Open neumannd opened 4 years ago
jen-thomas
commented
3 years ago Dear All,
I am just revisiting this topic because we are looking to make a new publication of some of the parameters mentioned in cf-convention/vocabularies#16 and I was wondering if you had any recommendations of which format names we should adopt please? Would the suggestions made there be suitable, or should we follow those above?
Thank you very much for your help.
efisher008
commented
2 months ago Dear @jen-thomas,
I am revisiting this issue after it has been transferred to the new cf-conventions/vocabularies repo following migration of currently open standard names issues to this new location, as it has been open for a long time with no obvious conclusion.
In the intervening time, proposals by Markus Fiebig (#109, #164) have introduced new names to the standard name table which are based on the structure ...dry_aerosol_particles. Therefore it does not now seem wise to change the existing mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles you have suggested above as it would be inconsistent with these new names (and there are quite a few of them!).
There are certainly names which contain the construction moles_of_particulate... /mole_concentration_of_particulate... (see #145 #128), but as these refer to molar and not mass quantities, this might constitute a separate application.
Do you still see a benefit in making this change in the name construction (given the timeframe of CMIP6 is now past)?
Best regards, Ellie
We have an unresolved issue from the mailing list with respect to standard names of the form
mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_airand similar standard names related to particulate matter in air.Based on the current interpretation of standard name
mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air, it describes "mass concentation of all aerosol particles that contain X" (see mailing list post from 22nd June 2017, link further below). But, probably, a name for "mass concentration of particulate bound X in air" is intended. It wasn't decided on a proper standard name structure for the latter.There were some new standard names, which have the first structure but the second meaning, accepted for CMIP6. This was done because these names were urgently needed. I didn't find the post in the archive of the mailing list.
I would be happy if we could settle this because there are some standard names pending (e.g. Issue cf-convention/vocabularies#16 and my proposal from 2017). Jonathan (@JonathanGregory) and I disccused some of the standard names in 2018. Thanks to Jonathan for that discussion.
Past timeline of this issue
mass_concentration_of_chloride_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air): [CF-metadata] New standard names for atmospheric sea salt and for nitrogen deposition, Thu Jun 22 05:42:10 MDT 2017Generic renaming proposal
This proposal is based on my post from Wed Jan 17 02:02:10 MST 2018. The names are constructed with the example of particulate ammonium. There are several special cases, which do not fully fit into this structure. Please see the attached csv file further below for a detailled overview and names to discuss.
mass_concentrationof
mass_concentration_of_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_in_airtomass_concentration_of_particulate_ammonium_in_airmass_concentration_of_pm10_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_in_airtomass_concentration_of_pm10_ammonium_in_airmass_fractionof
mass_fraction_of_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_in_airtomass_fraction_of_particulate_ammonium_in_airmass_fraction_of_pm10_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_in_airtomass_fraction_of_pm10_ammonium_in_airatmosphere_mass_contentof
atmosphere_mass_content_of_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particlestoatmosphere_mass_content_of_particulate_ammoniumtendency_of_mass_concentrationof
tendency_of_mass_concentration_of_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air_due_to_emissiontotendency_of_mass_concentration_of_particulate_ammonium_in_air_due_to_emissiontendency_of_atmosphere_mass_contentof
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_depositiontotendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_particulate_ammonium_due_to_depositionatmosphere_optical_thickness_dueto
There are some names that could be modified to be consistent with the new structure of the other standard names. But the old names do not seem to be ambiguous as the other names.
atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_ammonium_ambient_aerosol_particlestoatmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_ambient_particulate_ammonium_in_airAffected standard names
approximate numbers from 2018 are given
atmospherere_mass_content_of_X_dry_aerosol(15 names in 2018; see Thu Nov 9 07:52:41 MST 2017 and Wed Jan 3 09:07:45 MST 2018)mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_in_air(15 names in 2018; see Thu Nov 9 07:52:41 MST 2017 and Wed Jan 3 09:07:45 MST 2018)tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_...(approx 78 names in 2018; see Thu Nov 9 08:02:31 MST 2017 and Wed Jan 3 09:07:45 MST 2018)tendency_of_mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air(1 name in 2018; see Wed Jan 3 09:07:45 MST 2018)mass_fraction_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air(number not mentioned in 2018; see Clarifying standard names for 'mass_concentrationof*_dry_aerosol_particles', Thu Nov 9 08:02:31 MST 2017)atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_*(13 names in 2018; see Fri Mar 23 03:05:23 MDT 2018)Full renaming proposal
The full renaming proposal is attached as XLSX file: renaming_aerosol_species_20200715.xlsx
Some additional explanations:
?) or no need for discussion (!). The column "comment" indicates why I see need for discussion.!in the "status" column indicates that the name deviates from the default structure -- but no need to worry.