Hi Nan,
>
> One of our parameters is sea_surface_wave_variance_spectral_density,
> with coordinate variables time and frequency.
>
> Sea_surface_wave_frequency is an accepted standard name, but I
> would like to know why 'frequency' is not preferable, being more
> generic. As an analogy, we can use 'depth' as the coordinate variable
> for temperatures, and are not so specific as to require
> sea_water_temperature_depth. Is specifying sea_surface_wave
> really necessary, and might it not be misleading if the parameter
> is not actually "plain" sea_surface_waves?
>
I'm not an expert in this area myself, so I'm not quite sure what you
mean by "plain" sea_surface_waves. However, to respond to your general
point, I agree that sea_surface_wave_frequency is very specific.
The original proposal (see
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2006/000958.html) was for
wave_frequency and it was submitted along with quite a list of other sea
surface wave names. I suspect that it was changed for consistency with
the other names. I think that we need to at least use the term
wave_frequency rather than simply 'frequency' because it is not the
only kind of frequency in standard names. We have the names
sound_frequency, which could in fact be described by wave_frequency, and
brunt_vaisala_frequency_in_air, which is a parameter that relates to the
static stability of air and is useful for determining whether gravity
waves will be generated, for example, by flow over orography. I think
that we could use wave_frequency quite adequately for fluid dynamical
waves, sound waves and electromagnetic waves independent of the medium
in which they occur. Would you be happy with wave_frequency?
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email: J.A.Pamment at rl.ac.uk
Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
Received on Mon Mar 31 2008 - 04:09:39 BST
