Agreed Items of Discussion Proposed Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms
Go back to Start page for Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Names PLEASE DO NOT USE THE NAVIGATION BAR ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE!
Vincent-Henri PEUCH VHP - Christiane Textor CT - Jonathan Gregory JG
VHP: "nitrogen_monooxide" -> "nitrogen monoxide"?
CT: both names are allowed by IUPAC, and I chose the monooxid-version to be consistent with dioxid - but I change it.
VHP: add "mole_fraction_of_lead_in_air". Lead is the radioactive daughter of Radon, with wet scavenging as principal sink. There are some observations and it is useful to evaluate models, as decided in GRG+VAL.
Jonathan Gregory JG - Christiane Textor CT JG: The IUPAC issue is not settled yet, perhaps? For example, I think that acetyl and formaldehyde aren't IUPAC names. I may be wrong!
CT: formaldehyde is accepted by IUPAG ("In contrast to such systematic names, there are traditional names, semisystematic or trivial, which are widely used for a core group of common compounds. Examples are "acetic acid", "benzene", "cholesterol", "styrene", "formaldehyde", "water", "iron". Many of these names are also part of general nonscientific language and are thus not confined to use within the science of chemistry. They are useful, and in many cases indispensable (consider the alternative systematic name for cholesterol, for example). Little is to be gained, and certainly much to be lost, by replacing such names. Therefore, where they meet the requirements of utility and precision, and can be expected to continue to be widely used by chemists and others, they are retained and, for the most part, preferred in this Guide."). For PAN, I am not sure, I did not find it in the red book, but in some other web articles peroxyacetyl nitrate is given a the IUPAC name. Until somebody knows for sure I assume now that it is a IUPAC name.
JG: Thanks for the IUPAC answer. It is useful that they continue to allow such common names.
mole or mass
JG: I am sorry that I have not noticed before about some quantities being kg and others mol. I think these must be distinguished by the standard name; even though you make certain choices for your needs, other people might like different choices, and so we may eventually need names for both mass fluxes and mole fluxes for any species. In many existing names, quantities like flux, production and amount are in kg unless specifically stated e.g. rainfall_flux (kg m-2 s-1), gross_primary_productivity_of_carbon (kg m-2 s-1), surface_snow_amount (kg m-2). Perhaps you would not like that default? If not, I think we should use the phrases mass|mole_content, mass|mole_flux, mass|mole_amount, mass|mole_production, mass|mole_destruction wherever you need them.
CT: I agree that it is clearer to add the kind of flux concerned. I Changed this and added mass/mole/number everywhere.
total or all
JG: I think it's a good idea to avoid the word "total" if we can, as it is not always obvious what aspect is being totalled! total_nitrogen_oxides is probably clear enough, but maybe all_nitrogen_oxides might be better?
CT: But what does 'all' include? anyway, I changed it.
JG: You also have total_aerosol, which in fact you define as dry aerosol. Could this name be simply dry_mass_concentration_of_aerosol? I suppose that "aerosol" alone ought to be taken to refer to all aerosol species. CT: changed.
surface, toa, atmosphere
JG: The standard_name guidelines propose the construction surface_X, and there are many existing names like that, rather than X_at_surface. Hence e.g. surface_wet_deposition_flux_of_sulfur_dioxide instead of wet_deposition_flux_of_sulfur_dioxide_at_surface. Is that all right? Similarly, the guidelines and many existing names have toa_X rather than X_at_top_of_atmosphere. (The surface which are single words come at the beginning, and the surfaces which are multi-word phrases come after "at".)
JG: I would suggest that due_to_turbulence comes after of_X, because there could be a quantity dry_deposition_flux_of_X, of which dry_deposition_flux_of_X_due_to_turbulence is a part.
CT: It is :dry_deposition_mole_flux_of_X=dry_deposition_mole_flux_of_X_due_to_turbulence+dry_deposition_mole_flux_of_X_due_to_sedimentation, so I would rather like to leave the due_to_turbulence and due_to_sedimentation close to deposition, so I would like to change it to dry_deposition_mole_flux_of_X=dry_deposition_due_to_turbulence_mole_flux_of_X+dry_deposition_due_to_sedimentation_mole_flux_of_X, ok?
JG: Since dry_deposition_mole_flux_of_X=dry_deposition_mole_flux_of_X_due_to_turbulence+dry_deposition_mole_flux_of_X_due_to_sedimentation I think this ordering of the names is indeed correct. I understand due_to_Y to be an adjective qualifying the whole of what precedes it i.e. dry_deposition_mole_flux_of_X. I don't think that anyone would misunderstand it as X_due_to_Y. Following the guidelines, dry_deposition_mole_flux_of_X is the original standard name, and due_to_Y is appended. The alternative would be dry_deposition_mole_flux_due_to_Y_of_X but that wouldn't fit the guidelines so well, I think people could misunderstand of_X as belonging to Y.
JG: flash_frequency_due_to_lightning. I suggest lightning_flash_frequency; the flashes specifically belong to lightning, whereas due_to suggests that flashes are caused by a number of processes of which lightning is only one.
JG: atmosphere_reference_pressure_at_surface. Is this a data variable? It sounds like a model-dependent constant. Since we have surface_air_pressure as a standard name, I'd suggest reference_surface_air_pressure for this.
CT: It is a model constant, e.g. 10^5, indicating which pressure was exactly used in the models. I changed the name according to your suggestion.
JG: In your construction rules, I think there should be a _ in in_cloud_water and in_rain_water, like there is in in_sea_water.