reanalysis on climatedataguide.ucar.edu?

[hkershaw-brown]

Add DART-CAM6 reanalysis to climatedataguide.ucar.edu?

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/reanalysis

https://dart.ucar.edu/research/cam6-reanalysis/
https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/d345000/

[kdraeder]

The CDG's guidance about contributions includes the following (excerpted to focus on questions for discussion and outlining the work involved).

---

Data Set Criteria

We are particularly looking to establish pages on observational or reanalysis datasets that meet the following criteria:
...
In-demand for model evaluation, model forcing, model initialization, or data assimilation
Climatology or sufficient record length long-term studies
...

Content of Contributions

1. What are the key strengths of this data set?
2. What are the key limitations of this data set?
3. What are the typical research applications of these data? What are examples from your work?
4. What are some common mistakes that users encounter when processing or interpreting these data?
5. What are the likely spurious (non-climatic) features, if any, of timeseries derived from these data?
6. What corrections were applied to account for changes in observing systems, sampling methods or density, and satellite drift or degredation?
7. Describe any conversion steps that are necessary or general strategies to compare these data with model output.
8. What are some comparable data sets, if any? Why use this data set instead of another?
9. How is uncertainty characterized in these data?
10. Can you recommend any cloud platforms and/or online plotting tools where one can visualize and interact with these data? Please point to those resources, as well as share a few figures from your own work.
11. Are there any publicly available pieces of code that illustrate how to access and analyze these data? If so, where?
12. Provide a summary statement about these data and their utility for research and model evaluation.

---

The seminar suggests a 500 word description with pictures, which covers those items,
which seems a little implausible, unless it involves a lot of references.
Writing dense descriptions takes longer than longer descriptions,
so I'm guessing that this would take a couple days to cover the items that I know about.
The items I don't know much about could take a lot longer, unless a local expert wants to contribute.
Does this sound right?
Would it be worth the time?

The second step (this is the first) would be to contact CDG with a short description
to see whether they think that it fits.

[kdraeder]

This will probably need input from @jlaucar andor @mgharamti.
I can't add them as Participants.

[hkershaw-brown]

added them to issue

[hkershaw-brown]

Moving this to a discussion rather than a GitHub issue.

[kdraeder]

@hkershaw-brown
I've written answers to most of the 12 questions. They could use review and a couple could be answered
much more efficiently and effectively by someone besides me.
Would it be productive to enter each question and answer in a separate comment, so that each can be a separate conversation?
Or would it be better to put them somewhere outside github and point people to them?
Or attach a file with the questions and answers in them?

[kdraeder]

@hkershaw-brown I thought I sent this a few days ago, but it disappeared when I navigated away from this page.
Apologies if this is a repeat.

The Climate Data Guide would like to include this reanalysis, so I've answered most of the 12 technical questions.
They could use some review, and some content from people who can provide it more efficiently than I can.
So I'm wondering if you prefer any of these strategies:

1. Enter each question+answer as a separate comment, so that each can be a separate conversation.
2. Point to a document outside of github.
3. Put all the text into a file and include it here for people to download.

[kdraeder]

aaaaand there it is.

[hkershaw-brown]

Ooo exciting news!
Hi @kdraeder I'm guessing you would like Jeff (@jlaucar), Moha (@mgharamti), Brett (@braczka) to review the Climate Data Guide info.
They are not on this thread, maybe a googledoc that people can edit/comment on.

[hkershaw-brown]

@kdraeder you could take Thursdays project meeting to talk about the article, maybe get all the review comments at one meeting?

[kdraeder]

I've put my text in a G-doc, so I could send it out today and discuss on Thursday,
if that's best for the projects meeting schedule. This isn't the highest priority project,
but maybe it's riper than the rest.

[kdraeder]

@jlaucar @mgharamti @braczka @hkershaw-brown
I've written answers to most of the 12 technical questions requested by the Climate Data Guide
and put them in a G-doc. I left a couple blank because I thought that one of you might be able
to answer them more efficiently than I can. If you can even provide pointers or suggestions,
I can work on filling in the details.
Helen suggested discussing any thoughts you have at the project meeting on 3/19,
but I'm happy to work on your suggestions before that.
Thanks!