Updates to CMIP6 page

[durack1]

A couple of tweaks would be great for the CMIP6 submission/new page.

Firstly, all the registered content/keywords that appear on the search page can be found in the CMIP6_CVs repo.

Experiment: CMIP6_experiment_id.json
Frequency: CMIP6_frequency.json
Model: CMIP6_source_id.json
Variable: Data Request - CMORvar (This is managed external to LLNL)

Additionally, it would be great to include:
CMIP6 MIP: CMIP6_activity_id.json (All experiments listed above are generally part of 1 or 2 sponsoring MIPs)
Realm: CMIP6_realm.json

In particular for the use of the IPCC Assessment Report 6 (AR6), having a relevant chapter to select would also be a useful search facet. The relevant chapters are:

Chapter #	Title
1	Framing, context, methods
2	Changing state of the climate system
3	Human influence on the climate system
4	Future global climate: scenario-based projections and near-term information
5	Global carbon and other biogeochemical cycles and feedbacks
6	Short-lived climate forcers
7	The Earth's energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity
8	Water cycle changes
9	Ocean, cryosphere, and sea level change
10	Linking global to regional climate change
11	Weather and climate extreme events in a changing climate
12	Climate change information for regional impact and for risk management

@James-Crean ping

[taylor13]

I would note that the search categories available in CMIP5 should be different from those for CMIP6. This implies several complications:

• The form filled out by users submitting a publication needs to be specialized (different), depending on project.
• The search facets displayed on the search page need to be different too, depending on project.

In both cases, we might consider a two-stage process:

1. stage 1: "Please select the CMIP phase that provided data for the publication" (CMIP5, CMIP6, or CMIP5 & 6)
2. stage 2: The following instructions would appear: "Please refine your search" (for the search page, where the search facets would depend on CMIP phase) or "Please provide information about the CMIP data analyzed by checking all appropriate boxes" (on the publication submission page, with the facets again specialized to the CMIP phase.

If a publication uses both CMIP5 and CMIP6 data, I suggest the CMIP6 facets be displayed, but with the "Model" category including all CMIP5 and all CMIP6 models.

We should also consider whether users might optionally include a list of "tracking_ids" or dataset doi's used in their study.

[durack1]

@mauzey1 ping - this is the list we have been discussing

[durack1]

Convert Cmip5 and Cmip6 to uppercase (CMIP5 and CMIP6) as per:

[durack1]

Also, it seems that the CMIP6 publications e.g Grise, Kevin M., Davis, Sean M. Hadley cell expansion in CMIP6 models (2020) etc are being listed on the CMIP5 search page https://cmip-publications.llnl.gov/view/CMIP5/

[mauzey1]

@durack1 @taylor13
For the variables to be listed for CMIP6, are we using the long name of the variable? For example, using "Total atmospheric mass of Carbon Dioxide" for the variable co2mass in CMIP6_Amon.json

For CMIP6 frequencies, do we use values like 3hr or should it be like 3-hourly?

[taylor13]

I think we should probably stick to what's in the CV: https://github.com/WCRP-CMIP/CMIP6_CVs/blob/master/CMIP6_frequency.json , but don't have a strong opinion. @durack1 ???

[durack1]

@mauzey1 @taylor13 maybe it’s a good idea to forget variable and maybe use realms instead, having a list of 1000+ variables to choose from is going to be a disaster for getting accurate user input. Karl what do you think?

[taylor13]

Yes, I agree. Looking at Paul's original list (#66 (comment)), maybe we should keep
source_id
activity_id
frequency
realm
and possibly the 300+ experiment_id's.

I don't think we need the IPCC categories, and the number of long-names is unmanageable.

I really would like to include experiment_id, but the list would only be populated once you chose an activity_id. That way the user would only have to choose from a much smaller number of experiments (a few to 10's, not 100's).

I would note that in each of the categories, the user should be able to select more than one of the options offered.

Do you agree?

[durack1]

@taylor13 agree fully, it should be possible for a user to select an activity_id and then sub-select an experiment from within that MIP, that will make the 316 current experiment list more manageable. As you note it's important that multiple experiments can be selected at the same time, and in some cases this may include experiments across activity_id's, so the CMIP historical and the ScenarioMIP ssp585 for e.g.

[durack1]

@mauzey1 we have been discussing the case where a user has used both CMIP5 AND CMIP6 data, how could we populate selectable entries from each (either CMIP5 or 6) then keep these, allowing the other CMIP5/6 to be selected in addition to those already selected?

[durack1]

Copying content of @MartinaSt from PCMDI/input4MIPs-cmor-tables#91 below

As follow up of this week's WIP telco, I open this issue to discuss possibilities to connect CMIP6 data references to this collection of CMIP6 papers.

A practical idea is:

1. collect in the form information on DRS for the data including activity_id, experiment_id, source_id, institution_id
2. get 'citation_url' from ESGF index using the DRS information from 1.
3. resolve the citation_url and extract the data citation information from the JSON

This can run offline and does not need the provider to check for data references. Precondition is that the DRS components for an ESGF index request are complete.

@durack1 What do you think about this approach?

[Remark: On the long-run data users should cite CMIP6 data and the publishers should expose data references via the crossref api. As long as this ideal workflow remains broken in different steps, my suggestion provides an intermediate solution for linking data to articles.]

[durack1]

@MartinaSt in principle complete agreement, I would note however that by requesting experiment_id we already get the activity_id (other than in very few cases there are two sponsoring activities) and source_id also gives us institution_id (again with a few exceptions)

[MartinaSt]

@durack1 I am not sure if the request to the ESGF index (in 2.) will respond with more than one citation_url in these few cases. We should try it out, if it is not possible to extend the collected information in the pubsite by the missing DRS components.

[durack1]

@MartinaSt apologies, this was posted in the wrong thread. It's the input4MIPs versioning issue PCMDI/input4MIPs_CVs#2, apologies will delete the above comment and migrate this to the correct issue