Hi Pierre,
Sorry for causing confusion.
I understood that the question was whether to introduce the following two
standard names (for your purpose)
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_anthropogenic_emission;
kg m-2 s-1
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion;
kg m-2 s-1
Or these two,
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_anthropogenic_emission;
kg m-2 s-1
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion;
kg m-2 s-1.
Alison had originally proposed the former (tendency_), and you (Pierre) argued
for the latter (surface_).
What I liked was Alison's description of why these tendency_ and surface_
quantities are physically different because the tendency_ quantity also
includes non-surface emissions.
My first point was that your application included aircraft emissions so that
the tendency_ quantity is the correct physical quantity for your application
(even if your data may put the aircraft emissions in the wrong box). Hence, I
recommended we add the tendency_ names to the standard name list, rather than
the surface_ names (following CF tradition of not adding names unless needed).
My second point was that we already have both tendency_ and surface_ names in
the list, and many users could easily miss the physical distinction. Hence, I
suggested that we expand the descriptions of these names in the list (when they
occur) to highlight the distinction (because, as you say, many people are
likely to look for the surface_ names).
My third point was just to note that the one example of a standard name similar
to the surface_ names proposed above actually specifies the _downward_
direction.
I am somewhat sensitive to this issue because I am currently trying to use
various emission estimates and it is often hard to tell what is and isn't
included, and hence whether or not I am double counting.
Best wishes :-),
Philip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre Friedlingstein [mailto:p.friedlingst...@exeter.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:50 AM
> To: Cameron-smith, Philip; alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
> Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 carbon cycle standard names
>
> Hi all,
> I'm getting confused now.
> I understood Alison last proposal as keeping only one name :
>
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_a
> nthropogenic_emission; kg m-2 s-1
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_e
> mission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion; kg m-2 s-1.
>
> Philip's mail, seemed to imply that both names could be used as he
> liked Alison's distinction...
>
> Could you clarify what the final decision?
>
> For info, yes the data do include aircraft, chimneys,... emissions as
> these data are derived from country based reporting of fossil fuel
> trades.
> Hence the aircraft emissions from US carriers are in the US numbers and
> hence assigned on the US territory. This might be OK for US as most of
> the flight are domestic, but I'm sure this is 99.9 % wrong for Belgium
> ;-).
> Saying emissions are a vertical integral here would imply that planes
> are only flying up and down !
>
> Anyway, I will leave with either or definition (you'll just have to
> explain what the "tendency" one mean to non-chemists...)
>
> Best
> Pierre
>
>
>
> On 22/09/2010 17:28, Cameron-smith, Philip wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Even if the dataset doesn't have vertical information, if it includes
> > aircraft emissions then the physical quantity it is quantifying is
> the
> > vertical integral rather than the surface emission. In which case I
> > would favour tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_
> >
> > If there are no aircraft in the data, then do smoke stacks produce
> 'surface emissions'? An interesting question that could be debated.
> Hence, another advantage of tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_ is
> that it makes the question moot.
> >
> > BTW, FWIW, I note that the closest related standard name already in
> the table specifies the downward direction
> (surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon).
> >
> > On a different note, I like Alison's distinction between
> >
> >
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_..._due_to_anthropogenic_emissi
> > on
> >
> > and
> >
> > surface_upward_mass_flux_of_..._due_to_anthropogenic_emission
> >
> > Perhaps we should cross-reference such standard names in their
> descriptions to help future users?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Philip
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > -- Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore Nat.
> > Lab.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-
> >> boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Pierre Friedlingstein
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:01 AM
> >> To: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
> >> Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 carbon cycle standard names
> >>
> >> Alison,
> >> I see your point.
> >> As far as I know the anthropogenic emissions data will be surface
> >> fluxes. Data are based on country level consumption of fossil fuel,
> >> they don't have the info on where in the air it is released...
> >> Pierre
> >>
> >> On 22/09/2010 13:04, alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Pierre,
> >>>
> >>> My thinking here was that 'anthropegenic emissions' (which
> >>> presumably include fossil fuel emissions) and 'fossil fuel'
> >>> emissions themselves do not necessarily always occur at the earth's
> >>> surface. For example, emissions from tall chimneys and aircraft
> may
> >>> occur at many levels in the atmosphere. It was not clear to me
> that
> >>> these particular quantities in the CMIP5 tables are intended only
> to
> >>> account for
> >>>
> >> surface emissions.
> >>
> >>> If that is the case, then we certainly need to make it clear and I
> >>> agree with your suggestion to label them as surface fluxes. So
> >>>
> >> instead
> >>
> >>> of introducing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_ca
> >> r
> >>
> >>> bo n_due_to_anthropogenic_emission; kg m-2 s-1
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_ca
> >> r
> >>
> >>> bo n_due_to_emission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion; kg m-2 s-1
> >>>
> >>> I will add
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to
> >> _
> >>
> >>> an
> >>> thropogenic_emission; kg m-2 s-1
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to
> >> _
> >>
> >>> em ission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion; kg m-2 s-1.
> >>>
> >>> OK?
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>> Alison
> >>>
> >>> ------
> >>> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
> >>> NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314
> >>> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email:
> >>>
> >> alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
> >>
> >>> Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Pierre Friedlingstein [mailto:p.friedlingst...@exeter.ac.uk]
> >>>> Sent: 21 September 2010 16:41
> >>>> To: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
> >>>> Cc: j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> >>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 carbon cycle standard names
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Alison,
> >>>> Just wondering, why are the first two variables below named as
> >>>> "tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of..."
> >>>> while all others are named as "surface_upward_mass_flux_of_ ..."
> >>>> Any reason ?
> >>>> I know the "tendency..." is used for other chemical species... But
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> here
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> for CO2 variables, I think intra-consistency should be favoured.
> No
> >>>>
> >> ?
> >>
> >>>> Best
> >>>> Pierre
> >>>>
> >>>> On 21/09/2010 13:40, alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dear Jonathan and Pierre,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you both for your comments on the CMIP5 carbon cycle names.
> >>>>> Looking back through this thread I think we have resolved all the
> >>>>> outstanding issues and so the following names are now accepted
> for
> >>>>> inclusion in the standard name table:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_ca
> >>
> >>>> r
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> bo n_due_to_anthropogenic_emission; kg m-2 s-1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_ca
> >>
> >>>> r
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> bo n_due_to_emission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion; kg m-2 s-1
> >>>>> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_due_to_natural_emission; kg m-
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> 2
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> s-1
> >>>>> atmosphere_mass_of_carbon_dioxide; kg
> >>>>> carbon_content_of_products_of_land_use_change; kg m-2
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> surface_upward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emis
> >>
> >>>> s
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> io n_from_fires_excluding_land_use_change; kg m-2 s-1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> surface_upward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emis
> >>
> >>>> s
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> io
> >>>>> n_from_grazing; kg m-2 s-1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> surface_upward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emis
> >>
> >>>> s
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> io
> >>>>> n_from_crop_harvesting; kg m-2 s-1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> surface_net_upward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_
> >>
> >>>> e
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> mi ssion_from_anthropogenic_land_use_change; kg m-2 s-1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> surface_net_downward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_t
> >>
> >>>> o
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> _p
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> hotosynthesis_and_respiration_and_fires_including_land_use_change;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> kg
> >>>>> m-2 s-1
> >>>>> carbon_flux_into_soil_from_litter; kg m-2 s-1
> >>>>> carbon_flux_into_soil_from_vegetation_excluding_litter; kg m-2 s-
> 1
> >>>>> leaf_carbon_content; kg m-2 wood_carbon_content; kg m-2
> >>>>> root_carbon_content; kg m-2
> >>>>> carbon_content_of_miscellaneous_living_matter; kg m-2 (N.B.
> >>>>> 'miscellaneous' means carbon content of living matter apart from
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> those
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> individually named in the preceding three items)
> >>>>> wood_debris_carbon_content; kg m-2 surface_litter_carbon_content;
> >>>>>
> >> kg
> >>
> >>>>> m-2 subsurface_litter_carbon_content; kg m-2
> >>>>> fast_soil_pool_carbon_content; kg m-2
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> medium_soil_pool_carbon_content;
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> kg m-2 slow_soil_pool_carbon_content; kg m-2
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> surface_upward_carbon_flux_due_to_plant_respiration_for_biomass_growt
> >>
> >>>> h
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> ;
> >>>>> kg m-2 s-1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> surface_upward_carbon_flux_due_to_plant_respiration_for_biomass_maint
> >>
> >>>> e
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> na
> >>>>> nce; kg m-2 s-1
> >>>>> net_primary_productivity_of_carbon_accumulated_in_leaves; kg m-2
> >>>>> s-
> >>>>>
> >> 1
> >>
> >>>>> net_primary_productivity_of_carbon_accumulated_in_wood; kg m-2 s-
> 1
> >>>>> net_primary_productivity_of_carbon_accumulated_in_roots; kg m-2
> >>>>> s-1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> surface_net_downward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_t
> >>
> >>>> o
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> _p
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> hotosynthesis_and_respiration_and_fires_excluding_land_use_change;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> kg
> >>>>> m-2 s-1.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To cope with the various fractional vegetation coverage
> quantities
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> we
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> will use the existing standard name area_fraction and introduce
> >>>>> new entries of primary_evergreen_trees,
> secondary_deciduous_trees,
> >>>>> secondary_evergreen_trees, C3_plant_functional_types,
> >>>>> C4_plant_functional_types into the area_type table.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best wishes,
> >>>>> Alison
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------
> >>>>> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
> >>>>> NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314
> >>>>> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
