Dear Martin, Jonathan and Daniel, Thanks for the proposal and discussion of these names. I support the introduction of these names and agree that 'minus_tendency' is a neat phrase to describe how they relate to the existing ones of opposite sign convention. Given that the names differ only in sign, I think they can be accepted and therefore will be included in this week's standard name table update.
I have added the following text to the definitions (which otherwise read exactly as for the existing names): 'The phrase "minus_tendency" means that the quantity described takes the opposite sign convention to that for the quantity which has the same standard name apart from this phrase, i.e. the two quantities differ from one another by a factor of -1. Thus a "minus_tendency" in the atmosphere means a positive deposition rate onto the underlying surface.' Please note that the sea salt names should say 'sea_salt', i.e. with an underscore between the two words. I note that these names will in due course be affected by the outcome of the discussion of Daniel's wider proposal regarding aerosol names, but for clarity I would prefer to separate the two issues. Best wishes, Alison ------ Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Archival Email: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory R25, 2.22 Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. -----Original Message----- From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu> On Behalf Of Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC Sent: 17 May 2018 10:57 To: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk>; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Dry and wet deposition rates Dear Jonathan, Of the options you suggest, I think "minus_tendency_" is the neatest, being more compact that "minus_one_times_tendency_" without, as far as I can see, introducing any ambiguity. I had a look on-line for antonyms of tendency, and discovered that our usage of "tendency" as an abbreviation for "derivative wrt time" is too specialised to appear in any of the online dictionaries which I could find. I interpret this as supporting your view that a construction with minus is safer that trying to look for alternative words, regards, Martin ________________________________ From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of Jonathan Gregory <j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk> Sent: 16 May 2018 18:24 To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: [CF-metadata] Dry and wet deposition rates Dear Martin I would favour minus_one_times_tendency. This is clumsy but it is very clear, I think, and as you say it's already in use for other such awkward situations. I feel that if we replace the word tendency (as in 2) or use a different idea altogether (as in 3) there will not be such an obvious relationship between the names of opposite sign i.e. tendency_of_X and minus_one_times_tendency_of_X and this is a strong advantage, I feel. I wonder whether we could reduce the clumsiness by saying e.g. minus_tendency, negated_tendency or negative_tendency, but I'm not sure these are as clear as minus_one_times_tendency. I think they might all give rise to questions. Of those, I think minus_tendency would be best. Other more exotic alternatives could be to invent a new word e.g. antitendency, or to allow a - sign in the standard name: -tendency_of_X! Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC <martin.juc...@stfc.ac.uk> ----- > Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 11:58:05 +0000 > From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC <martin.juc...@stfc.ac.uk> > To: "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu>, Michael Schulz > <micha...@met.no>, Taylor Karl <taylo...@llnl.gov> > Subject: [CF-metadata] Dry and wet deposition rates > > There are 20 variables in the CMIP6 data request for a variety of dry and wet > deposition rates. Many of these variables have been used in CMIP5 and earlier > with standard names of the form: > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_dry_deposition. > > > However, there is a conflict in the intended sign convention. The deposition > rates should be positive when material is leaving the atmosphere, but the > standard names that have been used should be positive when the atmospheric > content is increasing. To resolve this we need a set of new standard names. > The existing tendency names are: > > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_ > to_dry_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_ammonia_due_to_dry_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_ > due_to_dry_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_particulate_organic_matter_dry_ > aerosol_particles_due_to_dry_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfur_dioxide_due_to_dry_depos > ition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_particles_d > ue_to_dry_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_nitrogen_compounds_expressed_as > _nitrogen_due_to_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_ > to_wet_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_ammonia_due_to_wet_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_ > due_to_wet_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_noy_expressed_as_nitrogen_due_t > o_wet_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfur_dioxide_due_to_wet_depos > ition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_particles_d > ue_to_wet_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_particulate_organic_matter_dry_ > aerosol_particles_due_to_wet_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_ozone_due_to_dry_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_seasalt_dry_aerosol_particles_d > ue_to_wet_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_elemental_carbon_dry_aerosol_pa > rticles_due_to_wet_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_seasalt_dry_aerosol_particles_d > ue_to_dry_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_noy_expressed_as_nitrogen_due_t > o_dry_deposition > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_elemental_carbon_dry_aerosol_pa > rticles_due_to_dry_deposition > > Three options have been raised in the preliminary discussions: > (1) Prefix each name with "minus_one_times_": this construction is already > used for 3 names. > > (2) Replace "tendency_of_" with "depletion_rate_of_": this is a new > construction, but is structurally close to what we have and makes the > relation between variables very clear; > > (3) Replace "tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_" with > "surface_downward_mass_flux_of_": this uses an existing construction already > used in 8 standard names. > > What do others on the list think? > > regards, > Martin > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP) > Sent: 16 May 2018 08:14 > To: Michael Schulz; Taylor Karl > Cc: larry.horow...@noaa.gov; mark.w...@metoffice.gov.uk; > Bodas-Salcedo, Alejandro; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP) > Subject: Re: Conflicting sign conventions in deposition rates > > > Hello Michael, Karl, > > > OK, it sounds as though we should keep the variables as they are, i.e. > positive for deposition from the atmosphere, and fix the standard names. > > > I don't think a positive attribute will solve this problem. It may be useful > to add "positive=down", but it still leaves an inconsistency with the > standard names which definitely should be used with positive "up". Standard > names for variables with an opposite sign convention would not be synonyms: > there are many examples of pairs of names which differ only in the sign > convention, e.g. > > surface_upwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air -- > minus_one_times_surface_upwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air (+ 2 other > pairs like this); > > surface_downward_heat_flux_in_air -- surface_upward_heat_flux_in_air (+ 5 > other pairs like this). > > > We can construct standard names for minus the tendency of quantities > in several ways, but it may be better to have that discussion on the > CF discussions email list .. so I'll make a proposal there, also > raising Karl's suggestion (depletion_rate_of_ ....), > > > regards, > > Martin > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Michael Schulz <micha...@met.no> > Sent: 15 May 2018 19:46 > To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP) > Cc: Taylor Karl; larry.horow...@noaa.gov; mark.w...@metoffice.gov.uk; > Bodas-Salcedo, Alejandro; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP) > Subject: Re: Conflicting sign conventions in deposition rates > > Hi, > > true - tendencies have not carefully chosen with a sign in mind. > > There is very long tradition that these variables are "positive". So that > should not be changed. > > The standard names are also used since quite some time. > > Adding a positive attribute would be my preferred solution. > > Otherwise "surface_downward_mass_flux_of_" is fine for me as well. But that > would introduce a synonym in the system, right? > > best wishes > Michael > > > > > > > On 15 May 2018, at 20:13, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC > > <martin.juc...@stfc.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > Hello All, > > > > > > Larry has pointed out a conflict between variable long names and > > standard names for a set of deposition rate variables, many of which > > were in the CMIP5 aero table, e.g. wetso4, "Wet Deposition Rate of > > SO4" with standard name > > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_expressed_as_sulfur_d > > ry_aerosol_due_to_wet_deposition > > > > > > A deposition rate would normally be positive when material is leaving the > > atmosphere, making the tendency of atmosphere mass content negative. > > > > > > I will try to check the sign convention adopted by people submitting > > data for CMIP5, but I suspect that we should follow the sign > > convention implied by the long name .. but this would require new > > standard names for these variables. A full list of the variables is > > here: > > https://github.com/cmip6dr/CMIP6_DataRequest_VariableDefinitions/iss > > ues/328 > > > > > > For new standard names, we could either use the "minus_one_times_" > > construction, or replace "tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_" with > > "surface_downward_mass_flux_of_". > > > > > > What do others think? > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
