Skip to content
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

Paper cc #143

Closed
wants to merge 127 commits into from
Closed

Paper cc #143

wants to merge 127 commits into from

Conversation

ChrisC28
Copy link
Collaborator

@ChrisC28 ChrisC28 commented Apr 7, 2024

Hi @ashjbarnes @navidcy
Following @aekiss and making my comments through a PR on a separate branch.

I've made a few mostly minor modifications to the paper.md file. I've included a referece to Mike Herzfeld's work developing the original implementation of the radiation boundary conditions in MOM4, which includes a number of rules-of-thumb regarding regional domain parameters (grid resolution, time step, etc..). I also agree with @aekiss that there was a lot of useful information in the commented out sections of the paper, that, if space isn't an issue, I think could be included.

A few brief comments

  • Worth noting that MOM6, while improving some aspects of the regional modelling, has also lost some capabilities. Noteably, a number of radiative schemes are yet to be implemented on the C-grid. Not sure if we need this level of detail in the paper.
  • The major advantage of using MOM6 in regional modelling is to access the advantages of the new ocean model (ALE, better tracer advection schemes enabling larger time-steps, etc...);
  • Do we need step-by-step guide to what inputs are required, and what the expected outputs are? Or is this best handled within the code itself?
  • How removed from the NCI/Gadi environment do we need to be to make this work open for a general audience?

Great work so far. I don't think you are far from having something ready to submit.

@navidcy
Copy link
Contributor

navidcy commented Apr 8, 2024

@ChrisC28 can you reopen the PR but towards joss-paper branch?

@navidcy navidcy self-requested a review April 8, 2024 04:33
Copy link
Contributor

@navidcy navidcy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please open the PR from paper_CC -> joss-paper branch

@ashjbarnes
Copy link
Collaborator

Closed and migrated to a PR pointing to joss-paper PR to keep our git history tidy #144

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants