[Liwg-core] Feasibility of adding some LIWG-relevant diagnostics to Land diagnostics package?

Keith Oleson oleson at ucar.edu
Thu Mar 2 13:43:02 MST 2017


Hi,

I think Alice covered all the bases nicely, so my answer to question 1 is
yes.

Keith

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Alice Bertini <aliceb at ucar.edu> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> It's definitely doable to add a new plot set into the python framework. In
> fact, the WACCM group
> did just that last summer and wrote up their development experience here:
>
> https://github.com/NCAR/CESM_postprocessing/wiki/PPDG_Add_Diags
>
> That being said, I think we'd want to look at a couple of things first to
> gauge what needs to be done
> before putting it into a time frame:
>
> - are there special climo or average files in addition to those already
> being created for the lnd diags
> that we need to add to the pyAverager?
> - what languange are the existing plotting functions written in (NCL, IDL,
> matplot, etc...)?
> - what controls do we need to add to the XML settings to control this new
> plot set? Is there
> an existing script available for generating the Land-ice diags that we can
> look at more closely?
>
> Just let me know how you'd like to proceed.
>
> Thanks,
> A.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Bill Sacks <sacks at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith and Alice,
>>
>> A number of people in the LIWG have expressed interest in having more
>> LIWG-relevant diagnostics produced automatically in CESM2 runs. Eventually,
>> we'd like to have our own LIWG diagnostics package, but we're not going to
>> have time to do that for the CESM2 release.
>>
>> Most of what we'd want is obtainable from CLM history files. So, in the
>> short term – i.e., the next couple of months – we were wondering if it
>> would be feasible to add some LIWG-relevant diagnostics fields to the Land
>> diagnostics package. At the very least, this would involve adding some new
>> fields. Ideally, these would be shown with regional projections centered
>> over Antarctica and Greenland; I don't think this is currently done for any
>> LMWG diagnostics, though it is for AMWG diagnostics. We might also want to
>> include some new observational and reanalysis-derived datasets for
>> comparison. Perhaps all of this could be included in a new "set"??
>>
>> Do you feel this would be feasible over the next two months? Jan Lenaerts
>> (cc'ed) is happy to take the lead on this, so this shouldn't take much of
>> your time, other than perhaps pointing us in the right direction. So the
>> questions are really:
>>
>> (1) Keith: Does this seem acceptable?
>>
>> (2) Both: Do you have a sense of how hard this would be? Specifically,
>> how hard would it be to (a) add a new set, (b) include regional map plots,
>> (c) include new observational datasets?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alice Bertini
> NCAR - CSEG Software Engineer
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/liwg-core/attachments/20170302/aec22353/attachment.html>


More information about the Liwg-core mailing list