[CF-metadata] Seeking new CF standard names (9) for sea surface wave parameters

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:09:47 +0100

Dear Andrew

Thanks - this is a fruitful discussion. I think we agree on proposing these
new names

  sea_surface_wave_height
  sea_surface_wave_mean_crest_period
  sea_surface_wave_significant_wave_period

You have proposed a new name
  sea_surface_wave_period_at_second_largest_peak_of_the_energy_spectrum
(to replace an earlier proposal). Is this the "second" corresponding to this
existing name being the "first":
  sea_surface_wave_period_at_variance_spectral_density_maximum
and if so, could your new quantity be
  sea_surface_wave_period_at_second_largest_peak_of_variance_spectral_density
for consistency?

Thanks for your explanation of sea_surface_wave_zeroth_spectral_moment. That
leads me to ask whether it could be called
  sea_surface_wave_variance_spectral_density_zeroth_frequency_moment
to correspond to the terminology used in the existing names
  sea_surface_wave_mean_period_from_variance_spectral_density_first|second_frequency_moment

Finally, you have explained that
  sea_surface_wave_root_mean_square_amplitude
is the square root of the zeroth moment. It is liable to be confused with the
root_mean_square sea_surface_wave_height. Would it be acceptable to call it,
rather clumsily,
  sea_surface_wave_amplitude_from_variance_spectral_density_zeroth_frequency_moment
which follows the pattern of the names of wave periods calculated from moments?
If it is always called sea_surface_wave_root_mean_square_amplitude and that
doesn't cause any confusion in practice, we don't need to worry about it. But
you did point out "not be confused with", so I suppose it might be a problem!

We are also going to propose two new cell_methods

  root_mean_square
  mean_of_upper_decile.

We have to do that in the trac system but it's not a large change to the
convention.

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Tue Oct 12 2010 - 10:09:47 BST