Dear Karl and Jonathan I think this proposal looks fine. As I don't think there are likely to be any more comments about this name, depth_below_geoid (m) is accepted for inclusion in the standard name table.
Best wishes, Alison ------ Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314 STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk R25, 2.22 Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. > -----Original Message----- > From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata- > boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory > Sent: 05 January 2011 13:15 > To: Karl Taylor > Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > Subject: [CF-metadata] Request for standard_name="depth_below_geoid" > > Dear Karl > > > I therefore propose "depth_below_geoid" as a new standard name, > which > > would differ from "depth" in that it is relative to the geoid rather > > than the local surface. > > I agree. Rigid-lid models did not distinguish these, but free-surface > models > can. > > Cheers > > Jonathan > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata -- Scanned by iCritical. _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
