Hi Chris and all, Now I think the word "flood_water" can refer to temporary water body on the land surface, regardless the cause is river overflow, storm surge, or tsunami. I've talked with a storm surge expert in JMA. He says it is okay for him, and probably for tsunami expert.
That may not be perfect but (I hope) is a meaningful effort to combat with creeping proliferation of names. - River water simulation is often done on tree-like network, not in grids. That's probably the reason we (CF community) didn't talk much about river water (in non-flooding state) more than runoff, which also belongs to the land surface model. - I hope people (if any) are not so uncomfortable with using "sea_water" for estuary water.... -- Best Regards, Eizi TOYODA, Japan Meteorological Agency Assoc Member, WMO/CBS/IPET-DRMM Best Regards, -- Eiji (aka Eizi) TOYODA http://www.google.com/profiles/toyoda.eizi On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Chris Barker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Eizi TOYODA <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 1. Flood water and seawater are both liquid water on top of solid earth >> surface. Some properties are common in terms of physics as you suggest. >> > > indeed -- I somehow never notes that the standard names use "sea_water" > rather than just "water". So yes, you wouldn't want to use that for > flooding in river, etc, where it is indeed, not seawater. > > though may it's time to introduce "water" names, rather than adding > "flood+water", then "river_water", then "estuary_water", etc... > > But there is difference in nature: >> >> - The sea has always seawater in the normal state. >> Few people think about when a basin or a bay dries up. >> > > actually, wetting-=drying in tidal areas is often a big deal, as is storm > surge, so it's not out of the question to use the same names for these. > > I don't see any names with "storm" or "surge" in them -- I wonder what the > storm surge modelers use? > > So there are concepts only used in flood simulation, not in oceanography. >> It might look awkward or weird if we use sea_water instead of flood_water: >> > > yes, because it's not, in fact sea water generally... > > >> 6) sea_water_arrival_time >> 7) time_at_maximum_sea_water_depth >> 8) time_when_sea_water_goes_below_threshold >> 9) time_span_with_sea_water_depth_above_threshold >> >> 2. Current standard name table includes names including land_ice, >> surface_snow, surface_snow_and_ice, all are layer made of H2O temporarily >> on top of solid earth. For me it is not unnatural to see flood water in >> line with them. >> > > well, trying to keep name proliferation down, but yes, clearly the > sea_water names are not appropriate. > > >> 3. Current standard name table also includes quantities related to >> runoff, which could be substituted by sea water velocity. It looks like >> the CF community in the past did not try to convert the terminology of >> hydrologists into that of oceanography. >> > > Indeed -- it started with climate modeling, and extended to general > oceanographic and meteorological modeling, but hydrology is new. > > I'd rather see some more cross-discipline names, but adding a set for > hydrological modeling is a fine idea as well. > > -Chris > > > -- > > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. > Oceanographer > > Emergency Response Division > NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice > 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax > Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception > > [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
