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 _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
