Hello Jonathan/Karl
My one worry with Jonathan's suggestion is that we sometimes get 'tide gauges' bolted onto structures like oil rigs nearer the surface than the seafloor but they are still measuring variation in sea level. This is the 'datum issue' that we've hit before in CF, but never fully resolved. However, I'm open to being convinced that expression of data relative to seabed should always be possible in these cases and maybe enforcing it for 'Standard Name' labelled parameetrs might be a good thing. Thoughts welcome.
To answer Karl we either have pressure due to the water column or presure due to water column plus atmosphere: the parameter that is measured before any corrections are done.
Cheers, Roy.
>>> Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> 08/27/08 6:22 PM >>>
Dear Steve, Nan et al.
I think it would be fine to have a CF standard name of
sea_water_pressure_at_sea_floor
which is certainly an oceanographically useful quantity. We haven't used the
phrase at_sea_floor hitherto, but sea_floor appears in other standard names
and there are many quantities which have at_LEVEL phrases.
The pressure measured at a depth specified by a vertical coordinate would
naturally be called just sea_water_pressure, I think. This is also an
oceanographically meaningful quantity in its own right. The purpose for which
you use it (deducing the tilt of the sensor) does not have to be indicated by
the standard name.
Best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
Received on Wed Aug 27 2008 - 12:04:24 BST
