Shouldn't sea surface reference datum be an attribute? The reference
datum is much like the units attribute, it can take on many values which
have nothing to do with the real quantity. Choices for reference datum
are legion: MSL, MLLW, NAVD88, MTL, other reference ellipsoids. We
cannot have a standard name for each one.
Tom Gross
Chesapeake Community Model Program
ccmp.chesapeake.org
Chesapeake Research Consortium
P.O. Box 28
645 Contees Wharf Road
Edgewater, MD
410-798-1283
or on Monday and Tuesdays
tom.gross at noaa.gov
NOAA/NOS/Coast Survey Development Lab.
Silver Spring, MD (301) 713-2809 x139
-----Original Message-----
From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu
[mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Olivier Lauret
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 5:03 AM
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Cc: Frederique Blanc
Subject: [CF-metadata] Standard names for altimeter data
Dear all,
I would like to propose you some new standard names for satellite
altimetry
data.
I saw that there are already some entry names that seems to fit
satellite
altimetry: sea_surface_height_above_geoid and
sea_surface_height_above_sea_level.
But in my knowledge there are no names for:
- sea surface height above reference ellipsoid
- geostrophic currents that are derived from sea surface heights.
In the first case I could quite naturally propose you the term
"sea_surface_height_above_reference_ellipsoid".
In the second case, well, it could be a little bit more complicated..
For the time being the eastward and northward surface velocity
components
available in the standard name table are:
surface_eastward_sea_water_velocity
surface_northward_sea_water_velocity
Maybe we could add:
surface_eastward_sea_water_geostrophic_velocity_above_sea_level
surface_northward_sea_water_geostrophic_velocity_above_sea_level
to identify velocity components derived from
"sea_surface_height_above_sea_level" parameter assuming geostrophic
balance, and
surface_eastward_sea_water_geostrophic_velocity_above_geoid
surface_northward_sea_water_geostrophic_velocity_above_geoid
to identify geostrophic velocity components derived from
"sea_surface_height_above_geoid" parameter.
It seems to be the only way to distinguish between two different
geostrophic currents (in terms of physics). But the problem is that it
doesn't make any sense to have a "velocity above something". So
something like
surface_eastward_sea_water_geostrophic_velocity_due_to_sea_surface_heigh
t_above_sea_level
surface_northward_sea_water_geostrophic_velocity_due_to_sea_surface_heig
ht_above_sea_level
surface_eastward_sea_water_geostrophic_velocity_due_to_sea_surface_heigh
t_above_geoid
surface_northward_sea_water_geostrophic_velocity_due_to_sea_surface_heig
ht_above_geoid
would be more appropriate, wouldn't it? It's a little bit longer, but in
my
opinion necessary, to distinguish the different kinds of surface
currents.
Regards
Olivier Lauret
CLS Space Oceanography Division
Data Information and Diffusion
8-10 rue Hermes,
31526 Ramonville-St-Agne, Cedex, France
Email: olivier.lauret at cls.fr
Tel: (+33) (0) 561 39 48 51
Fax:(+33) (0) 561 39 48 51
Internet:
http://www.cls.fr
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Fri Aug 18 2006 - 07:48:25 BST
