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, alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk 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: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] 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 <rsignell at usgs.gov> 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 <dblodgett at usgs.gov>
>> 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
>> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> 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
>>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>> 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
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Wed May 11 2016 - 08:17:00 BST
