[CF-metadata] question about proper cell bounds for ocean_volume_transport_across_line

Matthias Lankhorst mlankhorst at ucsd.edu
Wed Jan 16 12:44:59 MST 2019


I have never received a reply to my initial message below... does
anybody have any insights to share now?

Recap: I have a time series of ocean volume transport (given in
Sverdrup) across a line. The line has two end points, and the transport
is computed over a specific depth range. I would like to represent this
in a clever way in a netcdf file with CF conventions.

As far as variables go, I really only have two (happy to add more to
e.g. contain the cell boundaries), and their standard_names are:

I know how to include bounds for the time such that I can show over how
many days my data were averaged.

I suppose I could figure out the depth range by including a single
scalar for depth, with associated bounds, and having a "coordinates"
attribute on my transport that points to the depth. Does this sound

How about the two section endpoints? And when I have those, how would
the user know which direction across that section is counted positive?

Cheers, Matthias

On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 08:25 -0700, Matthias Lankhorst wrote:
> Dear CF,
> what is the proper way to define the shape and boundaries of an oceanic
> section, for which I want to report the volume transport across that
> section?
> The use case is an irregular-shaped section like OSNAP
> (http://www.o-snap.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/20160329_OSNAP_planeview.jpg), and the property to be reported is the seawater volume transport in a given depth range as a timeseries with this CF standard_name:
> ocean_volume_transport_across_line
> There needs to be some ancillary variable to say what the line
> coordinates are, and I am not sure how to squeeze that into
> "cell_bounds".
> In addition, how about the lower limit vertically if this is the
> seafloor? If the transports were to be everything below e.g. 1000 m,
> would it be appropriate to state vertical cell bounds as 1000 to 5000 m,
> even if the ocean is not 5000 m deep? I.e. is the user intelligent
> enough to realize that "5000" really means "5000 m or the seafloor,
> whichever is shallower"?
> Thanks, Matthias


 Dr. Matthias Lankhorst
 Scripps Institution of Oceanography
 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0230
 La Jolla, CA 92093-0230

 Phone:  +1 858 822 5013
 Fax:    +1 858 534 9820
 E-Mail: mlankhorst at ucsd.edu

More information about the CF-metadata mailing list