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 <dblodgett at usgs.gov> 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 <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> 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
Received on Mon May 09 2016 - 07:00:21 BST
