-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 126
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
AutoAssess: Add new diagnostic for radiation budget #2282
Conversation
@esmvalbot Please run recipe_radiation_budget.yml |
Since @Jon-Lillis asked, ESMValBot will run recipe recipe_radiation_budget.yml as soon as possible, output will be generated here |
ESMValBot is sorry to report it failed to run recipe recipe_radiation_budget.yml: exit is 1, output has been generated here |
Moved plots to issue #2209. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
all good from me, cheers and good work, guys! All we need now is a sciencey reviewer - @alistairsellar when you gots some time, mate 🍺
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm happy from a science perspective. The values in the plots attached to #2209 appear identical to the eye, and the metrics in the csv files differ by less than 0.75%, and only 0.06% on average. The science parts of the code look to be doing the right thing.
#2209 notes that there are some variables missing in the CERES files in the data pool and that this will be picked up in a later issue. Fine by me - please open that issue now so we don't lose sight of the gap.
esmvaltool/diag_scripts/radiation_budget/seasonal_radiation_budget.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks everyone!
I believe the only outstanding issues (not related to any of my comments) is the general principle on whether diagnostics should fail or warn when inputs are missing.
def get_provenance_record(filenames): | ||
"""Return a provenance record describing the plot. | ||
|
||
Parameters | ||
---------- | ||
filenames : list of strings | ||
The filenames containing the data used to create the plot. | ||
|
||
Returns | ||
------- | ||
dictionary | ||
The provenance record describing the plot. | ||
""" | ||
record = { | ||
'ancestors': filenames, | ||
} | ||
return record |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We added a bare minimum provenance record. This is all we needed to add for the recipe to run without errors. The tutorial has a very short "Recording the provenance" section, which links to the ESMValTool documentation, but we weren't sure on the best practice here. Is there anything else that we should add here? Would it be worth adding more details to the tutorial about this?
Co-authored-by: Emma Hogan <ehogan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Emma Hogan <ehogan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Emma Hogan <ehogan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Emma Hogan <ehogan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Emma Hogan <ehogan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Emma Hogan <ehogan@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for making those changes, @Jon-Lillis! :)
@valeriupredoi I think this PR is ready to be merged 🎉 Is there anything else we need to do before this happens? |
awesome job here, guys! 🍺 |
one last question, from @alistairsellar
Has this been opened? 🍺 |
Yep, this was opened in #2428. I've modified the description to include adding the additional variables to the radiation budget diagnostic. |
excellent, cheers @Jon-Lillis 🍺 |
Description
Before you get started
Checklist
It is the responsibility of the author to make sure the pull request is ready to review. The icons indicate whether the item will be subject to the 🛠 Technical or 🧪 Scientific review.
New or updated recipe/diagnostic
To help with the number of pull requests: