Dear Dave, OK, thanks, I'll add that in.
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: David Blodgett [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 11 May 2016 15:17 > To: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP) > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposed standard_name for river discharge > > 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
