Dear Simon,
how will you manage communication? I’m asking because there is a
related issue in computing absorption. It is easy to define a common
interface with respect to what the functions have to provide. But in
that case (and perhaps also in your case) a problem is that they require
quite different input, in addition to the atmosphere. (In the case of
absorption for example spectral line data for LBL functions, or a table
with measured cross-section data for other functions.)
Best wishes,
Stefan
On 31 Jan 2021, at 10:53, Simon Pfreundschuh wrote:
Dear Stefan,
If there's no user-configurable parameters required for molecular
scattering then
using it in a control file would be trivial:
scattering_species_AddMolecularScattering()
The iy method would then just need to check if the sun is on and
calculate
the bulk scattering properties for the first order scattering. In this
way particles
and molecules would be handle in a consistent way.
What is required for this to work is of course a class that implements
the interface
defined by the ScatteringSpeciesImpl class (as indicated in the PDF).
I also would really like to highlight the following, which you seem to
have
misunderstood:
The interface that I described makes no assumptions whatsoever on the
scattering
species being either particles or a gas. It essentially already
implements what
you described but is even less restrictive. It only requires that a
scattering species
is able to provide bulk scattering data from an atmospheric state
following the
protocol defined by the ScatteringSpeciesImpl class.
I am quite sure that with this system molecular and particle
scattering can
be handled consistently and the need for a molecular_scattering flag.
However,
I also agree that it would probably be inappropriate to require Jon
to use this
system considering that he's just a Master's student and that this is
still under
development.
Kind regards,
Simon
________________________________
From: arts_dev.mi-boun...@mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de
<arts_dev.mi-boun...@mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de> on behalf of Stefan
Buehler <stefan.bueh...@uni-hamburg.de>
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 8:42:21 AM
To: Simon Pfreundschuh
Cc: ARTS Developers List
Subject: Re: Simon plans for scattering properties
Hej Simon,
can you help me understand it then, please? I do want to find the best
solution, not necessarily the quickest. (But simplicity is part of the
criteria for “best”.)
/Stefan
On 29 Jan 2021, at 7:11, Simon Pfreundschuh wrote:
Dear Stefan,
I guess all I can say is that I am quite confident that you didn't
properly
understand my proposal, which could quite easily handle the pressure
dependency. Anyhow, it's quite clear that you are searching for a
quick
solution and I won't be able to provide that. So let's just cut this
short.
/s
________________________________
From: Stefan Buehler <stefan.bueh...@uni-hamburg.de>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 5:02:28 PM
To: Simon Pfreundschuh
Cc: ARTS Developers List
Subject: Re: Simon plans for scattering properties
Dear Simon,
thanks for the summary!
I think I understand more or less how this works now. A bit
unfortunate
that so much information has to be moved around at the controlfile
level. (The copying of grids from one variable to the other, the
copying
of the scattering data themselves.) Is the idea that you would then
in
practise store and load directly the ScatteringHabits, in order to
make
this easier?
On where the Rayleigh scattering fits in: Patrick suggested when we
talked yesterday that perhaps a more logical way to think about this
is
to distinguish between *gases* and *particles*, rather than between
*absorption* and *scattering*. (Including Rayleigh scattering with
the
PND system really does not work, as it turns out, as it depends on
pressure.)
Perhaps we should move towards a *gas* / *particle* division in ARTS.
That would mean including the Liebe rain absorption in the particle
part. It would also affect your nomenclature, since one should then
preferably talk about *ParticleSpecies* rather than
*ScatteringSpecies*.
(And *gas_species* instead of *absorption_species*.)
All the best,
Stefan
On 26 Jan 2021, at 22:10, Simon Pfreundschuh wrote:
Dear Stefan,
I attach the description of the new scattering system that you
requested.
I tried to keep it general to avoid getting lost in technicalities.
If
you have
more specific questions please let me know.
Kind regards,
Simon
________________________________
From: arts_dev.mi-boun...@mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de
<arts_dev.mi-boun...@mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de> on behalf of Stefan
Buehler <stefan.bueh...@uni-hamburg.de>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 9:36:33 AM
To: ARTS Developers List
Subject: Simon plans for scattering properties
Dear all,
one thing I took home from the developer meeting on Friday is that I
would like to better understand Simon’s plans for the scattering
properties. We need this to make a good decision on how to proceed
with
the Rayleigh scattering (incorporate it into the existing scattering
data framework, or make a special case for this analytical
scattering
matrix). Simon, can you please summarize your concept briefly?
All the best,
Stefan
