Comments (17)
RobertPincus
commented on July 27, 2024
Dustin, did we not have recent user complaint about trying to build the CMOR driver with a version of CMOR that’s no longer supported and not used by CMIP?
@alejandrobodas<https://github.com/alejandrobodas>
@RobertPincus<https://github.com/robertpincus>
I'm not sure how important this is, especially that we now have a non-CMOR dependent offline driver, but is there a desire to update the CMOR driver to use the latest version of CMOR (version3)?
Dustin
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALRriJ5UzWVOzLPxkXzpLpEJ_JxtGRRCks5td_CLgaJpZM4So_Fm>.
from cospv2.0.
dustinswales
commented on July 27, 2024
Robert,
Yes we did (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cosp-user/42VrqM87Y7w)
from cospv2.0.
klein21
commented on July 27, 2024
Dustin,
If we remove the CMOR capability from the test program, do we lose anything capability/functionality?
Do climate models build their own interfaces to CMOR, such that climate models don’t directly use whatever CMOR interface is in the COSP testing program?
If so, the only people harmed by removing CMOR from the COSP testing program would be those that run COSP offline, but also want to submit the offline calculated values to CMIP/CFMIP. However, I don’t believe there are any such users as all COSP use within CMIP/CFMIP is done inline.
If so, it would be good to remove the CMOR interface, because it is not needed and because it causes trouble with those who want to test COSP but don’t need CMOR. Being decoupled from the CMOR developments is another plus in my mind.
As for the rest of the reorganization of the code, I don’t have a specific comment, other than to confirm with you that the changes do not alter (significantly) the test program’s output.
Steve
From: dustinswales <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 10:06 AM
To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Cc: Subscribed <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [CFMIP/COSPv2.0] Updated CMOR driver for COSP2 (#8)
Robert,
Yes we did (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cosp-user/42VrqM87Y7w)
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AfO_cOdOAkir4tKm1qmT89TRuZwmhpPfks5td_xkgaJpZM4So_Fm>.
from cospv2.0.
RobertPincus
commented on July 27, 2024
As for the rest of the reorganization of the code, I don’t have a specific comment, other than to confirm with you that the changes do not alter (significantly) the test program’s output.
Steve -
The merge proposed by Dustin includes no changes to source code at all beyond adding the new non-CMOR driver. Thus any changes you see should be entirely the result of using different compilers, etc. Does that seem consistent with what you’re seeing?
Alejandro was advocating for CMOR support most vocally. I’ll be interested to hear what he has to say.
- Robert
from cospv2.0.
klein21
commented on July 27, 2024
Robert,
I haven’t looked at the output. I agree with you that there shouldn’t be any significant changes because there are no changes to the source code beyond the driver. I am asking Dustin to confirm that this is case.
Yes, I am curious to know what Alejandro thinks. His opinion should carry more weight given that he has much more knowledge about the underlying code and relevant issues than do I.
Steve
From: Robert Pincus <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 5:06 PM
To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Klein, Stephen A." <[email protected]>, Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [CFMIP/COSPv2.0] Updated CMOR driver for COSP2 (#8)
As for the rest of the reorganization of the code, I don’t have a specific comment, other than to confirm with you that the changes do not alter (significantly) the test program’s output.
Steve -
The merge proposed by Dustin includes no changes to source code at all beyond adding the new non-CMOR driver. Thus any changes you see should be entirely the result of using different compilers, etc. Does that seem consistent with what you’re seeing?
Alejandro was advocating for CMOR support most vocally. I’ll be interested to hear what he has to say.
- Robert
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AfO_cLkmOxCPv-ejxzCn0jTg-M39lAr4ks5teF77gaJpZM4So_Fm>.
from cospv2.0.
RobertPincus
commented on July 27, 2024
Ah - you’re asking if the answers have changed for us. They have not.
- Robert
… On Mar 13, 2018, at 8:11 PM, klein21 ***@***.***> wrote:
Robert,
I haven’t looked at the output. I agree with you that there shouldn’t be any significant changes because there are no changes to the source code beyond the driver. I am asking Dustin to confirm that this is case.
Yes, I am curious to know what Alejandro thinks. His opinion should carry more weight given that he has much more knowledge about the underlying code and relevant issues than do I.
Steve
from cospv2.0.
klein21
commented on July 27, 2024
Thanks!
From: Robert Pincus <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 5:12 PM
To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Klein, Stephen A." <[email protected]>, Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [CFMIP/COSPv2.0] Updated CMOR driver for COSP2 (#8)
Ah - you’re asking if the answers have changed for us. They have not.
- Robert
On Mar 13, 2018, at 8:11 PM, klein21 ***@***.***> wrote:
Robert,
I haven’t looked at the output. I agree with you that there shouldn’t be any significant changes because there are no changes to the source code beyond the driver. I am asking Dustin to confirm that this is case.
Yes, I am curious to know what Alejandro thinks. His opinion should carry more weight given that he has much more knowledge about the underlying code and relevant issues than do I.
Steve
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AfO_cB39qMFG8t6thFpmC59oc5ef5bZQks5teGB6gaJpZM4So_Fm>.
from cospv2.0.
alejandrobodas
commented on July 27, 2024
@dustinswales @RobertPincus @klein21 Hi, I am in favour of deleting the CMOR interface. This interface was used for CMIP5, when one or two modelling centres run COSP offline. I don't think this is needed any more, and it makes the installation overly complex due to a number of additional external dependencies. Perhaps we could ask in the cosp-users group, just to be sure than no-one is opposed to this.
However, I think the netcdf output should be CF-compliant so that it can still be easily readable by many data analysis software. In principle, this should not be too difficult.
from cospv2.0.
RobertPincus
commented on July 27, 2024
@alejandrobodas I’m all in favor of dropping CMOR support too, for the reasons you mention. I have been finding strict CF compliance a little difficult to achieve with RFMIP files. Given that the main role of this offline driver is to flag code changes that affect answers, how much effort do you think we should devote to this?
@dustinswales<https://github.com/dustinswales> @RobertPincus<https://github.com/robertpincus> @klein21<https://github.com/klein21> Hi, I am in favour of deleting the CMOR interface. This interface was used for CMIP5, when one or two modelling centres run COSP offline. I don't think this is needed any more, and it makes the installation overly complex due to a number of additional external dependencies. Perhaps we could ask in the cosp-users group, just to be sure than no-one is opposed to this.
However, I think the netcdf output should be CF-compliant so that it can still be easily readable by many data analysis software. In principle, this should not be too difficult.
from cospv2.0.
alejandrobodas
commented on July 27, 2024
@RobertPincus That's why I think doing a quick survey among the users would be good. If the offline use is very small or non-exsitent, then making the files CF-compliant would not be that important.
@dustinswales Is there an output file already available in the repository? I could run it through a CF checker and see if the issues are major ones or not.
from cospv2.0.
RobertPincus
commented on July 27, 2024
@alejandrobodasThe example output file is in driver/data/outputs/UKMO/cosp2_output_um.ref.nc .
… On Mar 14, 2018, at 9:15 AM, alejandrobodas ***@***.***> wrote:
@RobertPincus That's why I think doing a quick survey among the users would be good. If the offline use is very small or non-exsitent, then making the files CF-compliant would not be that important.
@dustinswales Is there an output file already available in the repository? I could run it through a CF checker and see if the issues are major ones or not.
from cospv2.0.
alejandrobodas
commented on July 27, 2024
@RobertPincus thanks for this. I think the file is nearly a minimalist CF-compliant file. I have a few suggestions that I think should be easy to add:
- add a variable for each of the dimensions. For instance, when I read the MISR histogram, I get
MISR CFAD / (%) (altitude_bin_centers: 16; cloud_optical_depth_bin_centers: 7; -- : 153)
but when I read in the 3D calipso cloud fraction I get:
Calipso cloud-fraction / (%) (-- : 40; -- : 153)
The '--' indicates that there is no variable associated with that axis. Hopefully adding these is not too much work.
- The CF checker complains of the following:
latitude variable 'latitude' should define standard_name='latitude'
(same for longitude)
Global attribute 'Conventions' field is not present
-
Whenever possible, I would add the standard_name attribute.
-
Some of the long names are not strictly correct, e.g. use of 'CFAD' for ISCCP and MISR histograms.
from cospv2.0.
klein21
commented on July 27, 2024
Robert or Dustin,
I like Alejandro’s idea for sending a quick message out to the COSP-user maillist, asking if anybody would miss deleting the CMOR interface from the COSP2 testing program. You might learning something relevant.
Steve
From: alejandrobodas <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 7:12 AM
To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Klein, Stephen A." <[email protected]>, Mention <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [CFMIP/COSPv2.0] Updated CMOR driver for COSP2 (#8)
@RobertPincus<https://github.com/robertpincus> thanks for this. I think the file is nearly a minimalist CF-compliant file. I have a few suggestions that I think should be easy to add:
1. add a variable for each of the dimensions. For instance, when I read the MISR histogram, I get
MISR CFAD / (%) (altitude_bin_centers: 16; cloud_optical_depth_bin_centers: 7; -- : 153)
but when I read in the 3D calipso cloud fraction I get:
Calipso cloud-fraction / (%) (-- : 40; -- : 153)
The '--' indicates that there is no variable associated with that axis. Hopefully adding these is not too much work.
1. The CF checker complains of the following:
latitude variable 'latitude' should define standard_name='latitude'
(same for longitude)
Global attribute 'Conventions' field is not present
1. Whenever possible, I would add the standard_name attribute.
2. Some of the long names are not strictly correct, e.g. use of 'CFAD' for ISCCP and MISR histograms.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AfO_cL-f5viQpGxLxNHCfwFaKxvOvVXcks5teSUogaJpZM4So_Fm>.
from cospv2.0.
RobertPincus
commented on July 27, 2024
I did this already this morning. You didn’t get it?
- R
… I like Alejandro’s idea for sending a quick message out to the COSP-user maillist, asking if anybody would miss deleting the CMOR interface from the COSP2 testing program. You might learning something relevant.
Steve
From: alejandrobodas ***@***.***>
Reply-To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" ***@***.***>
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 7:12 AM
To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" ***@***.***>
Cc: "Klein, Stephen A." ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [CFMIP/COSPv2.0] Updated CMOR driver for COSP2 (#8)
@RobertPincus<https://github.com/robertpincus> thanks for this. I think the file is nearly a minimalist CF-compliant file. I have a few suggestions that I think should be easy to add:
1. add a variable for each of the dimensions. For instance, when I read the MISR histogram, I get
MISR CFAD / (%) (altitude_bin_centers: 16; cloud_optical_depth_bin_centers: 7; -- : 153)
but when I read in the 3D calipso cloud fraction I get:
Calipso cloud-fraction / (%) (-- : 40; -- : 153)
The '--' indicates that there is no variable associated with that axis. Hopefully adding these is not too much work.
1. The CF checker complains of the following:
latitude variable 'latitude' should define standard_name='latitude'
(same for longitude)
Global attribute 'Conventions' field is not present
1. Whenever possible, I would add the standard_name attribute.
2. Some of the long names are not strictly correct, e.g. use of 'CFAD' for ISCCP and MISR histograms.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AfO_cL-f5viQpGxLxNHCfwFaKxvOvVXcks5teSUogaJpZM4So_Fm>.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
from cospv2.0.
klein21
commented on July 27, 2024
No I didn’t, but I have noticed recently that delivery into my LLNL inbox of e-mail from Google groups has been slow…. I don’t know what that’s about…
From: Robert Pincus <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 9:28 AM
To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Klein, Stephen A." <[email protected]>, Mention <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [CFMIP/COSPv2.0] Updated CMOR driver for COSP2 (#8)
I did this already this morning. You didn’t get it?
- R
I like Alejandro’s idea for sending a quick message out to the COSP-user maillist, asking if anybody would miss deleting the CMOR interface from the COSP2 testing program. You might learning something relevant.
Steve
From: alejandrobodas ***@***.***>
Reply-To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" ***@***.***>
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 7:12 AM
To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" ***@***.***>
Cc: "Klein, Stephen A." ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [CFMIP/COSPv2.0] Updated CMOR driver for COSP2 (#8)
@RobertPincus<https://github.com/robertpincus> thanks for this. I think the file is nearly a minimalist CF-compliant file. I have a few suggestions that I think should be easy to add:
1. add a variable for each of the dimensions. For instance, when I read the MISR histogram, I get
MISR CFAD / (%) (altitude_bin_centers: 16; cloud_optical_depth_bin_centers: 7; -- : 153)
but when I read in the 3D calipso cloud fraction I get:
Calipso cloud-fraction / (%) (-- : 40; -- : 153)
The '--' indicates that there is no variable associated with that axis. Hopefully adding these is not too much work.
1. The CF checker complains of the following:
latitude variable 'latitude' should define standard_name='latitude'
(same for longitude)
Global attribute 'Conventions' field is not present
1. Whenever possible, I would add the standard_name attribute.
2. Some of the long names are not strictly correct, e.g. use of 'CFAD' for ISCCP and MISR histograms.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AfO_cL-f5viQpGxLxNHCfwFaKxvOvVXcks5teSUogaJpZM4So_Fm>.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AfO_cDBWM5QTq-wV8yykYFLuDvpcga0Sks5teUT0gaJpZM4So_Fm>.
from cospv2.0.
klein21
commented on July 27, 2024
Oh, I think the problem may be with the e-mail address I associate with Google. Anyways, I see your message Robert to the COSP-user group….
From: "Klein, Stephen A." <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 9:30 AM
To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>, "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Cc: Mention <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [CFMIP/COSPv2.0] Updated CMOR driver for COSP2 (#8)
No I didn’t, but I have noticed recently that delivery into my LLNL inbox of e-mail from Google groups has been slow…. I don’t know what that’s about…
From: Robert Pincus <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 9:28 AM
To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Klein, Stephen A." <[email protected]>, Mention <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [CFMIP/COSPv2.0] Updated CMOR driver for COSP2 (#8)
I did this already this morning. You didn’t get it?
- R
I like Alejandro’s idea for sending a quick message out to the COSP-user maillist, asking if anybody would miss deleting the CMOR interface from the COSP2 testing program. You might learning something relevant.
Steve
From: alejandrobodas ***@***.***>
Reply-To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" ***@***.***>
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 7:12 AM
To: "CFMIP/COSPv2.0" ***@***.***>
Cc: "Klein, Stephen A." ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [CFMIP/COSPv2.0] Updated CMOR driver for COSP2 (#8)
@RobertPincus<https://github.com/robertpincus> thanks for this. I think the file is nearly a minimalist CF-compliant file. I have a few suggestions that I think should be easy to add:
1. add a variable for each of the dimensions. For instance, when I read the MISR histogram, I get
MISR CFAD / (%) (altitude_bin_centers: 16; cloud_optical_depth_bin_centers: 7; -- : 153)
but when I read in the 3D calipso cloud fraction I get:
Calipso cloud-fraction / (%) (-- : 40; -- : 153)
The '--' indicates that there is no variable associated with that axis. Hopefully adding these is not too much work.
1. The CF checker complains of the following:
latitude variable 'latitude' should define standard_name='latitude'
(same for longitude)
Global attribute 'Conventions' field is not present
1. Whenever possible, I would add the standard_name attribute.
2. Some of the long names are not strictly correct, e.g. use of 'CFAD' for ISCCP and MISR histograms.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AfO_cL-f5viQpGxLxNHCfwFaKxvOvVXcks5teSUogaJpZM4So_Fm>.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AfO_cDBWM5QTq-wV8yykYFLuDvpcga0Sks5teUT0gaJpZM4So_Fm>.
from cospv2.0.
dustinswales
commented on July 27, 2024
CMOR capability has been removed from COSP2 offline driver.
from cospv2.0.
Related Issues (20)
- Inconsistent floating point types in quickbeam_optics HOT 10
- MISR outputs are not properly set to fillvalues for night columns HOT 16
- Bug in MODIS indexing of pressure input HOT 2
- MODIS Optical_Thickness_vs_ReffICE and Optical_Thickness_vs_ReffLIQ not masked for night columns HOT 3
- Striping caused by vertical interpolation routine HOT 15
- Example data for tests do not include any night columns HOT 2
- Allocation issue with MODIS/Cloudsat joint-products HOT 1
- cosp_diag_warmrain has wrong dimensions for variable frac_out / design flaw HOT 2
- cosp2_test reference (test) output is missing variables & needs versioning. HOT 4
- Python test script does not note occurrence of outputs that are not in the test dataset (Version check?) HOT 6
- Remove COSPv1.4 interface HOT 5
- Test case using global snapshot HOT 5
- Encoding version information in the KGO HOT 7
- CI test ifort broken HOT 1
- Implementation of CLARA simulator HOT 14
- hgt_matrix_half is used inconsistently HOT 1
- Masking fix in cosp_diag_warmrain? HOT 4
- Calculation of cloudsat_preclvl_index fails when use_vgrid=.false. HOT 4
- Missing type specifier causing crash on Cori-KNL in running debug mode HOT 6
- Allocation of radar lookup table and delete unused variables
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from cospv2.0.