, 2.22
Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
From: John Helly [mailto:hel...@ucsd.edu]
Sent: 11 May 2016 21:43
To: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); dblodg...@usgs.gov
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposed standard_name for river discharge
Sent: 11 May 2016 15:17
>> To: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
>> Cc: rsign...@usgs.gov; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu;
>> j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposed standard_name for river discharge
>>
>> I think ‘in the river channel’ sh
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, alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> >
> > Dear Rich, A
t; Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
>> Of David Blodgett
>> Sent: 09 May 2016 15:08
>> To: Signell, Richard
>> Cc: CF metadata; Jonathan Gregor
rwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> -Original Message-
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@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
I would wait till people have a use case that can drive specific names.
> On May 9, 2016, at 8:00 AM, Signell, Richard 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
> wa
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 wrote:
> I actually sugge
-
>
>> Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 09:14:29 -0500
>> From: David Blodgett
>> To: Jonathan Gregory
>> CC: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposed standard_name for river discharge
>> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
>>
>&
gt; Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposed standard_name for river discharge
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
>
> 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
> discon
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
> wrote:
>
> Dear Rich
>
>> How about
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
Rich,
Thanks for bringing this up. I checked with some of our hydrology folks who use
both WaterML and CF for gage station time series, and they think this sounds
fine.
dka
—
David K Arctur, PhD
Research Scientist & Fellow, University of Texas at Austin
Research/Academic Advocate, Open Geospa
CF folks,
There are a bunch of hydrology standard_names, but none that seem
appropriate for one of the most common quantities, plain old "river
discharge".
We currently have "water_volume_transport_into_sea_water_from_rivers"
with the right units "m3/s", but in the CF Standard Name list, but
this
13 matches
Mail list logo
