On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Eizi TOYODA <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Makes sense to me. - I hope people (if any) are not so uncomfortable with using "sea_water" > for estuary water.... > I'd probably rather have just "water" or "surface_water" (to distinguish from ground water) -- but that's what we have now, so might as well stick with it. -Chris > -- > 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] >> > > -- 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
