Closed hdrake closed 1 year ago
I agree that keeping everything consistent with standard MOM6 conventions will allow us to make the fastest progress for now, which I think is important.
Ultimately, we may consider refactoring all of these packages to adopt the CMOR conventions. Is it CMOR conventions that you have adopted in xwmt
thus far, @jetesdal?
Where can I find an explanation of what the CMOR conventions imply for naming of coordinates and new variable names?
I tried googling but couldn't find anything specific about things like names for different grids. I understand there are standards for coordinates like longitude
, but how does CMOR handle there being different grids (like geolon
vs. geolon_c
in MOM6)? Also relevant to https://github.com/NOAA-GFDL/xwmt/issues/6
That might be a question for @jkrasting ?
I honestly get lost in the standards myself. I rely on @aradhakrishnanGFDL to help make sense of them.
Sorry, I missed this. The CMIP6 grids table may be useful for this discussion. CMOR specific questions/issues can go here.
This issue is side-stepped by inferring dimension and coordinate names directly from xgcm.Grid.axis
metadata.
We need to think a bit more carefully about coordinate naming conventions for
xwmb
than forxwmt
. First of all, we use variables on all four different C-grid grids (suffixh
ort
for tracers,u
for zonal velocity,v
for meridional velocity, andc
orq
for tracer cell corners, or vorticity). This is further complicated because we also need to pass datasets tosectionate
, which has its own requirements for coordinate conventions.I think the more straight forward approach is to following the default MOM6 grid suffix conventions: -
(xh,yh)
for tracer cells centers(xq, yq)
for tracer cell corners (or center of vorticity cells)(xq, yh)
for center of zonal velocity faces(xh, yq)
for center of meridional velocity facesI think all this would mean is changing all of the
x
andy
inxwmt
toxh
andyh
.What do you think, @gmacgilchrist and @jetesdal?