Difference between revisions of "Talk:CF Standard Names - Construction of Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Line 46: Line 46:
  
 
:*'''PV:''' column: it is probably necessary to indicate whether it refers to mass or number as you are doing for concentrations i.e. mass_column? Note that columns are often expressed in units of molecules/m2 (number_column?)
 
:*'''PV:''' column: it is probably necessary to indicate whether it refers to mass or number as you are doing for concentrations i.e. mass_column? Note that columns are often expressed in units of molecules/m2 (number_column?)
::'''CT:''' There now only one column left for gases, aerosol mass, and aerosol number:
+
::'''CT:''' There is now only one column left for gases, aerosol mass, and aerosol number:
 
::unit: in particles for aerosols: particles/m2=1/m2<br>
 
::unit: in particles for aerosols: particles/m2=1/m2<br>
 
::unit: in molecules for gases  : molecules/m2=1/m2<br>
 
::unit: in molecules for gases  : molecules/m2=1/m2<br>
Line 53: Line 53:
  
 
:*'''PV:''' gases fluxes: chemical_net_production_of_ozone_atmosphere/chemical_gross_production_of_ozone_in_air: Why do you use sometimes _atmosphere and sometimes _in_air, Is this to exclude chemical reactions in clouds?  
 
:*'''PV:''' gases fluxes: chemical_net_production_of_ozone_atmosphere/chemical_gross_production_of_ozone_in_air: Why do you use sometimes _atmosphere and sometimes _in_air, Is this to exclude chemical reactions in clouds?  
::'''CT:''' Exactly, this is what I meant. Is it not clear enough?  
+
::'''CT:''' Exactly, this is what I meant. Is it not clear enough?
 
 
:*'''PV:''' aerosols: It may be useful to have a way to distinguish the dry aerosol fraction from "aerosol".
 
::'''CT:''' With aerosol I always refer to dry aerosol as it was done in AeroCom. I add dry in the explanation.
 
 
:*'''PV:''' A decision should still be made whether IUPAC names or names common in atmospheric chemistry research should be used. There are a few species in your and my original list which are not IUPAC.
 
::'''CT:''' There is a decision: IUPAC names should be used. Jonathan already mentioned this to me. Could you help me with a link where I could find the relevant names please?
 
--[[User:Christiane|Christiane]] about 9 June 2006 (EDT)
 
  
 
==RanjeetSokhi(RS) / CTextor (CT): remarks on version June 12 from RS and answers from CT==
 
==RanjeetSokhi(RS) / CTextor (CT): remarks on version June 12 from RS and answers from CT==

Revision as of 07:57, June 30, 2006

General discussion on CF Standard Names - Proposed Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms.
  • To add to the discussion, log in to DataFed wiki
  • Begin each entry with ====Username: Subject====
  • To respond, add dots ====......Username: Subject====
  • Indent response text by adding : for each tab.
  • Sign your entry by ending with '~~~~',



Agreed items of former discussions on "CF Standard Names - Future Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms" page can be found here.


CTextor:Initial Chemistry and Aerosol Terms

Please have a look at the wiki page of proposed names Comments are highly welcome ! Please forward the web site adress to those who might be interested but not considered in this email. I will be back in my office on June 1. --ChristianeTextor 16:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)


JGregory: CF Email List

Thanks for your page. Perhaps you might like to post your comments to the CF email list. In that case I would post these responses: --JonathanGregory 16:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

......RHusar: CF Email List

Posting Christiane's initial naming effort to the CF e-mail list would indeed be helpful for connecting the CF community with this "domain expert" group. We have also agreed earlier that the content these wiki pages, including the discussion pages will be transferred to a more neutral domain. --Rhusar 19:19, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

......CTextor: CF Email List

I will send an email to the CF email list, or will you do it, Jonathan?--Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)


JGregory: Standard Names as Needed

We have a general principle that we haven't defined standard names until they are actually needed, to avoid our spending too much time worrying about issues that can't be properly resolved until we know the context, and hence making more mistakes than necessary. Do you need all the names you have listed now? If so, that's fine of course. --JonathanGregory 16:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

......RHusar: Standard Names as Needed

I would agree that the list of names should be pruned to the set that has been used. Is it fair to say that this initial list of chemical and aerosol names arose from chemical/aerosol model intercomparison studies? If so, one could start with the names used in the AEROCOM model intercomparison project. After that we could identify the names that are needed to describe various in situ and remotely sensed observations. --Rhusar 19:19, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

......CTextor: Standard Names as Needed

I included all names for gaseous chemical species proposed by PRISM, and added aerosol names from AeroCom, which were analyzed so far (i.e. not all AeroCom names). I will go throght the tables and include the input from our discussions.--Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

JGregory: IUPAC Rule?

Some of your species names are not IUPAC. Can you give a clear rule which can be consistently applied about when to allow non-IUPAC names? --JonathanGregory 16:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

......CTextor: IUPAC Rule?

Of course, I will check this.... I did. Could you please tell me which are not correct? Thank you! --Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

CTextor: articles and prepositions

Articles and prepositions should be avoided? --Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)


CTextor: large scale compartment

Some species can occur in the ocean and in atmosphere, should we allways give atmosphere/ocean/soil? --Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)


CTextor: ion / radical names

How to distinguish ion - radicals, e.g. NO3? such difficulty might not occur with the names that are needed now, but certainly in the future. --Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)


PVelthoven (PV) / CTextor (CT): remarks to updates on June 8 from PV and answers from CT

  • PV: in_cloudwater is not the same as "in cloud" - in_cloudwater would mean in cloud droplets or ice crystals. in_cloud could refer to the cloudy part of the atmosphere
CT: I have added <in_cloudwater>: within cloud-water or cloud-ice, <in_clouds>: within the gaseous phase of clouds (is this correct?)
  • PV: column: it is probably necessary to indicate whether it refers to mass or number as you are doing for concentrations i.e. mass_column? Note that columns are often expressed in units of molecules/m2 (number_column?)
CT: There is now only one column left for gases, aerosol mass, and aerosol number:
unit: in particles for aerosols: particles/m2=1/m2
unit: in molecules for gases : molecules/m2=1/m2
unit: in molecules for gases : moles/m2=1/m2

What do think?

  • PV: gases fluxes: chemical_net_production_of_ozone_atmosphere/chemical_gross_production_of_ozone_in_air: Why do you use sometimes _atmosphere and sometimes _in_air, Is this to exclude chemical reactions in clouds?
CT: Exactly, this is what I meant. Is it not clear enough?

RanjeetSokhi(RS) / CTextor (CT): remarks on version June 12 from RS and answers from CT

  • RS: Table 1 mass_concentration is usually stated in ug/m3 ie micrograms per cubic metre - this is conventional and used in all air quality literature (scientific and policy)
CT: This is an interesting comment. In global community we rather use kg/m3 as far as I know, and I would prefer this as it follows the SI units: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/index.html. I will post your comment on the wiki discussion page... are there more comments on this?
  • RS: Table 2 - Nitric Oxide (NO) rather than Nitrogen Oxide
CT: changed!
  • RS: Aerosols
you are missing PM10 (particles of aerodynamic size of 10um or less), similary PM2.5 and PM1
coarse fraction = PM10-PM2.5
fine fraction = PM2.5
ultrafine fraction PM0.1
accumulation mode particles = particles of size 0.1 to 1um
Aitken mode particles = particles of size 0.1-0.01um
nucleation mode particles = particles of size less than 0.01um
CT: I agree that these are missing, I have added them in the species list, but not in the 'proposed names section'. The philosophy of CF is to define names once they are really needed. The reason why I did not include them so far is that they are not commonly simulated in global models, but if needed these names can be included in order to be as broad as possible!

--Christiane Textor (Christiane) 13 June 2006 (EDT)

JGregory(JG) / CTextor (CT): remarks to updates on June 12 from JG and answers from CT

  • JG: Thanks for your updates. I am not monitoring your wiki, so I'm depending on your emails to prompt me to look again. I think the debate is going well! If you send your email to the CF list the wiki might have a wider readership.
CT: will write an email to the CF list
  • JG: I know that "burden" and "column" are common, but if you could get used to "content" it would have the advantage of consistency with other names. I agree that it might be misunderstood to mean the content integrated over the entire world, not per unit area, but this is also true of the existing stdnames which use "content". The units should clarify it, so it's not dangerously ambiguous! We would need some other phrase for the global total. So far no-one has asked for such a quantity. In existing names X_content where X is a material means kg m-2, and by analogy you could have number_content in m-2.
CT: ok, if this is the convention to be followed. anyway: so far, no variable has been constructed for content...
  • JG: STP is a fairly standard abbreviation, but it is also listed in the CF stdname guidelines.
CT: sorry for not knowing.
  • JG: Yes, I think we have avoided articles, because we haven't needed them, not on principle. However, prepositions do appear in some names.
CT: Yes!
  • JG: Yes, if a species could appear in more than one medium, it should have in_air in_sea_water in_soil or whatever, to specify which.
CT: Yes!
  • JG: in_air and in_atmosphere wouldn't be a clear distinction, because atmosphere is used in other names to refer to large-scale properties, not to a medium. I would suggest in_air, in_clear_air (outside clouds), in_cloudy_air, and in_cloud_water (with a _).
CT: This is how I wanted to use it. I hope it is clearer from the recent updates of the tables.
  • JG: in_troposphere is a bit different. I think this quantity is actually in_air, but within the troposphere! in_troposphere is more like a vertical coordinate (like a named surface) than a medium, I would say. But we could also regard it as a large-scale designation, like atmosphere, and put it at the start, thus: troposphere_mole_fraction_of_ozone_in_air_from_stratosphere. Is that correct?
CT: With in_troposphere I mean a large scale property, but in all phases, i.e. in clouds and air. explanation added to table. But do I understand correctly that large scale properties should be at the beginning of the variable names, and locally measurable or origin information at the end of variable?
  • JG: I don't understand the construction _of_X_compartment. What does this mean?
CT: Changed in updated versions, hope it is clearer now.
  • JG: Why is "loss" preferred to "destruction", which would parallel "production" more nearly?
CT: Good point, I have changed it too "destruction"

--Christiane Textor (Christiane) 13 June 2006 (EDT)