Re: [CF-metadata] More background on the burned area (Jonathan Gregory)
Jonathan, Kevin, I don't think that it is necessary to further qualify burned_area. If you do an internet search for this term you always come up with hits related to wildfire which would suggest that there is little ambiguity in this term. I propose to add the vegetation fire relationship in the definition of the term but keep the term short and concise. Should there ever be a conflict we can still create an alias or re-define. (Just imagine you start arguing about air_temperature: is this the temperature of air inside a box or a house? ...) Cheers, Martin Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH 52425 Juelich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Re: [CF-metadata] More background on the burned area
Dear Kevin burned_area and burned_area_fraction would be OK as standard names, I think, but I would tend to agree with your suggestion that vegetation could also be mentioned somehow, in order to make the standard_name more self-explanatory when in the context of a dataset that might contain many other geophysical quantities. Best wishes Jonathan ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
[CF-metadata] More background on the burned area
Dear colleagues, I have now joined the list and should start receiving comments. To provide more background, on some of the comments I've been sent. 1. I've based it on the sea ice term, it is similar. 2. We use the term severity to describe the level of burning. However, there is much research on this term and discussion over what it means and how it is measured. It is certainly not a standard. 3. We can characterise the fire radiative power of an active fire and this has been found to be related to the total consumed biomass. These could be considered as standard terms once we have burned area. 4. Already in the list there contains a term on flux in emissions from fire activity. This is a standard measurement. One step at a time. I can engage others in the community to think about standard terms. At the moment, we know burned area as a yes - burnt, not burnt. We still aim to get this measured accurately from space at global scales. Many thanks for your discussion on this. Kevin # Dr. Kevin Tansey Senior Lecturer in Remote Sensing Department of Geography University of Leicester Leicester, LE1 7RH UK Tel. 0044 (0)116 2523859 Fax. 0044 (0)116 2523854 Email k...@le.ac.ukmailto:k...@le.ac.uk ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
