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
Received on Tue May 03 2016 - 08:14:29 BST
