Dear Helen Thanks for your comments.
> Whilst it is true that the specifics of the geoid used (model, degree and > order of expansion etc) are important, simply being able to correctly > identify 'sea surface height above reference ellipsoid' vs 'sea surface > height above geoid' gives us fundamentally different parameters (first is > approx = geoid height, second is dynamic topography) > Hence even without the details of the geoid used, the very definition is > extremely important That's good to know because it is consistent with the current approach in the CF standard name table. > There is a significant difference in that altitude is generally applied to > the height of the satellite above the reference ellipsoid - not the geoid - > so I would not like to see that alias be included. Right. That is useful to know. It is a good argument for replacing altitude with height_above_geoid (retaining altitude as an alias for the sake of existing data) if it could be confused with height_above_reference_ellipsoid (which is an existing standard name). Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
