Visualizing WRF on an axis V1.1

[claalmve]

Description of PR

Summary of changes and related issue Implementing changes for V1.1 of visualizing WRF on an axis. Includes functionality to:

1. Show specific variables available for a specific set of user inputs (downscaling method, timescale, and spatial resolution).
2. Allows aggregation of simulation information across gridcells for agg_lat_lon_sims, instead of just the closest gridcell.

Relevant motivation and context Informs users on what variables are available to use for agnostic tools. Also allows users to use agnostic tools across larger areas, spanning multiple gridcells.

Type of change

• [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [X] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• [ ] This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Tested with various inputs inside of agnostic_tools.ipynb

Checklist:

• [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
• [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• [x] My changes generate no new warnings
• [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

[Tianchi-Liu]

Is the notebook of interest in this PR? Is it ready for testing?

[claalmve]

Is the notebook of interest in this PR? Is it ready for testing?

Yes! It's also ready for testing, sorry I didn't assign it. I added a description for context and should be ready for review!

[vicford]

Requesting that plot_double_WRF be renamed to be specific to the kind of plot being produced, perhaps: plot_climate_response_WRF

[vicford]

This is perhaps a v5+ item to consider for this plot, but these kinds of comparison figures are a kind of climate response to a change signal: typically temperature delta (i.e., GWL) and change in precipitation (see Fig 6 here ). Going to leave a comment on the notebook PR on this as the "default" option for now.

[Tianchi-Liu]

The notebook adds median as an aggregation function option. I don't know the best scientific practice regarding this when both space and time dimensions need aggregation. Right now agg_lat_lon_sims flattens the space dimension first through area-averaging (if a lat/lon box is provided), but agg_area_subset_sims doesn’t. The results are likely similar, but I think the discrepancy should be resolved.

[Tianchi-Liu]

It's awesome that more variables are now supported by the tool. However, some variables in variable_descriptions.csv are not available here. Nor are they in the Select() panel. I am curious why, but the current variables work well.

[vicford]

It's awesome that more variables are now supported by the tool. However, some variables in variable_descriptions.csv are not available here. Nor are they in the Select() panel. I am curious why, but the current variables work well.

I can answer this one! Some variables are "turned off" in variable_descriptions.csv because they're super uncommon to actually use. They're needed and accessible for other workflows but not necessary to include as a core main option for the time being!

[Tianchi-Liu]

The multi-cell lat/lon box in the notebook works well too. I like that inputs are validated. For future, a more robust lat/lon validation could be beneficial. It would be nice to check that the input lat/lon are selectable (within the limits supported etc.). I imagine some users would try integers in addition to floats, but suppose no one would put strings in the tuples. If the validation logic gets complex, maybe consider reusing existing ones created for Select.

Likewise, the years should be within limits supported.

[Tianchi-Liu]

plot_WRF is giving unexpected unit and values:

plot_sims is also breaking as the notebook gives it more arguments than it can take, but WRF seems to be more of interest now, so this could be addressed in a future PR.

[vicford]

plot_WRF is giving unexpected unit and values:

I am also seeing this - and noted it in my original review

[vicford]

Out of curiosity, is there a reason plot_sims is not plot_LOCA2, considering the WRF equivalent is plot_WRF?

This is very much not a needed by Thursday revision, but specificity and clarity should be considered in function names moving forward - presumably we will have future different kinds of plots for WRF and LOCA2 data