Dear all I did not mean to imply that "anomaly" was not the right term in that application - apologies to Stephane and Bert - but that it isn't the way that word is used in existing CF standard names, and we try to be consistent. As Philip implies, we might change our mind about the past, and if we really need to do so, we can define aliases. We could could rename the four existing _anomaly standard names as, for instance, _difference_from_climatology, in order to be a bit clearer. We could discuss that in a separate email thread.
On this subject, picking up Roy's point, what about sea_surface_height_above_predicted_tidal_level There is no need to record the tidal level itself. (As far as I can see, we don't have standard names for the tide yet.) However, I am not certain that "predicted" is really necessary. Isn't the tidal level the same geophysical quantity, regardless of whether it is measured or predicted? We don't have names distinguishing measurements and predictions in general. So on the whole I still prefer sea_surface_height_above_tidal_level Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
