search

ACCESS-NRI / access-esm1.5-configs

Standard ACCESS-ESM1.5 configurations released and supported by ACCESS-NRI
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
0 stars 0 forks source link

Configuration naming scheme #19

Open aidanheerdegen opened 1 week ago

aidanheerdegen commented 1 week ago

Anyone with opinions about what the names of the initial configurations should be please chime in here. The CMS repo just called them historical, pre-industrial, miocene etc.

The OM2 configurations, by necessity, have resolution, forcing product and forcing mode in the name, e.g. release-1deg_jra55_iaf.

Do we want to adopt any naming convention like this? Clearly a forcing product and mode is not required, but perhaps it useful to include a resolution as a standard part of our configuration naming for consistency and transparency, to make it obvious to users what this refers to. This may also be informed by/be consistent with the input file naming scheme.

So we could start with:

1deg_n96_hist_conc 1deg_n96_pi_conc

given that emissions driven will be near-term targets they would be something like

1deg_n96_hist_emiss 1deg_n96_pi_emiss

Those are fairly terse, could go for longer and more descriptive historical and pre-industrial.

Thoughts?

CodeGat commented 1 week ago

Linking https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/access-esm1.5-configs/pull/18 (specifically https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/access-esm1.5-configs/pull/18/files#diff-b335630551682c19a781afebcf4d07bf978fb1f8ac04c6bf87428ed5106870f5R10) as this is relevant to the documentation in that PR.

aidanheerdegen commented 1 week ago

as this is relevant to the documentation in that PR.

Can you guess what I was reviewing when I decided to post this?

CodeGat commented 1 week ago

I don't necessarily have any expertise in this bit, but for whatever is decided we should still prepend [dev|release]-<config> for whatever <config>.

Xdeg would be good to keep if it's common between all/most models.

What is meant by n96?

If we go with long names, can we make - reserved, as well as _? We currently use - as a separator for [dev|release]-<config>-<tag>. pre-industrial would break that convention.

aidanheerdegen commented 1 week ago

n96 is the atmosphere "resolution" (it's a spectral model so this doesn't really have a well defined spatial resolution I believe but @blimlim is better placed to comment).

I agree - should be reserved, so pre_historical if we want to "go long or go home".

CodeGat commented 1 week ago

Even with pre_historical, we've been using _ as a separator between 'fields', for lack of a better word. Like 1deg_jra55_iaf_bgc, _ separates resolution, forcing product and forcing mode (and the BGC bit). I think we're running out of freely usable separators :D

aidanheerdegen commented 1 week ago

Even with pre_historical, we've been using _ as a separator between 'fields'

So prehistorical it is! :)

blimlim commented 1 week ago

n96 is the atmosphere "resolution" (it's a spectral model so this doesn't really have a well defined spatial resolution I believe

From what I understand, the UM uses a finite difference scheme with regular lat/lon grid. The n96 grid has a lat x lon grid cell size of 1.25 x 1.875 degrees, which results in there being 145 latitudes and 192 longitudes. I'm not sure how it originated, but the nXY naming scheme seems to just halve the number of longitudes, e.g. n48 has 96 longitudes, and I think n216 has 432.

Not sure if I have any ideas that are too useful here! We could go with the CMIP6 experiment names, e.g. piControl and historical from the experiment list here (scroll down to the CMIP activity ID to see the relevant ones), though that might cause problems down the line. E.g. many do use dashes in their name, and the emissions driven experiments are named things like esm-piControl (I'd probably get confused thinking this was referring to the model rather than the experiment). If a configuration is from a CMIP experiment though, it would probably be good state which one it is somewhere in the configuration (maybe in the readme?).

This may also be informed by/be consistent with the input file naming scheme.

If we copy the naming schemes we've been thinking about for the input files , do you think it reads ok or is it a bit unwieldy? E.g. release-global.oi_1deg.a_N96_historical_conc

aidanheerdegen commented 1 week ago

From what I understand, the UM uses a finite difference scheme with regular lat/lon grid. The n96 grid has a lat x lon grid cell size of 1.25 x 1.875 degrees, which results in there being 145 latitudes and 192 longitudes. I'm not sure how it originated, but the nXY naming scheme seems to just halve the number of longitudes, e.g. n48 has 96 longitudes, and I think n216 has 432.

Sorry for the wrong information and thanks for the correction @blimlim!

Not sure if I have any ideas that are too useful here! We could go with the CMIP6 experiment names, e.g. piControl and historical from the experiment list here (scroll down to the CMIP activity ID to see the relevant ones), though that might cause problems down the line. E.g. many do use dashes in their name, and the emissions driven experiments are named things like esm-piControl (I'd probably get confused thinking this was referring to the model rather than the experiment). If a configuration is from a CMIP experiment though, it would probably be good state which one it is somewhere in the configuration (maybe in the readme?).

We've chosen to define an experiment as a "realisation of a configuration". What we call an experiment CMIP calls a simulation. A CMIP experiment is a description of a protocol for a simulation.

That is a long-winded way of saying in our way of working piControl should be the name of the branch (experiment) that is a specific realisation (series of runs) of a pre-industrial configuration.

This may also be informed by/be consistent with the input file naming scheme.

If we copy the naming schemes we've been thinking about for the input files , do you think it reads ok or is it a bit unwieldy? E.g. release-global.oi_1deg.a_N96_historical_conc

Yes I think that is probably unwieldy. Because we get to define what a name means I think we can say that it is, for example:

<spatial_extent>_<ocean_resolution>_<atmosphere_resolution>_<scenario>+<modifier>

and assume the oi and a bits. I think they tend to make it more difficult to comprehend.

If we break it up into those fields it might help

Field Possible values
Spatial extent global,panant,regional,aust
Ocean resolution 1deg, 2deg, 025deg
Atmosphere resolution n48, n96, n512
Scenario historical, preindustrial, pliocene, lgm, ssp585
Modifiers emiss, conc

Is "scenario" a good description? It could be more specific, e.g. "chronological period", if that was all that it is ever required for, but as I included a CMIP future scenario if we agree that is the appropriate then scenario is probably a better term.

I added "Modifiers" as a general bucker for some extra specification, and there could be multiple but I can't think of any.

Any opinions @MartinDix?

MartinDix commented 1 week ago

scenario is better than chronological period because some cases don't have a real date range associated with them, e.g. 4xCO2. There are more possible modifiers, e.g. land use only, GHG only. Not sure that conc/emiss is the best choice. We should check with Tilo and Tammas.

dougiesquire commented 1 week ago

Probably not useful input at this point, but having experiment names that start with a number can be a little annoying sometimes because many languages do not allow variable names that start with a number. I guess we're already pretty much already locked in to these so... just ignore me.

MartinDix commented 1 week ago

For ESM1.5/6 we don't need the spatial extent. It might be useful sometime further into the future. To avoid having a number at the start could put the atmosphere first, n96_1deg ...

aidanheerdegen commented 1 week ago

There are more possible modifiers, e.g. land use only, GHG only. Not sure that conc/emiss is the best choice. We should check with Tilo and Tammas.

Who/How do we do this?

I only suggested a +<modifier> in case that was a useful idea. Particularly if modifiers are optional, if there was the possibility of multiple modifiers for a given configuration, or if there was a "base" configuration and an equivalent with some modification. If there is always a modifier field then it probably makes sense to use a _ separator.

having experiment names that start with a number can be a little annoying sometimes because many languages do not allow variable names that start with a number.

For ESM1.5/6 we don't need the spatial extent. It might be useful sometime further into the future. To avoid having a number at the start could put the atmosphere first, n96_1deg ...

So proposal for configuration name is:

<atmosphere_resolution>_<ocean_resolution>_<scenario>+<modifier>

with corresponding branches with release- and dev- prepended.

access-hive-bot commented 2 days ago

This issue has been mentioned on ACCESS Hive Community Forum. There might be relevant details there:

https://forum.access-hive.org.au/t/access-esm1-5-access-nri-flagship-release-plans/1772/16

tammasloughran commented 1 day ago

Should probably be named something like concentration-driven vs. interactive carbon cycle, because the pre-industrial simulation does not have emissions but can have an interactive carbon cycle enabled. The emissions, whether 0, constant of variable are indicated by the "scenario" descriptor.