Significant wave Height (spectral vs direct method) #454
Replies: 3 comments 1 reply
-
|
Hi @anapatvn I still see sea_surface_wave_significant_height on the table however the "upcrossing" names appear to have been renamed a few years ago:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm going to guess (I don't recall the conversation -- it might have been before my time) that this was due to the nature of standard names -- they are (ideally) a name for some physical property -- how the value was obtained (measurement, model, computation) is supposed to be specified in some other way. So whether you compute the significant wave height (or any other statistic) via zero-upcrossing analysis or spectral analysis -- it's the same "thing", and thus the same standard name. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I see these: I recall not too long ago adding the swell vs wind_wave distinctions, but don't recall anything about zero_upcrossing. I suspect @DocOtak is right -- it's a name that's been seen in the wild but was never an actual standard_name. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Question
Before the CF Standard Name Table was updated, the significant wave height was distinguished using either the spectral method ('sea_surface_wave_significant_height') or the direct method ('sea_surface_wave_significant_height_zero_upcrossing'). Now, I can't find the spectral variable. From analysing the descriptions, it seems that the name of the spectral variable now belongs to the direct method variable, and that the spectral variable no longer exists. Is this correct?
Thank you.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions