Talk:CF Standard Names - Discussed Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms

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 '~~~~',

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: Content Explanation

We have used "content" in a lot of standard names to mean the amount of something per unit area i.e. a vertical integral. Do you think e.g. "atmosphere ozone content" in kg m-2 isn't clear enough terminology? --JonathanGregory 16:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

............RHusar: Content Explanation

'Vertical burden' is also used to describe measured column concentrations. It may take a bit of getting used to, but I have no objections to ozone_content. --Rhusar 19:19, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

............CTextor: Content Explanation

I think in the chemistry/aerosol community "content" would rather be understood as a total mass, the amount of something per unit area would rather be called 'load' or 'column'. Therefore I would now suggest to use vertical_burden which seems less ambiguous to me. --Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

......JGregory:in_air vs. atmosphere

The difference between atmosphere and in_air is that atmosphere is used to refer to large-scale properties, and in_air to locally measured ones. Hence the distinction between e.g. mass concentration in air, and atmosphere content. Chemical concentrations would be in_air (as you have done), and hence distinguished from in_sea_water etc. If a given quantity could appear in places other than air, it is correct to be explicit. --JonathanGregory 16:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

......JGregory: udunits

It doesn't matter to CF what units are used, so long as they are udunits. Any dimensionally equivalent unit can be used for a given standard name. However, kgC and kgS aren't SI units. I think the unit has to be kg. This implies that it's the standard name which must somehow indicate that it is the mass of C or mass of S which is being referred to, rather than the mass of the compound e.g. dry_deposition_flux_of_sulfur_as_sulfate_at_surface. --JonathanGregory 16:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

............CTextor: udunits

Very good idea, I will change this. --Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

......JGregory: mole or mass fractions

You may indeed prefer mole_fraction for some quantities and mass_fraction for others. That would be your own decision for your project, but of course another project might make a different choice.

--JonathanGregory 16:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

............CTextor: mole or mass fractions

The use of either mole_ or mass_ fraction varies within the community, so I followed the suggestions of the PRISM project. But then aerosols should allways be in mass and gases in mole fraction for consistency. --Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

......JGregory: equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content

equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content means the thickness (depth) of the layer you would get by collecting all the ozone in the atmospheric column at STP. It was named like that by analogy with the equivalent thickness (depth) of amounts of precipitation. Does that make sense? --JonathanGregory 16:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

............RHusar: Aerosol Scale Height

I wonder if we can use the same naming for aerosol_scale_height, i.e. the height of an aerosol layer if the concentration was vertically uniform between the surface and scale height. --Rhusar 19:27, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

............CTextor: equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content

The problem for me is STP, I realize that it is 'standard temperature and pressure'. I found it on wikipedia so I guess I should know...? --Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

......JGregory: Variable and File Names

Names for variables and files would not be the subject of CF conventions --JonathanGregory 16:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

............CTextor: Variable and File Names

I agree that this is not the focus of the CF conventions, but is still needed for model intercomparisons. We might want to open another discussion on the structure and names of files elsewhere. --Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

......JGregory: Avoid Abbreviations

We try to avoid abbreviations like "turdry" and "seddry". Although they make the names longer, I think these should be spelled out in full. Would this be a case for using due_to e.g. dry_deposition_..._due_to_turbulence? --JonathanGregory 16:51, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

............CTextor: Avoid Abbreviations

I will change this. --Christiane Textor (Christiane) 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

......JGregory: Distinction between Net and Total Production

It could be unclear to have a distinction between "production" and "net production". Is there a more explicit name for the former? Can you call it "gross production", for instance, like gross/net primary productivity of ecosystems? --JonathanGregory 16:51, 22 May 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! --Christiane 12:11, 2 June 2006 (EDT)