On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Eizi TOYODA <toyoda at npd.kishou.go.jp>
wrote:
> Now I think the word "flood_water" can refer to temporary water body on
> the land surface, regardless the cause is river overflow, storm surge, or
> tsunami. I've talked with a storm surge expert in JMA. He says it is okay
> for him, and probably for tsunami expert.
>
Makes sense to me.
- I hope people (if any) are not so uncomfortable with using "sea_water"
> for estuary water....
>
I'd probably rather have just "water" or "surface_water" (to distinguish
from ground water) -- but that's what we have now, so might as well stick
with it.
-Chris
> --
> Best Regards,
> Eizi TOYODA, Japan Meteorological Agency
> Assoc Member, WMO/CBS/IPET-DRMM
>
> Best Regards,
> --
> Eiji (aka Eizi) TOYODA
> http://www.google.com/profiles/toyoda.eizi
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Chris Barker <chris.barker at noaa.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Eizi TOYODA <toyoda at npd.kishou.go.jp>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Flood water and seawater are both liquid water on top of solid earth
>>> surface. Some properties are common in terms of physics as you suggest.
>>>
>>
>> indeed -- I somehow never notes that the standard names use "sea_water"
>> rather than just "water". So yes, you wouldn't want to use that for
>> flooding in river, etc, where it is indeed, not seawater.
>>
>> though may it's time to introduce "water" names, rather than adding
>> "flood+water", then "river_water", then "estuary_water", etc...
>>
>> But there is difference in nature:
>>>
>>> - The sea has always seawater in the normal state.
>>> Few people think about when a basin or a bay dries up.
>>>
>>
>> actually, wetting-=drying in tidal areas is often a big deal, as is storm
>> surge, so it's not out of the question to use the same names for these.
>>
>> I don't see any names with "storm" or "surge" in them -- I wonder what
>> the storm surge modelers use?
>>
>> So there are concepts only used in flood simulation, not in
>>> oceanography. It might look awkward or weird if we use sea_water instead
>>> of flood_water:
>>>
>>
>> yes, because it's not, in fact sea water generally...
>>
>>
>>> 6) sea_water_arrival_time
>>> 7) time_at_maximum_sea_water_depth
>>> 8) time_when_sea_water_goes_below_threshold
>>> 9) time_span_with_sea_water_depth_above_threshold
>>>
>>> 2. Current standard name table includes names including land_ice,
>>> surface_snow, surface_snow_and_ice, all are layer made of H2O temporarily
>>> on top of solid earth. For me it is not unnatural to see flood water in
>>> line with them.
>>>
>>
>> well, trying to keep name proliferation down, but yes, clearly the
>> sea_water names are not appropriate.
>>
>>
>>> 3. Current standard name table also includes quantities related to
>>> runoff, which could be substituted by sea water velocity. It looks like
>>> the CF community in the past did not try to convert the terminology of
>>> hydrologists into that of oceanography.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed -- it started with climate modeling, and extended to general
>> oceanographic and meteorological modeling, but hydrology is new.
>>
>> I'd rather see some more cross-discipline names, but adding a set for
>> hydrological modeling is a fine idea as well.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
>> Oceanographer
>>
>> Emergency Response Division
>> NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
>> 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
>> Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
>>
>> Chris.Barker at noaa.gov
>>
>
>
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
Chris.Barker at noaa.gov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150812/d026bd3a/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Wed Aug 12 2015 - 14:11:28 BST
