I think ‘in the river channel’ should be ‘in the river channel and flood plane’
Looks good otherwise. > On May 11, 2016, at 7:49 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Dear Rich, All, > > Thanks for proposing the river discharge name. The discussion so far seems to > be leading towards introducing a single name: > water_volume_transport_in_river (canonical units: m3 s-1). > > At the moment we don't have a definition for this name so I'm suggesting the > following (based on existing definitions): > ' The water flux or volume transport in rivers is the amount of water flowing > in the river channel. Water means water in all phases.' > Is this OK? Do we need to elaborate any further? I think if we can settle on > the definition, this name can be accepted for addition to the standard name > table. > > Best wishes, > Alison > > ------ > Alison Pamment Tel: +44 > 1235 778065 > Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email: > [email protected] > STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > R25, 2.22 > Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: CF-metadata [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of David Blodgett >> Sent: 09 May 2016 15:08 >> To: Signell, Richard >> Cc: CF metadata; Jonathan Gregory >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposed standard_name for river discharge >> >> I would wait till people have a use case that can drive specific names. >> >>> On May 9, 2016, at 8:00 AM, Signell, Richard <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dave, >>> Do you think we should also introduce other water_volume_transport >>> quantities together to make this clear? >>> >>> water_volume_transport_in_river_channel >>> water_volume_transport_over_land >>> water_volume_transport_in_??? >>> >>> -Rich >>> >>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:14 AM, David Blodgett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> I actually suggested ‘in river channel’ to rich because of the potential to >> segregate into flow in fluvial sediments below the channel or in a >> floodplain disconnected from the channel, etc. >>>> >>>> Cheers! >>>> >>>> - Dave >>>> >>>>> On May 3, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Jonathan Gregory >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Rich >>>>> >>>>>> How about a new standard_name called: >>>>>> >>>>>> "water_volume_transport_in_river_channel" >>>>>> >>>>>> with canonical units "m3/s" ? >>>>> >>>>> That's certainly a reasonable quantity to give a name too. Is "channel" >>>>> necessary? >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes >>>>> >>>>> Jonathan >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CF-metadata mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CF-metadata mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229 >>> USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd. >>> Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CF-metadata mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
