[CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

[m***@yahoo.com]

Dear All,

I'd like to propose the following new standard name:

Name: mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_waterUnits: 1Description: Mass fraction is used in the construction mass_fraction_of_X_in_Y, where X is a material constituent of Y. It means the ratio of the mass of X to the mass of Y (including X). A chemical species denoted by X may be described by a single term such as 'nitrogen' or a phrase such as 'nox_expressed_as_nitrogen'. Petroleum is a mixture of different saturated hydrocarbons other organic chemicals. The name petroleum can refer to either crude oil or liquid products resulting from the refining of naturally occurring crude oil. Alternately, the name could be: mass_fraction_of_crude_oil_in_sea_waterThanks,
Mike

[Ute Brönner]

Hei from Norway,

I read this proposal with interest!

However I would like to recommend to not accept it because of the following reasons:

1. Spilled oil at sea undergoes immediate weathering processes like evaporation and emulsification together with biodegradation and dissolution. That means that the releases matter "petroleum" or "crude oil" will not be the same after very short time.

2. As mentioned in 1., a part of the oil will dissolve into the sea water and despite the fact that some models do not account for this, many others do. So one would need a standard name for the dissolved fraction, and one for the droplet part. If we consider live oil and mixed releases, we might want a standard name for the gas fraction as well (also dissolved and bubbles).

3. Oil on the sea surface will emulsify so we would need a name for the oil mass and for the emulsion mass here.

"mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water" will not be able to describe oil properly for many models. I would like to propose to use a standard name like "mass_fraction_of_contaminant_in_sea_water" for the simple purpose of tracking released oil or chemicals without weathering and that we need to come up with a list of standard names for the more complex cases .

Chris, I guess we have to revive our discussion on standard names for oil spill models once more. :-). Mike, maybe you could elaborate a bit more in which context you want to use your proposed standard name?

A nice summer to all of you!

With kind regards,
Ute

Ute Brönner
Research Scientist
SINTEF Materials & Chemistry
Environmental Technology, Monitoring and Modelling<http://www.sintef.no/EnvironmentalMonitoringModelling>
www.sintef.no/DREAM<http://www.sintef.no/DREAM>, www.sintef.no/ELMO<http://www.sintef.no/ELMO>
www.sintef.no/OSCAR<http://www.sintef.no/OSCAR>

Direct phone [phone]
Visiting: BrattÞrkaia 17C
Post: Postbox 4760 Sluppen, N-7465 Trondheim
P Consider the environment before printing. Less print-outs, more trees, better planet.

From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of ***@yahoo.com
Sent: 28 June 2016 18:42
To: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water


Dear All,



I'd like to propose the following new standard name:



Name: mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

Units: 1

Description: Mass fraction is used in the construction mass_fraction_of_X_in_Y, where X is a material constituent of Y. It means the ratio of the mass of X to the mass of Y (including X). A chemical species denoted by X may be described by a single term such as 'nitrogen' or a phrase such as 'nox_expressed_as_nitrogen'. Petroleum is a mixture of different saturated hydrocarbons other organic chemicals. The name petroleum can refer to either crude oil or liquid products resulting from the refining of naturally occurring crude oil.

Alternately, the name could be: mass_fraction_of_crude_oil_in_sea_water

Thanks,

Mike

[Lowry, Roy K.]

Dear Mike and Ute,

There is a parameter 'total petroleum hydrocarbons' (TPH) defined as 'A mixture comprising all substances comprising totally of carbon and hydrogen that may be extracted from a sample using an organic solvent. These are presumed sourced from crude oil.'. This is used by the water quality monitoring community as a measurement to describe the extent of contamination of sea water, biota and sediment and by crude oil.

My question to Mike is whether this is what he means by 'petroleum' and if so, would that be acceptable to Ute in a Standard Name?

If so, I also mention that in my experience of these measurements contamination of water samples is reported in units of micrograms per litre, i.e. mass concentration rather than mass fraction. Biota and sediment TPHs are reported as mass fractions. Could Mike confirm that his data are indeed mass fractions and not mass concentrations?

Cheers, Roy.

From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Ute Brönner
Sent: 29 June 2016 08:37
To: 'cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu'
Cc: CJ Beegle-Krause; '***@yahoo.com'; Tor Nordam; Petter RÞnningen; JÞrgen Skancke
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

Hei from Norway,

I read this proposal with interest!

However I would like to recommend to not accept it because of the following reasons:

1. Spilled oil at sea undergoes immediate weathering processes like evaporation and emulsification together with biodegradation and dissolution. That means that the releases matter "petroleum" or "crude oil" will not be the same after very short time.

2. As mentioned in 1., a part of the oil will dissolve into the sea water and despite the fact that some models do not account for this, many others do. So one would need a standard name for the dissolved fraction, and one for the droplet part. If we consider live oil and mixed releases, we might want a standard name for the gas fraction as well (also dissolved and bubbles).

3. Oil on the sea surface will emulsify so we would need a name for the oil mass and for the emulsion mass here.

"mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water" will not be able to describe oil properly for many models. I would like to propose to use a standard name like "mass_fraction_of_contaminant_in_sea_water" for the simple purpose of tracking released oil or chemicals without weathering and that we need to come up with a list of standard names for the more complex cases .

Chris, I guess we have to revive our discussion on standard names for oil spill models once more. :-). Mike, maybe you could elaborate a bit more in which context you want to use your proposed standard name?

A nice summer to all of you!

With kind regards,
Ute

Ute Brönner
Research Scientist
SINTEF Materials & Chemistry
Environmental Technology, Monitoring and Modelling<http://www.sintef.no/EnvironmentalMonitoringModelling>
www.sintef.no/DREAM<http://www.sintef.no/DREAM>, www.sintef.no/ELMO<http://www.sintef.no/ELMO>
www.sintef.no/OSCAR<http://www.sintef.no/OSCAR>

Direct phone [phone]
Visiting: BrattÞrkaia 17C
Post: Postbox 4760 Sluppen, N-7465 Trondheim
P Consider the environment before printing. Less print-outs, more trees, better planet.

From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of ***@yahoo.com<mailto:***@yahoo.com>
Sent: 28 June 2016 18:42
To: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water


Dear All,



I'd like to propose the following new standard name:



Name: mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

Units: 1

Description: Mass fraction is used in the construction mass_fraction_of_X_in_Y, where X is a material constituent of Y. It means the ratio of the mass of X to the mass of Y (including X). A chemical species denoted by X may be described by a single term such as 'nitrogen' or a phrase such as 'nox_expressed_as_nitrogen'. Petroleum is a mixture of different saturated hydrocarbons other organic chemicals. The name petroleum can refer to either crude oil or liquid products resulting from the refining of naturally occurring crude oil.

Alternately, the name could be: mass_fraction_of_crude_oil_in_sea_water

Thanks,

Mike

________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________

[m***@yahoo.com]

Dear Ute and Roy,
Thank you for your careful consideration and deliberation on my proposal.  I would be satisfied by replacing "petroleum" in my original suggestion with either Ute's suggestion of "contaminant" or Roy's suggestion of "total_petroleum_hydrocarbons", although I find the latter a little more specific, particularly if one were to envision a situation in which intentionally released dispersants were being tracked at the same time and also categorized as "contaminants".
As to the question of mass concentration vs. mass fraction, I am trying to represent the measurements of the SeaOWL UV-A sensor (http://wetlabs.com/SeaOWL), which appears to be calibrated in units of ppm -- and hence mass fraction seems appropriate.  The model that will assimilate these measurements is under active development, and may likely generate a mass concentration value.  So perhaps there ought to be both mass concentration AND mass fraction standard names.
Thank you,Mike Godin
#yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 -- _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Webdings;panose-1:5 3 1 2 1 5 9 6 7 3;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoNormal, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoNormal, #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 a:link, #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 a:visited, #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 pre {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate, #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle20 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle21 {color:windowtext;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381BalloonTextChar {}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle24 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 .yiv0904837381MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381WordSection1 {}#yiv0904837381

[Chris Barker]

Folks,

A few thoughts here:

As Ute made reference, some of us in the oil spill modeling community have
had previous discussions about netcdf standards for oil spills information
-- in that case, mostly model results, but there is a lot of overlap with
field measurements as well.

So I suggest that as a community we address the whole pile, rather than
adding a single new standard name.

I offer up this gitHub repo as a central point for discussion:

https://github.com/NOAA-ORR-ERD/nc_particles

or we could make a new one for standard names if we like.

In the meantime:


I would like to propose to use a standard name like
> "mass_fraction_of_contaminant_in_sea_water"
>

This is a fine idea -- to have _something_ that covers a lot of use cases
in the meantime. exactly what the contaminant is, and how it was measured
can be in the long name or other meta-data.

Roy wrote:

> There is a parameter 'total petroleum hydrocarbons' (TPH) defined as 'A
> mixture comprising all substances comprising totally of carbon and hydrogen
> that may be extracted from a sample using an organic solvent. These are
> presumed sourced from crude oil.'.


having one for TPH is a fine idea as well -- this is a very commonly used
convention. The "presumed sourced from cure oil" is a bit odd, but I
suppose, correct, if "sourced" in interpreted broadly :-)

I also mention that in my experience of these measurements contamination of
> water samples is reported in units of micrograms per litre, i.e. mass
> concentration rather than mass fraction.


yeah, this is a convention that has always bugged me -- as far as I can
tell, everyone considers the two equivalent -- i.e. one milligram per liter
IS one part per million, and they are used interchangeably. I personally
call this "concentration in water", and assume 1kg/liter for the water) --
I don't know that there is a way to express that equivalence in CF or
udunits, so I would suggest that the "official" unit be mass fraction --
it's more precise and clearly defined.

>
> I agree that petroleum_hydrocarbons is more specific and therefore
> preferable.
> Is it possible to omit "total", or does it have a specific meaning too and
> therefore convey some extra information?


I've always seen "total" in there, usually to distinguish from more
specific measurements that capture particular classes of compounds, like
PAHs. As "TPH" is in really common use, I suggest we keep it.

https://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/tph.html

Having read through the SeaOWL specification provided by Mike's link, I see
> it is something totally new making a combination of fluorescence and
> backscatter measurements at different wavelengths and using the results
> in a calibration algorithm to produce measurements of an analyte that
> WETLabs/SeaBird describe as 'crude oil'. This is NOT the same thing as TPH
> (a wet chemical measurement), although in most environments the two will
> be linearly correlated. I therefore now think that it would be best to
> use the terminology of the instrument manufacturer: i.e. 'crude_oil'.


The use of fluorescence to measure oil in water is fraught with difficulty,
and lacking in precision -- it looks like WETLabs has done an admirable job
(speaking only from their literature, and a VERY limited understanding of
the science) of developing a tool for that purpose (rather than simply
using a CDOM tool and expecting it to work), but I seriously doubt that
they can distinguish between "crude oil" and petroleum-derived hydrocarbons
in general. And I doubt they'd even want to.

For instance, if a refined product is spilled, that is not crude oil, but
it is PH, and I'm sure their instrument would measure it.

Also, as Ute pointed out, once released into the environment, crude oil
weathers and changes, so it's no longer "crude" strictly speaking.

I suspect the term "crude oil" is being used for marketing, and "TPH" is
what they are really trying to measure. I'm sure what they are really
trying to do is make the point that their instrument measures hydrocarbons
(maybe petroleum derived, rather than other sources of fluorescence.

I can run this by folks in our group that understand all this better than
I, if there is still uncertainty









--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception

***@noaa.gov

[Lowry, Roy K.]

Hi Chris,


I applaud your proposed holistic approach that will cover both modelling and measurement of crude oil contamination. This will obviously take time and so you're proposing a generic Name with the contaminant specified in the long name as a stop-gap. This causes me some concern from an interoperability perspective because it could easily leak out of the oil contamination community into pesticides, metals and so on and there is so much potential for synonyms and even misspellings with plain language descriptions of these. Others in CF may also have views on establishing this as a precedent.


Personally, I would prefer an approach of having a Name specifically targetted at the SeaOWL measurements with the possibility of later replacement through deprecation if it doesn't fit your holistic solution. However, if others share your view and thee are no other dissenters then I wouldn't block your suggestion.


Cheers, Roy.



Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to ***@bodc.ac.uk. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent.


________________________________
From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov>
Sent: 30 June 2016 19:57
To: Ute Brönner
Cc: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu; CJ Beegle-Krause; ***@yahoo.com; Tor Nordam; Petter Rønningen; Jørgen Skancke
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

Folks,

A few thoughts here:

As Ute made reference, some of us in the oil spill modeling community have had previous discussions about netcdf standards for oil spills information -- in that case, mostly model results, but there is a lot of overlap with field measurements as well.

So I suggest that as a community we address the whole pile, rather than adding a single new standard name.

I offer up this gitHub repo as a central point for discussion:

https://github.com/NOAA-ORR-ERD/nc_particles
[https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/4809476?v=3&s=400]<https://github.com/NOAA-ORR-ERD/nc_particles>

GitHub - NOAA-ORR-ERD/nc_particles: Project for ...<https://github.com/NOAA-ORR-ERD/nc_particles>
github.com
nc_particles - Project for Documentationand Examples of a standard for a netcdf format for Particle Tracking Model results




or we could make a new one for standard names if we like.

In the meantime:


I would like to propose to use a standard name like "mass_fraction_of_contaminant_in_sea_water"

This is a fine idea -- to have _something_ that covers a lot of use cases in the meantime. exactly what the contaminant is, and how it was measured can be in the long name or other meta-data.

Roy wrote:
There is a parameter 'total petroleum hydrocarbons' (TPH) defined as 'A mixture comprising all substances comprising totally of carbon and hydrogen that may be extracted from a sample using an organic solvent. These are presumed sourced from crude oil.'.

having one for TPH is a fine idea as well -- this is a very commonly used convention. The "presumed sourced from cure oil" is a bit odd, but I suppose, correct, if "sourced" in interpreted broadly :-)

I also mention that in my experience of these measurements contamination of water samples is reported in units of micrograms per litre, i.e. mass concentration rather than mass fraction.

yeah, this is a convention that has always bugged me -- as far as I can tell, everyone considers the two equivalent -- i.e. one milligram per liter IS one part per million, and they are used interchangeably. I personally call this "concentration in water", and assume 1kg/liter for the water) -- I don't know that there is a way to express that equivalence in CF or udunits, so I would suggest that the "official" unit be mass fraction -- it's more precise and clearly defined.

I agree that petroleum_hydrocarbons is more specific and therefore preferable.
Is it possible to omit "total", or does it have a specific meaning too and
therefore convey some extra information?

I've always seen "total" in there, usually to distinguish from more specific measurements that capture particular classes of compounds, like PAHs. As "TPH" is in really common use, I suggest we keep it.

https://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/tph.html

Having read through the SeaOWL specification provided by Mike's link, I see it is something totally new making a combination of fluorescence and backscatter measurements at different wavelengths and using the results in a calibration algorithm to produce measurements of an analyte that WETLabs/SeaBird describe as 'crude oil'. This is NOT the same thing as TPH (a wet chemical measurement), although in most environments the two will be linearly correlated. I therefore now think that it would be best to use the terminology of the instrument manufacturer: i.e. 'crude_oil'.

The use of fluorescence to measure oil in water is fraught with difficulty, and lacking in precision -- it looks like WETLabs has done an admirable job (speaking only from their literature, and a VERY limited understanding of the science) of developing a tool for that purpose (rather than simply using a CDOM tool and expecting it to work), but I seriously doubt that they can distinguish between "crude oil" and petroleum-derived hydrocarbons in general. And I doubt they'd even want to.

For instance, if a refined product is spilled, that is not crude oil, but it is PH, and I'm sure their instrument would measure it.

Also, as Ute pointed out, once released into the environment, crude oil weathers and changes, so it's no longer "crude" strictly speaking.

I suspect the term "crude oil" is being used for marketing, and "TPH" is what they are really trying to measure. I'm sure what they are really trying to do is make the point that their instrument measures hydrocarbons (maybe petroleum derived, rather than other sources of fluorescence.

I can run this by folks in our group that understand all this better than I, if there is still uncertainty









--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception

***@noaa.gov<mailto:***@noaa.gov>
________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________

[Chris Barker]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Lowry, Roy K. <***@bodc.ac.uk> wrote:

> This will obviously take time
>
indeed it will!


> and so you're proposing a generic Name with the contaminant specified in
> the long name as a stop-gap. This causes me some concern from an
> interoperability perspective because it could easily leak out of the oil
> contamination community into pesticides, metals and so on
>

someone else had suggested "contaminant" -- but I liked the idea precisely
because it could be used for any number of contaminants -- nice and
generic, and usable without need to create a new standard name for
everything one might conceivably measure or model. For instance, I work in
the "Hazmat" spill biz -- we may be modeling who knows what in the future
-- we certainly can't go through a standard name convention process each
time someone goes and spills something new.

But perhaps a petroleum specific one would be good instead (Or in
addition?).

> and there is so much potential for synonyms and even misspellings with
> plain language descriptions of these. Others in CF may also have views on
> establishing this as a precedent.
>
I'm happy with whatever the CF community thinks is best.

> Personally, I would prefer an approach of having a Name specifically
> targeted at the SeaOWL measurements
>
What is the president there? Do we have any standard name specific to a
particular instrument? that sure seems like something for the other
metadata to me...

But if we did do that we should talk to someone at the company and see what
they say it measures -- rather than use a term from the marketing
materials...

> with the possibility of later replacement through deprecation if it
> doesn't fit your holistic solution.
>
let's try to avoid that.

I like some spelling of TPH -- it's a commonly used, and would be still
useful once we have a more complete solution for oil spill modeling
results.



--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception

***@noaa.gov

[Jonathan Gregory]

Dear Mike

I agree that petroleum_hydrocarbons is more specific and therefore preferable.
Is it possible to omit "total", or does it have a specific meaning too and
therefore convey some extra information? It would be good to be explicit if
that is the case.

Best wishes

Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from ***@yahoo.com -----

> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:57:35 +0000
> From: ***@yahoo.com
> To: "Lowry, Roy K." <***@bodc.ac.uk>, Ute Brönner <***@sintef.no>,
> "'cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu'" <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> CC: Petter Rønningen <***@sintef.no>, Jørgen Skancke
> <***@sintef.no>, Tor Nordam <***@sintef.no>, CJ
> Beegle-Krause <CJ.Beegle-***@sintef.no>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> Dear Ute and Roy,
> Thank you for your careful consideration and deliberation on my proposal.  I would be satisfied by replacing "petroleum" in my original suggestion with either Ute's suggestion of "contaminant" or Roy's suggestion of "total_petroleum_hydrocarbons", although I find the latter a little more specific, particularly if one were to envision a situation in which intentionally released dispersants were being tracked at the same time and also categorized as "contaminants".
> As to the question of mass concentration vs. mass fraction, I am trying to represent the measurements of the SeaOWL UV-A sensor (http://wetlabs.com/SeaOWL), which appears to be calibrated in units of ppm -- and hence mass fraction seems appropriate.  The model that will assimilate these measurements is under active development, and may likely generate a mass concentration value.  So perhaps there ought to be both mass concentration AND mass fraction standard names.
> Thank you,Mike Godin
> #yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 -- _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Webdings;panose-1:5 3 1 2 1 5 9 6 7 3;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoNormal, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoNormal, #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 a:link, #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 a:visited, #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 pre {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate, #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle20 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle21 {color:windowtext;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381BalloonTextChar {}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle24 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 .yiv0904837381MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381WordSection1 {}#yiv0904837381

> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata


----- End forwarded message -----

[Lowry, Roy K.]

Dear All,


Having read through the SeaOWL specification provided by Mike's link, I see it is something totally new making a combination of fluorescence and backscatter measurements at different wavelengths and using the results in a calibration algorithm to produce measurements of an analyte that WETLabs/SeaBird describe as 'crude oil'. This is NOT the same thing as TPH (a wet chemical measurement), although in most environments the two will be linearly correlated. I therefore now think that it would be best to use the terminology of the instrument manufacturer: i.e. 'crude_oil'.


The mass fraction/mass concentration issue is an interesting one. This difference has received much attention in the oceanographic research community with very precise conversions between mass concentrations to mass fractions depending upon variations in temperature, pressure and salinity. However, I strongly suspect that the 'ppb' units of the new instrument have an assumption of pure water density somewhere in the calibration algorithm and take no account of salt water density variations. In other words 'ppb' means BOTH unit mass per unit mass and unit mass per unit volume.


Having given this some thought, I think Mike's original mass fraction is probably the better choice as without further information we can only assume that 'ppb' is dimensionless. So, this gives us:


mass_fraction_of_crude_oil_in_sea_water


Is this agreeable to all? If so, all we need is some work on the definition to add what is meant by 'crude_oil' to what Mike has already provided which just defines 'mass fraction'.


Cheers, Roy.


Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to ***@bodc.ac.uk. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent.


________________________________
From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>
Sent: 30 June 2016 17:06
To: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

Dear Mike

I agree that petroleum_hydrocarbons is more specific and therefore preferable.
Is it possible to omit "total", or does it have a specific meaning too and
therefore convey some extra information? It would be good to be explicit if
that is the case.

Best wishes

Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from ***@yahoo.com -----

> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:57:35 +0000
> From: ***@yahoo.com
> To: "Lowry, Roy K." <***@bodc.ac.uk>, Ute Brönner <***@sintef.no>,
> "'cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu'" <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> CC: Petter Rønningen <***@sintef.no>, Jørgen Skancke
> <***@sintef.no>, Tor Nordam <***@sintef.no>, CJ
> Beegle-Krause <CJ.Beegle-***@sintef.no>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> Dear Ute and Roy,
> Thank you for your careful consideration and deliberation on my proposal. I would be satisfied by replacing "petroleum" in my original suggestion with either Ute's suggestion of "contaminant" or Roy's suggestion of "total_petroleum_hydrocarbons", although I find the latter a little more specific, particularly if one were to envision a situation in which intentionally released dispersants were being tracked at the same time and also categorized as "contaminants".
> As to the question of mass concentration vs. mass fraction, I am trying to represent the measurements of the SeaOWL UV-A sensor (http://wetlabs.com/SeaOWL), which appears to be calibrated in units of ppm -- and hence mass fraction seems appropriate. The model that will assimilate these measurements is under active development, and may likely generate a mass concentration value. So perhaps there ought to be both mass concentration AND mass fraction standard names.
[http://wetlabs.com/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/product_images/seawolf_web.jpg?itok=_23M0RAq]<http://wetlabs.com/SeaOWL>

SeaOWL UV-A(tm) (Sea Oil-in-Water(tm) Locator) | WET Labs<http://wetlabs.com/SeaOWL>
wetlabs.com
Sea-Bird Scientific introduces SeaOWL UV-ATM, a new in-situ oil-in-water sensor. Based-upon the highly successful WET Labs ECO sensor, Sea-Bird Scientific has ...



> Thank you,Mike Godin
> #yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 -- _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Webdings;panose-1:5 3 1 2 1 5 9 6 7 3;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoNormal, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoNormal, #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 a:link, #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 a:visited, #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 pre {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate, #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle20 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle21 {color:windowtext;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381BalloonTextChar {}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle24 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 .yiv0904837381MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381WordSection1 {}#yiv0904837381

> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata


----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________

[Steve Emmerson]

"Mass fraction" is a well-defined term and, yes, "ppb" isn't in the sense
that it doesn't specify what a "part" is.

For names of these types of quantities, I highly recommend section 8.6.2 of
<http://www.nist.gov/pml/pubs/sp811/sec08.cfm>.

Regards,
Steve Emmerson

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Lowry, Roy K. <***@bodc.ac.uk> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
> Having read through the SeaOWL specification provided by Mike's link, I
> see it is something totally new making a combination of fluorescence and
> backscatter measurements at different wavelengths and using the results
> in a calibration algorithm to produce measurements of an analyte that
> WETLabs/SeaBird describe as 'crude oil'. This is NOT the same thing as TPH
> (a wet chemical measurement), although in most environments the two will
> be linearly correlated. I therefore now think that it would be best to
> use the terminology of the instrument manufacturer: i.e. 'crude_oil'.
>
>
> The mass fraction/mass concentration issue is an interesting one. This
> difference has received much attention in the oceanographic research
> community with very precise conversions between mass concentrations to mass
> fractions depending upon variations in temperature, pressure and salinity.
> However, I strongly suspect that the 'ppb' units of the new instrument have
> an assumption of pure water density somewhere in the calibration algorithm
> and take no account of salt water density variations. In other words 'ppb'
> means BOTH unit mass per unit mass and unit mass per unit volume.
>
>
> Having given this some thought, I think Mike's original mass fraction is
> probably the better choice as without further information we can only
> assume that 'ppb' is dimensionless. So, this gives us:
>
>
> mass_fraction_of_crude_oil_in_sea_water
>
>
> Is this agreeable to all? If so, all we need is some work on the
> definition to add what is meant by 'crude_oil' to what Mike has already
> provided which just defines 'mass fraction'.
>
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
>
> Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working
> 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my
> day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to
> ***@bodc.ac.uk. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is
> urgent.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* CF-metadata <cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of
> Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* 30 June 2016 17:06
> *To:* cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> Dear Mike
>
> I agree that petroleum_hydrocarbons is more specific and therefore
> preferable.
> Is it possible to omit "total", or does it have a specific meaning too and
> therefore convey some extra information? It would be good to be explicit if
> that is the case.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from ***@yahoo.com -----
>
> > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:57:35 +0000
> > From: ***@yahoo.com
> > To: "Lowry, Roy K." <***@bodc.ac.uk>, Ute Brönner <
> ***@sintef.no>,
> > "'cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu'" <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> > CC: Petter RÞnningen <***@sintef.no>, JÞrgen Skancke
> > <***@sintef.no>, Tor Nordam <***@sintef.no>, CJ
> > Beegle-Krause <CJ.Beegle-***@sintef.no>
> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
> >
> > Dear Ute and Roy,
> > Thank you for your careful consideration and deliberation on my
> proposal. I would be satisfied by replacing "petroleum" in my original
> suggestion with either Ute's suggestion of "contaminant" or Roy's
> suggestion of "total_petroleum_hydrocarbons", although I find the latter a
> little more specific, particularly if one were to envision a situation in
> which intentionally released dispersants were being tracked at the same
> time and also categorized as "contaminants".
> > As to the question of mass concentration vs. mass fraction, I am trying
> to represent the measurements of the SeaOWL UV-A sensor (
> http://wetlabs.com/SeaOWL), which appears to be calibrated in units of
> ppm -- and hence mass fraction seems appropriate. The model that will
> assimilate these measurements is under active development, and may likely
> generate a mass concentration value. So perhaps there ought to be
> both mass concentration AND mass fraction standard names.
> <http://wetlabs.com/SeaOWL>
> SeaOWL UV-A™ (Sea Oil-in-Water™ Locator) | WET Labs
> <http://wetlabs.com/SeaOWL>
> wetlabs.com
> Sea-Bird Scientific introduces SeaOWL UV-ATM, a new in-situ oil-in-water
> sensor. Based-upon the highly successful WET Labs ECO sensor, Sea-Bird
> Scientific has ...
>
>
> > Thank you,Mike Godin
> > #yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 -- _filtered #yiv0904837381
> {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered
> #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
> _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2
> 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3
> 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4
> 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered
> #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv0904837381
> {font-family:Webdings;panose-1:5 3 1 2 1 5 9 6 7 3;} _filtered
> #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2
> 4;}#yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoNormal, #yiv0904837381
> li.yiv0904837381MsoNormal, #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoNormal
> {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381 a:link,
> #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlink
> {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 a:visited,
> #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 pre
> {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv0904837381
> p.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate,
> #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate
> {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv0904837381
> p.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381
> li.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381
> div.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph
> {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381
> span.yiv0904837381HTMLPreformattedChar
> {font-family:Consolas;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle20
> {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle21
> {color:windowtext;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381BalloonTextChar
> {}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle24
> {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 .yiv0904837381MsoChpDefault
> {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt
> 70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381WordSection1
> {}#yiv0904837381
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> ------------------------------
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this
> email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt
> from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in
> an electronic records management system.
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>

[Ute Brönner]

The term total is often used to distinguish between the form of the mas fraction, i.e. total including dissolved and droplets, while the others refer to the respective fraction of dissolved or droplets.

With kind regards / med vennlig hilsen,
Ute

Ute Brönner
Research Scientist

Direct phone [phone]
  Consider the environment before printing. Less print-outs, more trees, better planet.

-----Original Message-----
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 30 June 2016 18:06
To: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

Dear Mike

I agree that petroleum_hydrocarbons is more specific and therefore preferable.
Is it possible to omit "total", or does it have a specific meaning too and therefore convey some extra information? It would be good to be explicit if that is the case.

Best wishes

Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from ***@yahoo.com -----

> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:57:35 +0000
> From: ***@yahoo.com
> To: "Lowry, Roy K." <***@bodc.ac.uk>, Ute Brönner <***@sintef.no>,
> "'cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu'" <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> CC: Petter Rønningen <***@sintef.no>, Jørgen Skancke
> <***@sintef.no>, Tor Nordam <***@sintef.no>, CJ
> Beegle-Krause <CJ.Beegle-***@sintef.no>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> Dear Ute and Roy,
> Thank you for your careful consideration and deliberation on my proposal.  I would be satisfied by replacing "petroleum" in my original suggestion with either Ute's suggestion of "contaminant" or Roy's suggestion of "total_petroleum_hydrocarbons", although I find the latter a little more specific, particularly if one were to envision a situation in which intentionally released dispersants were being tracked at the same time and also categorized as "contaminants".
> As to the question of mass concentration vs. mass fraction, I am trying to represent the measurements of the SeaOWL UV-A sensor (http://wetlabs.com/SeaOWL), which appears to be calibrated in units of ppm -- and hence mass fraction seems appropriate.  The model that will assimilate these measurements is under active development, and may likely generate a mass concentration value.  So perhaps there ought to be both mass concentration AND mass fraction standard names.
> Thank you,Mike Godin
> #yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 -- _filtered #yiv0904837381
> {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered
> #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
> _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3
> 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2
> 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2
> 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4
> 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
> _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Webdings;panose-1:5 3 1 2 1 5 9
> 6 7 3;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6
> 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoNormal,
> #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoNormal, #yiv0904837381
> div.yiv0904837381MsoNormal
> {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381
> a:link, #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlink
> {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 a:visited,
> #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 pre
> {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv0904837381
> p.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate,
> #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate
> {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv0904837381
> p.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381
> li.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381
> div.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph
> {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;
> margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381
> span.yiv0904837381HTMLPreformattedChar
> {font-family:Consolas;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle20
> {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle21
> {color:windowtext;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381BalloonTextChar
> {}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle24
> {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 .yiv0904837381MsoChpDefault
> {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt
> 70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381WordSection1
> {}#yiv0904837381

> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata


----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

[Jonathan Gregory]

Dear Ute

Thanks - I understand. In choosing CF standard names we generally assume that
the intention is to be comprehensive by default, and we add more words in order
to be specific, for example atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_cloud means
all kinds of cloud, and atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_convective_cloud
is more restrictive. Omitting "total" in your name would be consistent with
this pattern, in order to mean all phases.

Best wishes

Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from Ute Brönner <***@sintef.no> -----

> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 14:44:37 +0000
> From: Ute Brönner <***@sintef.no>
> To: 'Jonathan Gregory' <***@reading.ac.uk>,
> "'cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu'" <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> The term total is often used to distinguish between the form of the mas fraction, i.e. total including dissolved and droplets, while the others refer to the respective fraction of dissolved or droplets.
>
> With kind regards / med vennlig hilsen,
> Ute
>
> Ute Brönner
> Research Scientist
>
> Direct phone [phone]
>   Consider the environment before printing. Less print-outs, more trees, better planet.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: 30 June 2016 18:06
> To: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> Dear Mike
>
> I agree that petroleum_hydrocarbons is more specific and therefore preferable.
> Is it possible to omit "total", or does it have a specific meaning too and therefore convey some extra information? It would be good to be explicit if that is the case.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from ***@yahoo.com -----
>
> > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:57:35 +0000
> > From: ***@yahoo.com
> > To: "Lowry, Roy K." <***@bodc.ac.uk>, Ute Brönner <***@sintef.no>,
> > "'cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu'" <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> > CC: Petter Rønningen <***@sintef.no>, Jørgen Skancke
> > <***@sintef.no>, Tor Nordam <***@sintef.no>, CJ
> > Beegle-Krause <CJ.Beegle-***@sintef.no>
> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
> >
> > Dear Ute and Roy,
> > Thank you for your careful consideration and deliberation on my proposal.  I would be satisfied by replacing "petroleum" in my original suggestion with either Ute's suggestion of "contaminant" or Roy's suggestion of "total_petroleum_hydrocarbons", although I find the latter a little more specific, particularly if one were to envision a situation in which intentionally released dispersants were being tracked at the same time and also categorized as "contaminants".
> > As to the question of mass concentration vs. mass fraction, I am trying to represent the measurements of the SeaOWL UV-A sensor (http://wetlabs.com/SeaOWL), which appears to be calibrated in units of ppm -- and hence mass fraction seems appropriate.  The model that will assimilate these measurements is under active development, and may likely generate a mass concentration value.  So perhaps there ought to be both mass concentration AND mass fraction standard names.
> > Thank you,Mike Godin
> > #yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 -- _filtered #yiv0904837381
> > {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered
> > #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
> > _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3
> > 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2
> > 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2
> > 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4
> > 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {panose-1:2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
> > _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Webdings;panose-1:5 3 1 2 1 5 9
> > 6 7 3;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6
> > 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0904837381 #yiv0904837381 p.yiv0904837381MsoNormal,
> > #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoNormal, #yiv0904837381
> > div.yiv0904837381MsoNormal
> > {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381
> > a:link, #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlink
> > {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 a:visited,
> > #yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> > {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0904837381 pre
> > {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv0904837381
> > p.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate, #yiv0904837381 li.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate,
> > #yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381MsoAcetate
> > {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv0904837381
> > p.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381
> > li.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph, #yiv0904837381
> > div.yiv0904837381MsoListParagraph
> > {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;
> > margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0904837381
> > span.yiv0904837381HTMLPreformattedChar
> > {font-family:Consolas;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle20
> > {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle21
> > {color:windowtext;}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381BalloonTextChar
> > {}#yiv0904837381 span.yiv0904837381EmailStyle24
> > {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0904837381 .yiv0904837381MsoChpDefault
> > {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv0904837381 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt
> > 70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv0904837381 div.yiv0904837381WordSection1
> > {}#yiv0904837381
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

----- End forwarded message -----

[Chris Barker]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Thanks - I understand. In choosing CF standard names we generally assume
> that
> the intention is to be comprehensive by default, and we add more words in
> order
> to be specific, for example atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_cloud means
> all kinds of cloud, and
> atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_convective_cloud
> is more restrictive. Omitting "total" in your name would be consistent with
> this pattern, in order to mean all phases.
>

Indeed -- however, the "total" in "total petroleum hydrocarbons" is very
much part of the name in common usage. And I think the "total" refers both
to phase: droplets vs dissolved, and also to the multiple compounds and
classes of compound, like in contrast, with, say" Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon" (PAH). So I say we keep the "total" in the name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_petroleum_hydrocarbon

If someone is concerned about what the instrument measures, I'd ask someone
technical at the company of TPH captures it for them.

(after all, what the instrument REALLY measures is Fluorescence...)


-CHB

>
> --

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception

***@noaa.gov

[Lowry, Roy K.]

Thanks Chris,


Totally agree - I was planning to say exactly this in a posting later today.


Actually the SeaOWL measures both fluorescence and backscatter, but that's nit-picking. Chlorophyll fluorometers have Standard Names pertaining to chlorophyll concentration - it's the geophysical phenomenon resulting post-calibration that counts. In the case of the SeaOWL this is described in the instrument specification as 'crude oil'.


Note that I wasn't suggesting ONLY fulfilling the SeaOWL use case, just getting something in place quickly that covers it. Covering other use cases - without going too generic - is all to the good in my view.


So, I'm still rooting for 'mass_fraction_of_crude_oil_in_sea_water' or 'mass_concentration_of_crude_oil_in_sea_water'.


Cheers, Roy.


Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to ***@bodc.ac.uk. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent.


________________________________
From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov>
Sent: 05 July 2016 22:09
To: Jonathan Gregory
Cc: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk<mailto:***@reading.ac.uk>> wrote:
Thanks - I understand. In choosing CF standard names we generally assume that
the intention is to be comprehensive by default, and we add more words in order
to be specific, for example atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_cloud means
all kinds of cloud, and atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_convective_cloud
is more restrictive. Omitting "total" in your name would be consistent with
this pattern, in order to mean all phases.

Indeed -- however, the "total" in "total petroleum hydrocarbons" is very much part of the name in common usage. And I think the "total" refers both to phase: droplets vs dissolved, and also to the multiple compounds and classes of compound, like in contrast, with, say" Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon" (PAH). So I say we keep the "total" in the name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_petroleum_hydrocarbon

If someone is concerned about what the instrument measures, I'd ask someone technical at the company of TPH captures it for them.

(after all, what the instrument REALLY measures is Fluorescence...)


-CHB

--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception

***@noaa.gov<mailto:***@noaa.gov>
________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________

[Chris Barker]

Sorry, I've off the list for a bit.

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Lowry, Roy K. <***@bodc.ac.uk> wrote:

> Actually the SeaOWL measures both fluorescence and backscatter, but that's
> nit-picking. Chlorophyll fluorometers have Standard Names pertaining to
> chlorophyll concentration - it's the geophysical phenomenon resulting
> post-calibration that counts. In the case of the SeaOWL this is described
> in the instrument specification as 'crude oil'.
>
whatever the SeaOWL spec of marketing material say, it's a fantasy that it
can make the distinction between "crude oil" and other petroleum products.
Not to mention that "crude oil" can vary SO much that it's pretty much a
meaningless term in this context.

> So, I'm still rooting for 'mass_fraction_of_crude_oil_in_sea_water' or
> 'mass_concentration_of_crude_oil_in_sea_water'.
>
again "crude oil" is a bad idea ;-)

It seem from another thread that we are converging on:

mass_concentration_of_petroleum_hydrocarbons_in_sea_water

which is fine with me -- it seems the "total" isn't consistent with other
CF usage, so fine with omitting it.


-CHB


--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception

***@noaa.gov

[Jonathan Gregory]

Dear Chris

I'm aware that I've caused frustration before by insisting on this point, but
believe me, my aim is not to be annoying! We do actually have "total" in two
standard names, where it was a technical term which seemed essential for
clarification and which could not easily be explained in simpler terms. That
is, in those two names:
atmosphere_stability_total_totals_index
sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale
"total" doesn't mean an aggregation, but something rather specific. In other
cases, we assume that "total" is intended if there isn't a qualification. CF
standard names follow commonly used terms when those are systematic and self-
explanatory or there is no alternative, but they aren't necessarily the same
as common terms. I think in many cases the CF standard name is an answer to
the question "What does that mean?" rather than to "What do you call that?",
because this is useful in the interdisciplinary context of CF.

Therefore I still feel that total should be omitted from the standard name.
In the definition we could say that this is often/usually called "total" and
certainly we would explain it refers to all phases and compounds together.
It would be useful to hear other opinions on this.

Thanks for your patience. Best wishes

Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov> -----

> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:09:59 -0700
> From: Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov>
> To: Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>
> CC: "cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks - I understand. In choosing CF standard names we generally assume
> > that
> > the intention is to be comprehensive by default, and we add more words in
> > order
> > to be specific, for example atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_cloud means
> > all kinds of cloud, and
> > atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_convective_cloud
> > is more restrictive. Omitting "total" in your name would be consistent with
> > this pattern, in order to mean all phases.
> >
>
> Indeed -- however, the "total" in "total petroleum hydrocarbons" is very
> much part of the name in common usage. And I think the "total" refers both
> to phase: droplets vs dissolved, and also to the multiple compounds and
> classes of compound, like in contrast, with, say" Polycyclic aromatic
> hydrocarbon" (PAH). So I say we keep the "total" in the name.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_petroleum_hydrocarbon
>
> If someone is concerned about what the instrument measures, I'd ask someone
> technical at the company of TPH captures it for them.
>
> (after all, what the instrument REALLY measures is Fluorescence...)
>
>
> -CHB
>
> >
> > --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
> Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception
>
> ***@noaa.gov

----- End forwarded message -----

[Lowry, Roy K.]

Dear Jonathan,

I think we've lost the thread a little here. I initially suggested TPH until I realised the nature of Mike's measurements. Once I did I withdrew the suggestion. Therefore the 'total' or 'no total' debate is possibly a red herring.

Cheers, Roy.

-----Original Message-----
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 06 July 2016 09:39
To: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

Dear Chris

I'm aware that I've caused frustration before by insisting on this point, but believe me, my aim is not to be annoying! We do actually have "total" in two standard names, where it was a technical term which seemed essential for clarification and which could not easily be explained in simpler terms. That is, in those two names:
atmosphere_stability_total_totals_index
sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale
"total" doesn't mean an aggregation, but something rather specific. In other cases, we assume that "total" is intended if there isn't a qualification. CF standard names follow commonly used terms when those are systematic and self- explanatory or there is no alternative, but they aren't necessarily the same as common terms. I think in many cases the CF standard name is an answer to the question "What does that mean?" rather than to "What do you call that?", because this is useful in the interdisciplinary context of CF.

Therefore I still feel that total should be omitted from the standard name.
In the definition we could say that this is often/usually called "total" and certainly we would explain it refers to all phases and compounds together.
It would be useful to hear other opinions on this.

Thanks for your patience. Best wishes

Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov> -----

> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:09:59 -0700
> From: Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov>
> To: Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>
> CC: "cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Gregory
> <***@reading.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks - I understand. In choosing CF standard names we generally
> > assume that the intention is to be comprehensive by default, and we
> > add more words in order to be specific, for example
> > atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_cloud means all kinds of cloud,
> > and atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_convective_cloud
> > is more restrictive. Omitting "total" in your name would be
> > consistent with this pattern, in order to mean all phases.
> >
>
> Indeed -- however, the "total" in "total petroleum hydrocarbons" is very
> much part of the name in common usage. And I think the "total" refers both
> to phase: droplets vs dissolved, and also to the multiple compounds and
> classes of compound, like in contrast, with, say" Polycyclic aromatic
> hydrocarbon" (PAH). So I say we keep the "total" in the name.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_petroleum_hydrocarbon
>
> If someone is concerned about what the instrument measures, I'd ask someone
> technical at the company of TPH captures it for them.
>
> (after all, what the instrument REALLY measures is Fluorescence...)
>
>
> -CHB
>
> >
> > --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
> Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception
>
> ***@noaa.gov

----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________

[Jonathan Gregory]

OK, thanks. Sorry for not keeping up. Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K." <***@bodc.ac.uk> -----

> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:19:56 +0000
> From: "Lowry, Roy K." <***@bodc.ac.uk>
> To: Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>, "cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu"
> <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> I think we've lost the thread a little here. I initially suggested TPH until I realised the nature of Mike's measurements. Once I did I withdrew the suggestion. Therefore the 'total' or 'no total' debate is possibly a red herring.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: 06 July 2016 09:39
> To: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> Dear Chris
>
> I'm aware that I've caused frustration before by insisting on this point, but believe me, my aim is not to be annoying! We do actually have "total" in two standard names, where it was a technical term which seemed essential for clarification and which could not easily be explained in simpler terms. That is, in those two names:
> atmosphere_stability_total_totals_index
> sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale
> "total" doesn't mean an aggregation, but something rather specific. In other cases, we assume that "total" is intended if there isn't a qualification. CF standard names follow commonly used terms when those are systematic and self- explanatory or there is no alternative, but they aren't necessarily the same as common terms. I think in many cases the CF standard name is an answer to the question "What does that mean?" rather than to "What do you call that?", because this is useful in the interdisciplinary context of CF.
>
> Therefore I still feel that total should be omitted from the standard name.
> In the definition we could say that this is often/usually called "total" and certainly we would explain it refers to all phases and compounds together.
> It would be useful to hear other opinions on this.
>
> Thanks for your patience. Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov> -----
>
> > Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:09:59 -0700
> > From: Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov>
> > To: Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>
> > CC: "cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Gregory
> > <***@reading.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks - I understand. In choosing CF standard names we generally
> > > assume that the intention is to be comprehensive by default, and we
> > > add more words in order to be specific, for example
> > > atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_cloud means all kinds of cloud,
> > > and atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_convective_cloud
> > > is more restrictive. Omitting "total" in your name would be
> > > consistent with this pattern, in order to mean all phases.
> > >
> >
> > Indeed -- however, the "total" in "total petroleum hydrocarbons" is very
> > much part of the name in common usage. And I think the "total" refers both
> > to phase: droplets vs dissolved, and also to the multiple compounds and
> > classes of compound, like in contrast, with, say" Polycyclic aromatic
> > hydrocarbon" (PAH). So I say we keep the "total" in the name.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_petroleum_hydrocarbon
> >
> > If someone is concerned about what the instrument measures, I'd ask someone
> > technical at the company of TPH captures it for them.
> >
> > (after all, what the instrument REALLY measures is Fluorescence...)
> >
> >
> > -CHB
> >
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> > Oceanographer
> >
> > Emergency Response Division
> > NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
> > 7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
> > Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception
> >
> > ***@noaa.gov
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> ________________________________
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
> ________________________________

----- End forwarded message -----

[Lowry, Roy K.]

Sorry Jonathan,

Having re-read Chris's last message I see that he is now pushing for TPH, suggesting that we contact WetLabs/SeaBird to see if they agree that it is an appropriate description for the calibrated output of their instrument.

I have contacts in the company, so I'll do that.

Cheers, Roy.

-----Original Message-----
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 06 July 2016 10:23
To: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

OK, thanks. Sorry for not keeping up. Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K." <***@bodc.ac.uk> -----

> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:19:56 +0000
> From: "Lowry, Roy K." <***@bodc.ac.uk>
> To: Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>, "cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu"
> <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> I think we've lost the thread a little here. I initially suggested TPH until I realised the nature of Mike's measurements. Once I did I withdrew the suggestion. Therefore the 'total' or 'no total' debate is possibly a red herring.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
> Of Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: 06 July 2016 09:39
> To: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> Dear Chris
>
> I'm aware that I've caused frustration before by insisting on this point, but believe me, my aim is not to be annoying! We do actually have "total" in two standard names, where it was a technical term which seemed essential for clarification and which could not easily be explained in simpler terms. That is, in those two names:
> atmosphere_stability_total_totals_index
> sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale
> "total" doesn't mean an aggregation, but something rather specific. In other cases, we assume that "total" is intended if there isn't a qualification. CF standard names follow commonly used terms when those are systematic and self- explanatory or there is no alternative, but they aren't necessarily the same as common terms. I think in many cases the CF standard name is an answer to the question "What does that mean?" rather than to "What do you call that?", because this is useful in the interdisciplinary context of CF.
>
> Therefore I still feel that total should be omitted from the standard name.
> In the definition we could say that this is often/usually called "total" and certainly we would explain it refers to all phases and compounds together.
> It would be useful to hear other opinions on this.
>
> Thanks for your patience. Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov>
> -----
>
> > Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:09:59 -0700
> > From: Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov>
> > To: Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>
> > CC: "cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Gregory
> > <***@reading.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks - I understand. In choosing CF standard names we generally
> > > assume that the intention is to be comprehensive by default, and
> > > we add more words in order to be specific, for example
> > > atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_cloud means all kinds of
> > > cloud, and atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_convective_cloud
> > > is more restrictive. Omitting "total" in your name would be
> > > consistent with this pattern, in order to mean all phases.
> > >
> >
> > Indeed -- however, the "total" in "total petroleum hydrocarbons" is
> > very much part of the name in common usage. And I think the "total"
> > refers both to phase: droplets vs dissolved, and also to the
> > multiple compounds and classes of compound, like in contrast, with,
> > say" Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon" (PAH). So I say we keep the "total" in the name.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_petroleum_hydrocarbon
> >
> > If someone is concerned about what the instrument measures, I'd ask
> > someone technical at the company of TPH captures it for them.
> >
> > (after all, what the instrument REALLY measures is Fluorescence...)
> >
> >
> > -CHB
> >
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> > Oceanographer
> >
> > Emergency Response Division
> > NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
> > 7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
> > Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception
> >
> > ***@noaa.gov
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> ________________________________
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
> ________________________________

----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________

[Lowry, Roy K.]

Dear All,


I have been in touch with WetLabs and the response is interesting. First I quote, " But ppb is a mass per volume measurement. It is equivalent to ug/L (micrograms per liter)." Therefore the Standard Name needs to be a mass_concentration with canonical units of kilograms per cubic metre.


That just leaves the issue of what we call the analyte. Mike initially proposed 'petroleum', which Ute objected to strongly, However, re-reading his first e-mail his objections are very much from the perspective of oil spill modelling. He did suggest 'contaminant' which might work in the context of his models, but won't work in a water quality monitoring dataset where the contaminants will include metals, pesticides, nutrients, pharmeceuticals as well as petroleum products.


Mike's requirement is for something to describe a calibrated optical measurement. In the measurement domain we also have wet chemical measurements of more or less the same thing measured by the SeaOWL that has been known as TPH (total petroleum hydrocarbons), but Jonathan doesn't like the ambiguous semantics of 'total'.


This brings me to the second part of my conversation with WetLabs. I asked if 'petroleum hydrocarbons' was an acceptable description for SeaOWL output. The answer was 'Yes'. If they're happy the I am and I'm presuming so is Chris as he suggested soliciting the company's opinion.


So, my understanding of the thread is that the most acceptable Standard Name is:


mass_concentration_of_petroleum_hydrocarbons_in_sea_water


I would suggest a draft definition of:


Mass concentration means mass per unit volume and is used in the construction mass_concentration_of_X_in_Y, where X is a material constituent of Y. Petroleum hydrocarbons are compounds containing just carbon and hydrogen originating from the fossil fuel crude oil.


Cheers, Roy.


Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to ***@bodc.ac.uk. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent.


________________________________
From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of Lowry, Roy K. <***@bodc.ac.uk>
Sent: 06 July 2016 11:28
To: Jonathan Gregory; cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

Sorry Jonathan,

Having re-read Chris's last message I see that he is now pushing for TPH, suggesting that we contact WetLabs/SeaBird to see if they agree that it is an appropriate description for the calibrated output of their instrument.

I have contacts in the company, so I'll do that.

Cheers, Roy.

-----Original Message-----
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 06 July 2016 10:23
To: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water

OK, thanks. Sorry for not keeping up. Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K." <***@bodc.ac.uk> -----

> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:19:56 +0000
> From: "Lowry, Roy K." <***@bodc.ac.uk>
> To: Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>, "cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu"
> <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> I think we've lost the thread a little here. I initially suggested TPH until I realised the nature of Mike's measurements. Once I did I withdrew the suggestion. Therefore the 'total' or 'no total' debate is possibly a red herring.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-***@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
> Of Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: 06 July 2016 09:39
> To: cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
>
> Dear Chris
>
> I'm aware that I've caused frustration before by insisting on this point, but believe me, my aim is not to be annoying! We do actually have "total" in two standard names, where it was a technical term which seemed essential for clarification and which could not easily be explained in simpler terms. That is, in those two names:
> atmosphere_stability_total_totals_index
> sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale
> "total" doesn't mean an aggregation, but something rather specific. In other cases, we assume that "total" is intended if there isn't a qualification. CF standard names follow commonly used terms when those are systematic and self- explanatory or there is no alternative, but they aren't necessarily the same as common terms. I think in many cases the CF standard name is an answer to the question "What does that mean?" rather than to "What do you call that?", because this is useful in the interdisciplinary context of CF.
>
> Therefore I still feel that total should be omitted from the standard name.
> In the definition we could say that this is often/usually called "total" and certainly we would explain it refers to all phases and compounds together.
> It would be useful to hear other opinions on this.
>
> Thanks for your patience. Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov>
> -----
>
> > Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:09:59 -0700
> > From: Chris Barker <***@noaa.gov>
> > To: Jonathan Gregory <***@reading.ac.uk>
> > CC: "cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-***@cgd.ucar.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for
> > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Gregory
> > <***@reading.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks - I understand. In choosing CF standard names we generally
> > > assume that the intention is to be comprehensive by default, and
> > > we add more words in order to be specific, for example
> > > atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_cloud means all kinds of
> > > cloud, and atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_convective_cloud
> > > is more restrictive. Omitting "total" in your name would be
> > > consistent with this pattern, in order to mean all phases.
> > >
> >
> > Indeed -- however, the "total" in "total petroleum hydrocarbons" is
> > very much part of the name in common usage. And I think the "total"
> > refers both to phase: droplets vs dissolved, and also to the
> > multiple compounds and classes of compound, like in contrast, with,
> > say" Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon" (PAH). So I say we keep the "total" in the name.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_petroleum_hydrocarbon
> >
> > If someone is concerned about what the instrument measures, I'd ask
> > someone technical at the company of TPH captures it for them.
> >
> > (after all, what the instrument REALLY measures is Fluorescence...)
> >
> >
> > -CHB
> >
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> > Oceanographer
> >
> > Emergency Response Division
> > NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
> > 7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
> > Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception
> >
> > ***@noaa.gov
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> ________________________________
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
> ________________________________

----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-***@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________

[Jonathan Gregory]

Dear Roy

> mass_concentration_of_petroleum_hydrocarbons_in_sea_water
>
>
> I would suggest a draft definition of:
>
>
> Mass concentration means mass per unit volume and is used in the construction mass_concentration_of_X_in_Y, where X is a material constituent of Y. Petroleum hydrocarbons are compounds containing just carbon and hydrogen originating from the fossil fuel crude oil.

That looks good to me. Thanks.

Best wishes

Jonathan