[MITgcm-devel] ecco seaicev4 cost-name change

[Patrick Heimbach]

Hi there,

I think these names were created by Gael.
If we change them, I think we should go with option a (STOP in ecco_readparams.F)
to minimize confusion.

Cheers
-Patrick

On Apr 2, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu> wrote:

> Hello An,
> 
> I am not really following pkg/ecco developpment, but my preference would go to:
>> a) completely replace the old names with new ones in code and put in ERROR + STOP statement if the old names are used,
> What does Patrick think of this ?
> 
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
> 
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 06:33:07PM -0400, An T Nguyen wrote:
>> hello,
>> 
>> Back in January 2014, Gael, Ian, and I agreed to implement Ian's seaicev4 proxy cost terms as a function of sst into the pkg/ecco.  I've just updated the code to reflect that.  
>> 
>> Related to cost formulation, we also agreed to change the cost names to make them more reflective of what each cost is.
>> 
>> Currently, the 3 cost names are:
>> (1) siv4-conc <-- misfit in ice concentration
>> (2) siv4-sst    <-- data have ice but model has no ice (deficiency of ice)
>> (3) siv4-vol   <--  data have no ice but model has ice (excess of ice)
>> 
>> I propose changing the names of (2) and (3) to:
>> (2) siv4-deconc (deficiency of ice)
>> (3) siv4-exconc (excess of ice)
>> 
>> Any thought / opinion / suggestion on these names?
>> 
>> Lastly, the implementation part: I can either
>> 
>> a) completely replace the old names with new ones in code and put in ERROR + STOP statement if the old names are used, OR
>> b) completely replace old with new in code with WARNING statement that cost calc for terms (2) and (3) are skipped due to unmatched names, OR
>> c) leave both old and new in and if
>>    i) only old is provided in data.ecco, set new = old and proceed to calc cost.
>>   ii) both old and new names are provided in data.ecco, WARNING of conflict and only use new, proceed to calc cost.
>>  iii) only new is provided, proceed to calc cost.
>> 
>> Option (c) gives backward compatibility (I think) but also is messy and can cause confusion down the line.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> An
>> _______________________________________________
>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel


---
Patrick Heimbach | heimbach at mit.edu | http://www.mit.edu/~heimbach
MIT | EAPS 54-1420 | 77 Massachusetts Ave | Cambridge MA 02139 USA
FON +1-617-253-5259 | FAX +1-617-253-4464 | SKYPE patrick.heimbach

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1588 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-devel/attachments/20140402/0b832fd9/attachment.p7s>