-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Conversation
I think my two cents here are that I would prefer the longer The reason I don't think I would want just Of course I am happy to hear other people's thoughts as well, especially if they disagree. Thanks! |
Is |
We do spell out GWD as gravity_wave_drag, thus using PBL here would be inconsistent. |
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 |
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. |
I updated the PR as discussed this morning (hope I got it right). Please (re-)review. Thanks. |
Add process suffix
_due_to_planetary_boundary_layer
as proposed new suffix inStandardNamesRules.rst
.This isn't exactly describing a process (i.e. is different than
due_to_convection
), but people use this or the abbreviationdue_to_PBL
a lot. Should it be even longer, i.e._due_to_planetary_boundary_layer_processes
?