Talk:CF Standard Names - Construction of Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms
Return to Start page for Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Names PLEASE DO NOT USE THE NAVIGATION BAR ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE!
Go to agreed items of former discussions on CF Standard Names - Future Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms.
CTextor:Initial Chemistry and Aerosol Terms[edit source | reply | new]
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[edit source | reply | new]
- 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[edit source | reply | new]
- 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[edit source | reply | new]
- I will send an email to the CF email list, or will you do it, Jonathan?--Christiane 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
JGregory: Standard Names as Needed[edit source | reply | new]
- 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[edit source | reply | new]
- 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[edit source | reply | new]
- 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 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
JGregory: IUPAC Rule?[edit source | reply | new]
- 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?[edit source | reply | new]
- Of course, I will check this.... I did. Could you please tell me which are not correct? Thank you! --Christiane 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
CTextor: articles and prepositions[edit source | reply | new]
- Articles and prepositions should be avoided? --Christiane 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
CTextor: large scale compartment[edit source | reply | new]
- Some species can occur in the ocean and in atmosphere, should we allways give atmosphere/ocean/soil? --Christiane 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
CTextor: ion / radical names[edit source | reply | new]
- 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 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
in_compartment[edit source | reply | new]
PVelthoven (PV) / CTextor (CT): remarks to updates on June 8 from PV and answers from CT: in_cloud_water, columns[edit source | reply | new]
- 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_cloud_water>: within cloud-water or cloud-ice, <in_cloudy_air>: 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 are now 3 different contents:
- mass_content vertically integrated mass kg/m2
- mole_content vertically integrated moles mole/m2
- number_content vertically integrated number 1/m2
- 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?
CTextor/ Jonathan Gregory July 17: in_air[edit source | reply | new]
- CT: The mole_fraction and mass_fractions for the chemical gases in air are related to humid air. I have only defined _in_air, which from my understanding would mean 'in air what ever it contains, i.e. humid air'. But it is this clear enough or do we need to have in_dry_air and in_humid_air?
- JG: I think in_air is fine. My understanding is the same as yours.
Olivier Boucher: Aerosols[edit source | reply | new]
- I've made changes to some of the tables. In addition, Can you consider these remarks:
- -AOD should always be associated with a wavelength. We can make the decision that it should be a wavelength and not a wavenumber and that the wavelength should be given in nm (easier than micrometer in ascii!).
- -I prefer sulfate_aerosol_as_sulfate to sulfate_as_sulfate_aerosol. Sulfate aerosol is generic, it means sulfate-containing aerosol (whatever the cation is), but we measure it by the amount of dry sulfate (SO4=).
- -If all aerosols are measured dry, shouldn't there be a dry in the title? CT: YES, changed
- -I've removed, the "fine fraction", "ultrafine fraction" and so on in the comment because the qualifier may apply to everything and it may have a unit so "fraction" is anorppriate as it may imply that it is associated to a unitless quantity. The size ranges is self-sufficient.
- -Avoid size and replace by diameter or radius.
- -diameter and radius should be qualified systematically by "dry" or "ambient".
- -RF: we may want to define a RF at the surface in addition to TOA and tropopause ones.