is that it resides in the published 
>> standard
>>    >>>         name table:
>>    >>> 
>> http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/current/build/cf-standard-name-table.html
>>    >>>         (click on a name to see its definition). (Almost) all 
>> standard
>>    >>>         names have definitions but they don't need to be 
>> reproduced in
>>    >>>         the data files. Those wishing to access the 
>> information can
>>    >>>         obtain it from a number of sources, namely the html 
>> table, the
>>    >>>         xml version (which is actually the 'master' copy of 
>> standard
>>    >>>         names)
>>    >>> 
>> http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/current/src/cf-standard-name-table.xml
>>    >>>         or the NERC vocabulary server which is developed and
>>    >>>         maintained by the British Oceanographic Data Centre
>>    >>> http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/P07/current/.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Thanks, yes, now I understand.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         John suggested some refinements to the wording of the
>>    >>>         definitions, so taking these into account, my two 
>> examples
>>    >>>         would now be as follows.
>>    >>>
>>    >>> 
>> growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance
>>    >>>         'Phytoplankton are algae that live near the grow where 
>> there
>>    >>>         is sufficient light to support photosynthesis. 
>> "Miscellaneous
>>    >>>         phytoplankton" are all those phytoplankton that are not
>>    >>>         diatoms, diazotrophs, calcareous phytoplankton,
>>    >>>         picophytoplankton or other separately named components 
>> of the
>>    >>>         phytoplankton population. The specification of a physical
>>    >>>         process by the phrase "due_to_" process means that the
>>    >>>         quantity named is a single term in a sum of terms which
>>    >>>         together compose the general quantity named by 
>> omitting the
>>    >>>         phrase. "Irradiance" means the power per unit area 
>> (called
>>    >>>         radiative flux in other standard names), the area 
>> being normal
>>    >>>         to the direction of flow of the radiant energy. Solar
>>    >>>         irradiance is essential to the photosynthesis reaction 
>> and its
>>    >>>         presence promotes the growth of phytoplankton 
>> populations.
>>    >>>         "Growth limitation due to solar irradiance" means the 
>> ratio of
>>    >>>         the growth rate of a species population in the 
>> environment
>>    >>>         (where the amount of sunlight reaching a location may be
>>    >>>         limited) to the theoretical growth rate if there were 
>> no such
>>    >>>         limit on solar irradiance.'
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_diatoms
>>    >>>         'Diatoms are phytoplankton with an external skeleton 
>> made of
>>    >>>         silica. Phytoplankton are algae that grow where there is
>>    >>>         sufficient light to support photosynthesis. Nitrogen is a
>>    >>>         nutrient essential to the growth of phytoplankton 
>> populations.
>>    >>>         "Nitrogen growth limitation" means the ratio of the 
>> growth
>>    >>>         rate of a species population in the environment (where 
>> there
>>    >>>         is a finite availability of nitrogen) to the theoretical
>>    >>>         growth rate if there were no such limit on nitrogen 
>> availability.'
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         Are these OK?
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Those look fine to me.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         John, Jim and Paul, if you are happy with these names and
>>    >>>         sample definitions then I think the limitation names 
>> can all
>>    >>>         be accepted for publication. I will then construct 
>> definitions
>>    >>>         for them all, consistent with the examples.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         One final note about these phytoplankton names: Roy 
>> queried
>>    >>>         whether we have the best classification system for the
>>    >>>         different types of phytoplankton, i.e. we are 
>> currently mixing
>>    >>>         size and species as ways of delineating sections of the
>>    >>>         population. All I can say is that this is the system 
>> that was
>>    >>>         first proposed for CMIP5 and is being used again in 
>> CMIP6.
>>    >>>         Nothing else has ever been proposed. I agree that if new
>>    >>>         categories are ever proposed we will need to take 
>> account of
>>    >>>         the existing names, and in particular we may then need to
>>    >>>         think hard about the definition of 'miscellaneous
>>    >>>         phytoplankton'. However, in the time honoured 
>> tradition of CF,
>>    >>>         I propose to defer this discussion until such time as 
>> there is
>>    >>>         a clear need to change what we are doing. I hope 
>> that's OK.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Fine with me.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         2f. Natural/abiotic component names
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         I confess that I have struggled somewhat to understand 
>> these
>>    >>>         names, although it's becoming gradually clearer. I do 
>> see now
>>    >>>         that we need both sets of names and that the "natural
>>    >>>         analogue" names are model diagnostics rather than forcing
>>    >>>         conditions.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         In John's most recent posting he suggests names and
>>    >>>         definitions of the form:
>>    >>> 
>> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_natural_analogue_in_sea_water
>>    >>>         Dissolved inorganic carbon (CO3+HCO3+H2CO3) concentration
>>    >>>         natural analogue forced by preindustrial atmospheric xCO2
>>    >>>
>>    >>> 
>> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_abiotic_analogue_in_sea_water
>>    >>>         Dissolved inorganic carbon (CO3+HCO3+H2CO3) concentration
>>    >>>         abiotic analogue ignoring biological effects on carbon 
>> and
>>    >>>         alkalinity
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         Certainly I think these names are a lot better and the
>>    >>>         terminology "natural analogue" and "abiotic analogue" is
>>    >>>         useful. We need to think about how this, or a similar, 
>> syntax
>>    >>>         will work in a standardised way with all the proposed 
>> natural
>>    >>>         and abiotic names. For example, how would we rewrite
>>    >>> 
>> surface_mole_concentration_of_carbonate_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_natural_component?
>>    >>>         Perhaps we could replace the "due_to_X" in the current
>>    >>>         proposals with "X_analogue" at the end of the name or 
>> we could
>>    >>>         prepend it with "X_analogue_of". This would mean that 
>> the new
>>    >>>         names are consistent with many existing ones and would 
>> simply
>>    >>>         contain an additional qualification, e.g.
>>    >>> 
>> [sea_]surface_mole_concentration_of_carbonate_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water_natural_analogue
>>    >>>         or
>>    >>>         natural_analogue_of_[sea_]surface_
>>    >>> mole_concentration_of_carbonate_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         How does that sound?
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     I prefer:
>>    >>>
>>    >>> 
>> [sea_]surface_mole_concentration_of_carbonate_natural_analogue_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         If we can settle on a syntax, then the definitions 
>> shouldn't
>>    >>>         be too difficult to sort out. We'd need some 
>> explanatory words
>>    >>>         for the analogues, which should include some 
>> information about
>>    >>>         when these names might be used (for the benefit of the 
>> many CF
>>    >>>         users who will be totally unfamiliar with the OMIP
>>    >>>         experiments). Based on John's text I'd suggest the 
>> following:
>>    >>>         natural_analogue
>>    >>>         'In ocean biogeochemistry models, a "natural analogue" 
>> is used
>>    >>>         to simulate the effect on a modelled variable of imposing
>>    >>>         preindustrial atmospheric carbon dioxide 
>> concentrations, even
>>    >>>         when the model as a whole may be subjected to varying 
>> forcings.'
>>    >>>         abiotic_analogue
>>    >>>         'In ocean biogeochemistry models, an "abiotic 
>> analogue" is
>>    >>>         used to simulate the effect on a modelled variable when
>>    >>>         biological effects on ocean carbon concentration and
>>    >>>         alkalinity are ignored.'
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         Based on the above, an example of a full definition 
>> would then
>>    >>>         be something like:
>>    >>> 
>> surface_carbon_dioxide_partial_pressure_difference_between_sea_water_and_air_natural_analogue
>>    >>>         'The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary 
>> of the
>>    >>>         atmosphere. The partial pressure of a gaseous 
>> constituent of
>>    >>>         air is the pressure which it alone would exert with 
>> unchanged
>>    >>>         temperature and number of moles per unit volume. The 
>> chemical
>>    >>>         formula for carbon dioxide is CO2. In ocean 
>> biogeochemistry
>>    >>>         models, a "natural analogue" is used to simulate the 
>> effect on
>>    >>>         a modelled variable of imposing preindustrial atmospheric
>>    >>>         carbon dioxide concentrations, even when the model as 
>> a whole
>>    >>>         may be subjected to varying forcings.'
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         Any good?
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Those look good to me.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>     Thanks again for all your help, John
>>    >>>
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         Best wishes,
>>    >>>         Alison
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         > -----Original Message-----
>>    >>>         > From: CF-metadata 
>> [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu
>>    >>> <mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>] On Behalf Of
>>    >>>         > alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk 
>> <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>>    >>>         > Sent: 19 October 2016 19:16
>>    >>>         > To: durack1 at llnl.gov <mailto:durack1 at llnl.gov>;
>>    >>>         cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu 
>> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>>    >>>         > Cc: stephen.griffies at noaa.gov
>>    >>> <mailto:stephen.griffies at noaa.gov>; gokhan at ucar.edu
>>    >>>         <mailto:gokhan at ucar.edu>
>>    >>>         > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>>    >>>         biogeochemistry and
>>    >>>         > chemistry
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         > Dear Paul, Jim and Jonathan,
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > Thank you for all the proposals for OMIP 
>> biogeochemistry and
>>    >>>         chemistry names
>>    >>>         > and the discussion that has already begun on these.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > I have created entries for all the proposed names in 
>> the
>>    >>>         CEDA vocabulary
>>    >>>         > editor, available here:
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefilter=&proposerfilt
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> er=Durack&descfilter=&unitfilter=&yearfilter=&commentfilter=OMIP&filter+and
>>    >>>         > +display=Filter.
>>    >>>         > At the moment, the names themselves are all shown as
>>    >>>         originally proposed and
>>    >>>         > I have added standard definition text for 
>> consistency with
>>    >>>         existing names.
>>    >>>         > Please use the link to view the full list of names and
>>    >>>         definitions as it is easier
>>    >>>         > than reproducing it all in an email to the list.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > I think a number of the names look fine and could be
>>    >>>         published in their current
>>    >>>         > form (see item 1 below). Paul and Jim, please can 
>> you check
>>    >>>         the definitions that
>>    >>>         > I'm suggesting for these names and let me know if 
>> you're
>>    >>>         happy with them?
>>    >>>         > (Comments from others are of course welcome).
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > For the groups of names where some discussion is still
>>    >>>         required my comments
>>    >>>         > are in item 2.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > 1. Names that I think can be approved, subject to 
>> checking
>>    >>>         of the definitions.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> mole_concentration_of_bacteria_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water,
>>    >>>         mol m-3
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_molecular_oxygen_in_sea_water_at_saturat
>>    >>>         > ion, mol m-3
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon_in_sea_water,
>>    >>>         mol m-3
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_a
>>    >>>         > 
>> s_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_grazing_of_phytoplankton, mol
>>    >>>         m-3 s-1
>>    >>>         > ocean_mass_content_of_dissolved_organic_carbon, kg m-2
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> ocean_mass_content_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon,
>>    >>>         kg
>>    >>>         > m-2
>>    >>>         > mole_concentration_of_cfc11_in_sea_water, mol m-3
>>    >>>         > mole_concentration_of_cfc12_in_sea_water, mol m-3
>>    >>>         > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc11, mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc12, mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > 2. Names requiring further discussion.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         >  a. Phosphorus names
>>    >>>         > Sorry that I didn't notice it when previewing the 
>> names, but
>>    >>>         I have realized that
>>    >>>         > 'phosphorus' is misspelled in the proposals, i.e., 
>> it should
>>    >>>         be 'phosphorus', not
>>    >>>         > 'phosphorous'. Subject to this correction and 
>> checking of
>>    >>>         the definitions, I think
>>    >>>         > the following names can be approved.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus_in_sea_water,
>>    >>>         mol m-
>>    >>>         > 3
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_phosphorous_due_to_biological_product
>>    >>>         > ion, mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > I will also correct the spelling in three further 
>> phosphorus
>>    >>>         names which remain
>>    >>>         > under discussion due to other issues:
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorous_in_sea_wat
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         > er, mol m-3
>>    >>>         > 
>> surface_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_ph
>>    >>>         > osphorus_in_sea_water, mol m-3
>>    >>>         > 
>> surface_mole_concentration_of_phytoplankton_expressed_as_phosphorus_in_
>>    >>>         > sea_water, mol m-3
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > b. Definitions relating to new chemical species
>>    >>>         > It is usual to include a sentence in the definition 
>> when a
>>    >>>         standard name refers
>>    >>>         > to a chemical species. There are three new 
>> species/isotopes
>>    >>>         in the current set
>>    >>>         > of proposals. I suggest adding a single sentence to the
>>    >>>         definitions of the
>>    >>>         > relevant names as follows:
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > carbon13: ' "carbon13" means the naturally occurring 
>> isotope
>>    >>>         of carbon having
>>    >>>         > six protons and seven neutrons.'
>>    >>>         > carbon14: ' "carbon14" means the radioactive isotope of
>>    >>>         carbon having six
>>    >>>         > protons and eight neutrons, used in radiocarbon 
>> dating.'
>>    >>>         > sulfur_hexafluoride: 'The chemical formula of sulfur
>>    >>>         hexafluoride is SF6.'
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > OK?
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > c. 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_[in]organic_carbon names
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > My question here refers to the following five 
>> proposals:
>>    >>>         > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon, 
>> mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         > 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_s
>>    >>>         > ediment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         > 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_s
>>    >>>         > edimentation, mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         > 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sed
>>    >>>         > iment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         > 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sed
>>    >>>         > imentation, mol m-2 s-1
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > We have a couple of existing names for tendencies of
>>    >>>         inorganic carbon content,
>>    >>>         > both of which are for dissolved_inorganic_carbon. Am I
>>    >>>         correct in thinking that
>>    >>>         > your names also refer to dissolved amounts? If so, 
>> we should
>>    >>>         include it, e.g.
>>    >>>         > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon 
>> should be
>>    >>>         > 
>> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon,
>>    >>>         and so on.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         > d. Surface concentration names
>>    >>>         > There are a lot of these: 42 surface_mole_concentration
>>    >>>         names (units of mol m-
>>    >>>         > 3), 6 surface_mass_concentration names (kg m-3) and 
>> I'm also
>>    >>>         including 2
>>    >>>         > surface_sea_water_alkalinity (mol m-3) names and 3
>>    >>>         surface_sea_water_ph
>>    >>>         > names in this section.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > My concern about these proposals is that the names 
>> and units
>>    >>>         are not
>>    >>>         > consistent. In CF standard names, "surface" means 
>> the lower
>>    >>>         boundary of the
>>    >>>         > atmosphere. It has no depth, so it is not meaningful to
>>    >>>         regard it as having a
>>    >>>         > mass or a volume. For this reason we can't assign 
>> units of
>>    >>>         kg m-3 or mol m-3 to
>>    >>>         > a 'surface' name. I assume that all these quantities 
>> are in
>>    >>>         fact "near surface"
>>    >>>         > values, i.e. representative of the top model layer, 
>> in which
>>    >>>         case there are two
>>    >>>         > possible ways to deal with this.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > The first solution is simply to remove 'surface' 
>> from all
>>    >>>         these names and
>>    >>>         > instead use a vertical coordinate or scalar 
>> coordinate and
>>    >>>         coordinate bounds to
>>    >>>         > indicate the location and thickness of the layer. 
>> This has
>>    >>>         the advantage that
>>    >>>         > many of the required names actually already exist, 
>> without
>>    >>>         the need to
>>    >>>         > introduce separate surface names. E.g, instead of 
>> adding a
>>    >>>         new name
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water,
>>    >>>         > you could use the existing name
>>    >>>         > 
>> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water
>>    >>>         > accompanied by suitable coordinate information to 
>> describe
>>    >>>         your quantity.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > The second solution, if you do feel that it is 
>> necessary to
>>    >>>         have distinct standard
>>    >>>         > names for all these near-surface quantities, would 
>> be to
>>    >>>         follow the approach
>>    >>>         > used in some existing sea_surface names such as
>>    >>>         sea_surface_temperature
>>    >>>         > and sea_surface_salinity. The names would then be
>>    >>>         'sea_surface' names and
>>    >>>         > there would be an accompanying sentence in the 
>> definition to
>>    >>>         explain what that
>>    >>>         > means, i.e. that it refers to water close to the 
>> surface.
>>    >>>         You would still also need
>>    >>>         > to include the coordinate information and coordinate 
>> bounds
>>    >>>         to fully describe
>>    >>>         > your data. With this approach the proposed name
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>> 
>> surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water
>>    >>>         > would become
>>    >>>         > 
>> sea_surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > Either solution would be consistent with the 
>> proposed units
>>    >>>         and I'd be happy
>>    >>>         > with either. Please let me know how you prefer to 
>> proceed.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > As a final point in this section, the three proposed
>>    >>>         surface_sea_water_ph
>>    >>>         > names are dimensionless, but I imagine that these 
>> too are
>>    >>>         really intended to
>>    >>>         > represent the top model layer, in which case we should
>>    >>>         either drop 'surface' or
>>    >>>         > change them to 'sea_surface' names too.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         > e. Limitation names
>>    >>>         > Jonathan has already raised the question of what 
>> 'limitation'
>>    >>>         means and also
>>    >>>         > what measure of the various phytoplankton 
>> populations is
>>    >>>         being limited. This is
>>    >>>         > a new concept in standard names so it's important to 
>> get the
>>    >>>         definitions right.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > John Dunne replied to Jonathan:
>>    >>>         > > With respect to the limitation terms, we currently 
>> have the
>>    >>>         definitions
>>    >>>         > explained in the "Resolved Comment" column as "Ratio of
>>    >>>         realizable
>>    >>>         > miscellaneous other
>>    >>>         > > phytoplankton growth rate under low nitrogen 
>> stress to
>>    >>>         theoretical rate
>>    >>>         > without such limitation".
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > So from this, my understanding is that nitrogen and 
>> iron are
>>    >>>         nutrients whose
>>    >>>         > availability promotes the growth of phytoplankton, 
>> presumably
>>    >>>         by being
>>    >>>         > absorbed somehow into the organic matter, while solar
>>    >>>         irradiance is clearly the
>>    >>>         > energy source essential to the photosynthesis reaction.
>>    >>>         John's reply talks about
>>    >>>         > growth rate, so I assume that means the growth rate 
>> of the
>>    >>>         population of a
>>    >>>         > particular species (as opposed to the growth rate of
>>    >>>         individuals of that species).
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         > Based on this I've attempted a couple of example 
>> definitions.
>>    >>>         If we can agree
>>    >>>         > these, then I can go ahead and add the appropriate 
>> sentences
>>    >>>         to all the
>>    >>>         > limitation names.
>>    >>>         > nitrogen_limitation_of_diatoms (canonical units: 1)
>>    >>>         > 'Diatoms are single-celled phytoplankton with an 
>> external
>>    >>>         skeleton made of
>>    >>>         > silica. Phytoplankton are autotrophic prokaryotic or
>>    >>>         eukaryotic algae that live
>>    >>>         > near the water surface where there is sufficient 
>> light to
>>    >>>         support photosynthesis.
>>    >>>         > Nitrogen is a nutrient essential to the growth of
>>    >>>         phytoplankton populations.
>>    >>>         > "Nitrogen limitation" means the ratio of the growth 
>> rate of
>>    >>>         a species population
>>    >>>         > in the environment (where there is a finite 
>> availability of
>>    >>>         nitrogen) to the
>>    >>>         > theoretical growth rate if there were no such limit on
>>    >>>         nitrogen availability.'
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > N.B. For the irradiance names, I suggest we make them
>>    >>>         'solar_irradiance' to be
>>    >>>         > absolutely clear.
>>    >>>         > 
>> solar_irradiance_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton
>>    >>>         (canonical
>>    >>>         > units:1)
>>    >>>         > 'Phytoplankton are autotrophic prokaryotic or 
>> eukaryotic
>>    >>>         algae that live near the
>>    >>>         > water surface where there is sufficient light to 
>> support
>>    >>>         photosynthesis.
>>    >>>         > "Miscellaneous phytoplankton" are all those 
>> phytoplankton
>>    >>>         that are not
>>    >>>         > diatoms, diazotrophs, calcareous phytoplankton,
>>    >>>         picophytoplankton or other
>>    >>>         > separately named components of the phytoplankton 
>> population.
>>    >>>         "Irradiance"
>>    >>>         > means the power per unit area (called radiative flux in
>>    >>>         other standard names),
>>    >>>         > the area being normal to the direction of flow of the
>>    >>>         radiant energy. Solar
>>    >>>         > irradiance is essential to the photosynthesis 
>> reaction and
>>    >>>         its presence
>>    >>>         > promotes the growth of phytoplankton populations. 
>> "Solar
>>    >>>         irradiance limitation"
>>    >>>         > means the ratio of the growth rate of a species 
>> population
>>    >>>         in the environment
>>    >>>         > (where the amount of sunlight reaching a location 
>> may be
>>    >>>         limited) to the
>>    >>>         > theoretical growth rate if there were no such limit 
>> on solar
>>    >>>         irradiance.'
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         > Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome!
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > f. Natural/abiotic component names
>>    >>>         > Thank you for the useful discussion that has already 
>> taken
>>    >>>         place about the 22
>>    >>>         > proposed natural_component and abiotic_component 
>> names. I hadn't
>>    >>>         > previously understood the details of how the OMIP 
>> experiments
>>    >>>         will be run.
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > Reading through the discussion, I agree with 
>> Jonathan that the
>>    >>>         > natural_component names seem to be describing the 
>> forcing
>>    >>>         conditions for the
>>    >>>         > model, rather than being a separate set of 
>> diagnostics that
>>    >>>         represent the
>>    >>>         > effects of some process within the model. Hence I 
>> agree that
>>    >>>         it isn't necessary
>>    >>>         > to define separate standard names with
>>    >>>         due_to_natural_component and I'd
>>    >>>         > advocate leaving them out. Is that OK?
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>         > I think we're agreed that the abiotic names are 
>> needed, and
>>    >>>         if I've understood
>>    >>>         > correctly we seem to have agreed to stick with
>>    >>>         due_to_abiotic_component
>>    >>>         > because it works for all the names where it's used, 
>> including
>>    >>>         ph names. Is that
>>    >>>         > right?
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         > Best wishes,
>>    >>>         > Alison
>>    >>>         >
>>    >>>
>>    >>>         ------
>>    >>>         Alison Pamment                            Tel: +44 
>> 1235 778065
>>    >>>         <tel:%2B44%201235%20778065>
>>    >>>         Centre for Environmental Data Analysis      Email:
>>    >>>         alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk 
>> <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>>    >>>         STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>>    >>>         R25, 2.22
>>    >>>         Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>>    >>>
>>    > ----- End forwarded message -----
>>    > _______________________________________________
>>    > CF-metadata mailing list
>>    > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>    > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    CF-metadata mailing list
>>    CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>    http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>




More information about the CF-metadata mailing list