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
