Insert of_radiative_flux in four volume...coefficient names

[JonathanGregory]

Proposer's name Jonathan Gregory, Date 12th October 2022

Dear all

I propose that the existing standard names

volume_absorption_coefficient_in_air_due_to_dried_aerosol_particles
volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_in_air_due_to_dried_aerosol_particles
volume_extinction_coefficient_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol_particles
volume_extinction_coefficient_in_air_due_to_cloud_particles

should be modified by inserting of_radiative_flux after coefficient, retaining the existing names as aliases. This would make them consistent with the eleven other standard names of volume absorption, attenuation and scattering coefficient or function that all include of_radiative_flux.

Best wishes

Jonathan

[feggleton]

I would tend to agree with this. The definition of volume absorption coefficient states:

The volume scattering/absorption/attenuation coefficient is the fractional change of radiative flux per unit path length due to the stated process.

They would therefore include the phrase: Radiative flux is the sum of shortwave and longwave radiative fluxes.

[feggleton]

@japamment if you could add these changes to the editor please and let me know your opinion I think we can get these changes into the next update.

[github-actions]

This issue has had no activity in the last 30 days. This is a reminder to please comment on standard name requests to assist with agreement and acceptance. Standard name moderators are also reminded to review @feggleton @japamment

[github-actions]

This issue has had no activity in the last 30 days. This is a reminder to please comment on standard name requests to assist with agreement and acceptance. Standard name moderators are also reminded to review @feggleton @japamment

[github-actions]

This issue has had no activity in the last 30 days. Accordingly:

• If you proposed this issue or have contributed to the
  discussion, please reply to any outstanding concerns.
• If there has been little or no discussion, please comment
  on this issue, to assist with reaching a decision.
• If the proposal seems to have come to a consensus, please
  wait for the moderators to take the next steps towards
  acceptance.

Standard name moderators are also reminded to review @feggleton @japamment

[taylor13]

I agree with the proposed edits. Hope this doesn't reset any clocks.

[efisher008]

Hi @JonathanGregory,

To get things moving I will mark these as 'accept within 7 days', as it looks that everything has been agreed, and I'll check with @japamment about creating renaming and creating the aliases for these names. Thanks again.

Best regards,
Ellie

[JonathanGregory]

Thanks, Ellie @efisher008

[efisher008]

Dear @JonathanGregory,

The changes have now been made and the amended names will be published in the next standard names table update. Thank you again!

Best,
Ellie

[efisher008]

Dear @JonathanGregory,

I have noticed that identical names for

1. volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_air_due_to_dried_aerosol_particles ("accepted" in CF editor)
2. volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_air_due_to_dried_aerosol_particles ("new" in CF editor)

are found in the proposal by @markusfiebig in issue #164 re. particle optical properties, as new suggested standard names. There also seems to be a separate, newer, proposed change to 1. with a very similar description (adding the definition for radiative flux). I propose that I remove the newest proposed term change, and modify the accepted term change to include the radiative flux phrase in its description. As it looks the older/original versions of 1. and 2. existed prior to Markus's proposal, they do not need to be included in the batch of new names introduced with this and those "under discussion" entries in the CF editor can be removed. In that way there is only one term in the CF editor with each name, and preserves the history of the standard name aliases from their original versions instead of being new standalone names with none of this information. Does this make sense?

The radiative flux description is the following: "Radiative flux is the sum of shortwave and longwave radiative fluxes."

Best regards,
Ellie

[efisher008]

I hope these screenshots illustrate better what I'm talking about for standard names 1. and 2. volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_air_due_to_dried_aerosol_particles has three separate entries and volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_air_due_to_dried_aerosol_particles has two separate entries from the sources I mentioned.

[JonathanGregory]

Thanks, Ellie @efisher008. I believe that Alison @japamment will advise us.

[efisher008]

Dear @JonathanGregory,

I have looked into this issue with @japamment and she agreed with the proposed actions - the radiative flux definition has therefore been absorbed into the description for the 'accepted' version of the name
(1.) volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_air_due_to_dried_aerosol_particles
and the 'new' version of this was removed from the CF editor. The 'new' version of the name
(2.) volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_air_due_to_dried_aerosol_particles
was marked as accepted. Meaning these two terms will appear in the next update (v84) of the standard names table.

The 'under discussion' versions of both names (proposed in a separate issue #164 by @markusfiebig) will therefore need to be removed from that ongoing proposal so as not to introduce duplicate names to the table, and this will be dealt with in that GitHub issue.

Also, just so that you know, the third and four names from your list (volume_extinction_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol_particles and volume_extinction_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_air_due_to_cloud_particles) were not marked as accepted at the same time as the first two, but they have been accepted now. This likely means that they will appear as being published in successive versions of the standard names table. Thank you for your patience here and let me know if there are further questions!

Best regards,
Ellie

[efisher008]

Closing this issue as the last two names in this proposal have been accepted in version 85 of the CF standard names table, published on 21 May 2024 (https://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/85/build/cf-standard-name-table.html).