Page History

1. Can the proposed keywords be used to accurately describe datasets?  YES.
2. Are the keywords appropriate as search terms?  YES.
3. Does moving the Water Vapor Processes keywords…?  YES.
4. Does moving the Water Vapor Indicators keywords…?  YES.
5. Does moving the Wind Dynamics keywords…?  YES.
6. Does moving the Surface Winds and Upper Level Winds keywords…?  YES.
7. Does each keyword listed in the keywords review spreadsheet…?  NO.  I disagree with the addition of “Santa Ana Winds”, “Gap Winds”, “Mistral Winds” and to a lesser extent, “Chinook Winds”.  My personal feeling is that these are too specific, as they are relevant to only a small geographical area.  Researchers in these areas should use a more generic wind keyword, and then qualify that with a location keyword, or an ancillary keyword.  I say “Chinook” to a lesser extent, because it pertains to a much larger geographical area.
8. Do you have any recommendations for modifications…?  NO.  Other than what I referred to in point 7.
9. Do you have any recommendations for additions…?  NO.

I felt it is more logical to describe the atmospheric water starting from its physical state, i.e., water vapor and condensed water.   The latter can also be referred as cloud water.

The Document1.docx is my attempt to organize keywords/variables in this way.   Some entries listed in the spreadsheet are too specific and can be organized under the categories in the attached table.   For example, the water vapor profiles are just one type of the measurement data, not a different physical quantity to me.   I am not an expert on atmospheric water and probably missed some important entries.

Also, saturation mixing ratio is a function ambient temperature, not related to actual water vapor content.  The saturation deficit or dew point deficit are indirect measures of the atmospheric water vapor content.

I believe we should consult the water measurement and modeling community before we finalize these keywords.