On 3/21/17 9:20 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Karl
>
>> sea_surface_height_above_geoid
>>
>> I'm not sure it's true that "In an ocean GCM the geoid is the
>> surface of zero depth". Many ocean models have an ocean surface
>> that rises above the geoid in some areas and falls below in other
>> areas. Moreover, under conditions of sea level change, the global
>> mean model surface of zero depth will vary and not necessarily
>> coincide to some fixed geoid. Would it be better to omit the
>> sentence about ocean models?
> There is a surface z=0, with respect to which height and depth are measured
> in ocean models. The surface z=0 is usually the geoid, so it's not the
> same as mean sea level. As we have discussed in other emails, in models which
> conserve volume rather than mass, the geoid can't change, but in the real
> world and in models which conserve mass, it can. However, there's a choice to
> be made: you can stick with the original geoid (for the original volume of
> the ocean) or make it time-dependent. Either way, I think the statement is
> correct, but we could omit it if you think it's unhelpful in the definition.
O.K. I understand what is meant now, but it leads to the rather
confusing implication that the model's surface can be located at a
*depth" that is not zero. When I think of an ocean depth measurement, I
usually think of it as measure of the distance to the the *surface*.
If this isn't the usual understanding, then it's o.k. with me to leave
in the sentence about the ocean GCM. Otherwise, I think it might confuse
folks, and we should delete it.
thanks and best regards,
Karl
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Tue Mar 21 2017 - 16:49:31 GMT
