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

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>'''''General discussion on [[CF Standard Names - Proposed Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms]]. If needed, practice editing in the [[EsipSandBox| Sandbox]]'''''</center>   
<center>'''''General discussion on [[CF Standard Names - Proposed Atmospheric Chemistry and Aerosol Terms]].'''''</center>   
====CTextor:Initial Chemistry and Aerosol Terms====
====CTextor:Initial Chemistry and Aerosol Terms====

Revision as of 17:30, May 23, 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 '~~~~',

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)

___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)

___JGregory: Content Explanation[edit source | reply | new]

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: Vertical Burden[edit source | reply | new]

'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)

___JGregory:in_air vs. atmosphere[edit source | reply | new]

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: equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content[edit source | reply | new]

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[edit source | reply | new]

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)

___JGregory: Variable and File Names[edit source | reply | new]

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

___JGregory: Avoid Abbreviations[edit source | reply | new]

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)

___JGregory: Distinction between Net and Total Production[edit source | reply | new]

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?[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)