Hello Jonathan,
I have concerns about having separate names for river, lake and sea. If you
have them for height, then the logic would extend to temperature. I have
temperature data from a boat that started in the North Sea, went up the Humber
and then up to the navigable limit of the
Dear Roy
I have concerns about having separate names for river, lake and sea. If you
have them for height, then the logic would extend to temperature. I have
temperature data from a boat that started in the North Sea, went up the
Humber and then up to the navigable limit of the Yorkshire
Hi Roy,
Would simply inventing an artificial new term to represent
sea+lakes+rivers be an option here? Presumably, back in the day, there
was no word for a land-locked body of fresh water so someone thought, I
know, I'll call it a 'lake'. Or whatever the latin/greek equivalent was
back then!
So
Hi Phil,
Jonathan's argument against 'water body' was that it was not as well-known as
'sea'. I think that the argument applies even more strongly to 'sorl'.
Cheers, Roy.
-Original Message-
From: Bentley, Philip [mailto:philip.bent...@metoffice.gov.uk]
Sent: 23 February 2010 09:25
Hi Roy,
For sure, I wasn't proposing use of the word 'sorl', that was merely an
examplar. My argument was that since there appears to be no existing
term for what you want to describe - at least none without overloaded
meaning(s) - then just invent a completely new word. So, yes, by its
very
Dear Stephen
The issue here is that water doesn't only exist in these bodies of water
viz seas, lakes and river. It also exists in the atmosphere and the ground.
For this reason we don't have a standard name of just water temperature,
for instance. We could define aqua to mean sea, lake or river,
Dear CF group:
Thank you for your time in discussing this matter.
I would counsel you *not* to make wholesale changes to existing names just
because IOOS needs names for water levels that may or may not be measured in
the ocean! Replacing 'sea_' with something else seems like it would break
Dear Jeff
Thanks for your email. I appreciate your arguments, which are very reasonable,
but I don't agree with them so far.
Replacing 'sea_' with something else seems like it would
break much existing code. Adding some names should be mostly harmless.
Yes, adding names is better. We can
john caron wrote:
Jonathan Blower wrote:
4) Finally on practical note: I seem to remember that someone has
implemented the 360-day calendar using the Java library joda-time? Is
this code available for re-use?
roland schweitzer has extended joda for 360 day calendar. I am
planning to use
On Feb 23, 2010, at 06:33, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Contrived, yes, but sea+lake+river is certainly explicit and self-
explanatory,
isn't it? Standard names are contrived to explain what they mean,
rather than
being the terms used most commonly (although some of them are common
terms).
The
10 matches
Mail list logo
