Dear Andy
> * Jeff DLB's "water_surface_height_above_reference_datum" sounds
> appropriate but isn't in the current table.
I thought we had agreed to add such a name. Perhaps it has accidentally been
omitted in updating the table.
> * sea_surface_height_amplitude_due_to_ different versions of ocean tide
> * variations of included tidal constituents
> * variations on qualitative source of the tidal estimate: insitu
> harmonic analysis, gridded tide model
> * sea_surface_height_amplitude_due_to_
> * non-tidal ocean dynamics
>
> My inclination is to use the most general relevant standard name
> ("sea_surface_height") and differentiate the variations via 'long_name',
> 'description' and other metadata but would be happy to hear suggestions.
You could do that, of course, but they are different geophysical quantities
it would be good to have more precise standard names to distinguish them. If
the difference is due to measurement technique or model I think standard names
are less appropriate for making the distinction. It's debatable.
Best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
