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.greg...@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@cgd.ucar.edu > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
