Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update StandardNamesRules.rst: add _due_to_planetary_boundary_layer #80

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 19, 2024

Conversation

climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

@climbfuji climbfuji commented Oct 24, 2024

Add process suffix _due_to_planetary_boundary_layer as proposed new suffix in StandardNamesRules.rst.

This isn't exactly describing a process (i.e. is different than due_to_convection), but people use this or the abbreviation due_to_PBL a lot. Should it be even longer, i.e. _due_to_planetary_boundary_layer_processes ?

@nusbaume
Copy link
Collaborator

I think my two cents here are that I would prefer the longer _due_to_planetary_boundary_layer_processes, or maybe something more specific like _due_to_planetary_boundary_layer_turbulent_mixing (although I certainly realize it might be hard to disentangle every process if it is coming from a PBL physics scheme).

The reason I don't think I would want just _due_to_planetary_boundary_layer is because the PBL is also a location, and I could easily see variables like X_in_planetary_boundary_layer, which I feel could cause some confusion even with the different prepositions.

Of course I am happy to hear other people's thoughts as well, especially if they disagree. Thanks!

@gold2718
Copy link
Collaborator

Is _due_to_PBL_processes a decent compromise between length and clarity? I don't see any guidance in the CF conventions.

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Is _due_to_PBL_processes a decent compromise between length and clarity? I don't see any guidance in the CF conventions.

We do spell out GWD as gravity_wave_drag, thus using PBL here would be inconsistent.

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator Author

At the 12/12/2024 CCPP meeting, we discussed using abbreviations like GWD and PBL instead of the full names in the standard names. The rules need to clarify that the short names must be used instead of the long names whenever such an abbreviation is defined, and that we will spell out the full name in the long_name instead. I will update this PR and request reviews one more time.

@grantfirl
Copy link
Collaborator

There is an abbreviaton/acronym section in the rules (https://github.com/ESCOMP/CCPPStandardNames/blob/main/StandardNamesRules.rst). We can shorten names as needed and just add the acronym to the accepted list. PBL and GWD are good examples that are relatively well known in atmospheric sciences, and we can use the rules page to define them for those who are unfamiliar.

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I updated the PR as discussed this morning (hope I got it right). Please (re-)review. Thanks.

@mkavulich mkavulich merged commit 8a343c5 into main Dec 19, 2024
3 checks passed
@mkavulich mkavulich deleted the climbfuji-patch-1 branch December 19, 2024 15:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants