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

==Vincent-Henri PEUCH

Thank you for this work! A few minor comments/suggestions/questions :

• 1) "nitrogen_monooxide" -> "nitrogen monoxide"?
• 2) there is always the problem that "NOy" has no fully agreed definition in the literature... It is perhaps unwise to use it in the name? Could we use "total_nitrogen_oxides" instead?

We have also to chose :

- if only the species with the name listed go in the sum

- or if it is up to the modeller to select all nitrogen oxides in his/her chemical scheme.

• 3) the description of the "troposphere_content*" variables is not enough detailed because it is indeed verticaly integrated, but up to the tropopause only. We can specify in the explanation "up to the tropopause level", but we probably also have to specify the tropopause definition to be used (2PVU,380K ?) as the value is quite sensitive to the specific criterion used (for species with strong vertical gradients at the tropopause like ozone). A drawback of specifying is that any other type of hypotheses (other "tropopause" definition : 150 ppb of ozone, 100 hPa,...) or other ways of computation (specific tracer in the model) would then no longer fit with the name. I don't know the solution...

• 4) we could add, for ozone at least, "total_atmosphere_content_of_*_in_air" (in Dobson units for ozone, mol/m2 for others if needed).

• 5) the variable "mole_fraction_of_ozone_from_stratosphere_in troposphere" is a modeler's concept, with no chance of being measured. The way it is implemented in a model has an impact on the actual values, due to non linearities etc... I would not be in favor of including it as a standard variable. What do you think?

• 6) 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.