-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Standard names: *integrated ocean quantities* #232
Comments
Thank you for your proposal. These terms will be added to the cfeditor (http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1) shortly. Your proposal will then be reviewed and commented on by the community and Standard Names moderator. |
There is a mix of uses of "content" in the current standard names. Often different standard names are defined depending on whether the vertical integral is calculated through the entire extent of a particular medium (e.g. atmosphere, sea ice, or ocean) or calculated only through a portion of the column (i.e., within some layer specified by bounds on a vertical coordinate). As an example, contrast Sometimes, however, the same standard name applies to both the entire column or only a portion. In this case, the interpretation by default is that the integral is over the entire column, but if bounds on a vertical coordinate are specified, then it is confined to a layer. For example, the names
A similar approach is used for Of possible relevance are also these existing names: Given the existing names and discussion above, I wonder if the following names might not be better:
|
Thanks for your proposal, Baylor @baylorfk. The background and motivation is useful, but for the description in the standard name table the text should be a short explanation of the quantity and the name, like the description of e.g.
I think your clarification of the zero is useful to include. We ought to include that point in the above as well. Karl has pointed out an inconsistency in the existing standard names. On the one hand, we have
and you have used this pattern for your proposed new ones
On the other hand we also have existing standard names (which below I call Group A)
and several standard names of the form There isn't one pattern which fits all these cases, but for the ones with If we adopt the form "temperature expressed as heat content" the new names would be
This would be consistent with existing names. If we adopt the form "integral wrt depth of temperature expressed as heat content", the new names would be as proposed by Baylor, but we should change the existing Group A for consistency to
and likewise with the tendencies The latter is more complicated, but which is better? Karl has implied another suggestion, that we should have Best wishes Jonathan |
Hi Both, |
I don't see a value in having non-energy units for e.g., kg degree_C m-2 integral_wrt_depth_of_product_of_conservative_temperature_and_sea_water_density I just find that to be confusing. The Griffies et al. paper and the one supporting the data request are addressing these points precisely. The modeling centers should be converting to energy units based on these suggestions. |
Dear @baylorfk Certainly you can propose that modelling centres should convert their data from Cheers Jonathan |
Yes, @JonathanGregory, understood. I was just attempting to point out that we do not need to add other intermediate quantities involved in either the tendency or the content, e.g., integral_wrt_depth_of_product_of_potential_temperature_and_sea_water_density And so on... |
Thanks, Baylor. Yes, I agree. J
|
Hello All, Is the following now agreed for the new quantities to be used in CMIP7 (as set out in Jonathan's post above)? New names:
Existing names to be revised by adding
|
I think it's not explicit enough to say "expressed_as_salt_content". In the atmosphere, at least, the amount of a chemical species might be quantified as a mass fraction or a molecular fraction. And "content" in the standard names does not imply mass, so shouldn't we say "expressed_as_salt_mass_content" (consistent with "expressed_as_heat_content"). |
It is not as necessary in the (typically Boussinesq) ocean to distinguish between mass content and density fraction (mass/volume), but I do not object to this modification. Thus, J m-2 integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_conservative_temperature_expressed_as_heat_content Existing names to be revised: J m-2 integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_potential_temperature_expressed_as_heat_content |
@baylorfk Thank you for your proposals and thanks to @taylor13 @JonathanGregory and @martinjuckes for your comments in the discussion. The form of the names seems to be agreed and we will need to create some aliases for existing names to keep the syntax consistent. For the new names I have produced descriptions based on the text for existing similar names. @baylorfk Please can you check them and if you are happy with the descriptions I think these names can be accepted for publication in the standard name table.
I added a sentence about the zero point of conservative temperature because Jonathan commented that it would be useful to include it in the description. Is this a standard part of the TEOS-10 formulation and should we be including this sentence in the descriptions of all the existing
To standardize the syntax used for N.B. the first of these will be reverting a standard name to one of its own previous aliases - this has not been done before in CF but I don't think there is any reason why we shouldn't do it from a naming point-of-view. (Note to self: how should this be implemented in the XML version of the standard name table - adding a new alias to the list, or removing one? Also can we "undeprecate" a term in the NERC vobulary server). Alias 1: Alias 2: Alias 3: Alias 4: @JonathanGregory pointed out that there are also existing names for tendencies in Alias 5: Alias 6: Alias 7. Alias 8. Alias 9. Alias 10. Alias 11. Alias 12. Alias 13. Alias 14. Alias 15. Alias 16. Alias 17. Alias 18. Alias 19. Alias 20. Alias 21. Alias 22. Best wishes, |
Hi @baylorfk Do you have any further comments on these names? We've not had any comments for three weeks, so if you are happy with the names as they stand I can mark them all as accepted and they will be published in the next update. Best wishes, |
Proposer's name Baylor Fox-Kemper
Date 24 OCT 2024
For each term please try to give the following:
- Term Proposed terms to appear in the vocabulary
existing term: integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_potential_temperature_expressed_as_heat_content.
new related terms:
integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_conservative_temperature_expressed_as_heat_content
integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_practical_salinity_expressed_as_salt_content
integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_preformed_salinity_expressed_as_salt_content
integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_absolute_salinity_expressed_as_salt_content
- Description A brief description to explain the meaning of the term
These new terms are for applications in comparison to observational syntheses and hybrid reconstructions (e.g., Domingues et al., 2008, updated; Levitus et al., 2012; Good et al., 2013; Cheng et al., 2017; Ishii et al., 2017; Zanna et al. 2019; Palmer et al. 2021), especially in the cases of integrated ocean heat content and integrated ocean salt content over the layers commonly used in these observational syntheses (which are related to the different technologies over time, e.g., XBT, Argo, etc.). Because they are for comparison to properties which are organized into layers delineated by hydrostatic pressure instruments and then connected to depth ranges, we specify them in pressure integrals rather than depth ranges (which also has implications for conversion from complex model vertical coordinate choices). Here are the specifications needed for the definite integration levels:
0-300m layer (0 to 30.3 bar)
300-700m layer (30.3 bar to 70.7 bar)
700-2000m layer (70.7 bar to 202.5 bar)
2000m to bottom (202.5 bar to the local maximum pressure at seafloor)
These integrated dimensions should have the following variables defined. The rationale for doing the integrals in advance is that modeling centers are using a variety of vertical coordinates which make these integrals hard to do or imprecise offline.
integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_potential_temperature_expressed_as_heat_content
(This variable is already defined, is ideal for using in non-TEOS-10 models and for comparison to traditional observations formulated in terms of potential temperature, with thetao=0C as the 0 kiloJoule reference temperature, in units of kilojoules m^-2 to aid with precision).
New variables:
integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_conservative_temperature_expressed_as_heat_content (for TEOS-10 models and comparison to observations utilizing TEOS-10, with bigthetao=0C as the 0 kiloJoule reference temperature, in units of kilojoules m^-2 to aid with precision)
integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_practical_salinity_expressed_as_salt_content. (for non-TEOS-10 models, in units of kg m^-2)
This variable is the equivalent to potential temperature heat content, but for column-integrated salt anomalies.
integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_preformed_salinity_expressed_as_salt_content (for TEOS-10 models, in units of kg m^-2)
This variable is the equivalent to conservative temperature heat content, but for column-integrated salt anomalies excluding the effects of biogeochemistry on salt. This may be relevant to observations using TEOS-10, but with conductivity conversion to salinity based on
integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_preformed_salinity_expressed_as_salt_content (for TEOS-10 models, in units of kg m^-2)
This variable is the equivalent to conservative temperature heat content, but for column-integrated salt anomalies including the effects of biogeochemistry on salt.
- Units
kilojoules m^-2 for the column integrated heat content variables, expressed gridpoint-by-gridpoint
kilograms m^-2 for the column integrated salt content variables, expressed gridpoint-by-gridpoint
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: