Misc cleanups #2029
Merged
Misc cleanups #2029
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Pulled from Unidata#1785.
Based on some reading, it doesn't seem like our implementation is strictly equivalent to flux Richardson number, which seems to rely on prototypical boundarly layer perturbations rather than gradients. To be safe, let's just leave flux out of the docstring.
dopplershift
added
Area: Calc
dcamron
approved these changes
Aug 19, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description Of Changes
gradient_richardson_numberdocstring since based on some reading (AMS Glossary among them) it seems like flux Richardson number is different and relies on the prototypical boundary layer perturbations rather than gradients.Checklist
- [ ] Tests added