Levels

[Geet-George]

Template function to estimate values at given atmospheric level and given definition of said level.

[leifdenby]

This is looking really cool @Geet-George! Do you want to make talk us through how you see it working? We could do that after the "kitchen-meetup" today 😄

[JuleRadtke]

Ja really great Geet! We can go through it and distribute the missing parts to get it filled!?

[Geet-George]

This is looking really cool @Geet-George! Do you want to make talk us through how you see it working? We could do that after the "kitchen-meetup" today 😄

Sure Leif! I can do that...

[Geet-George]

Ja really great Geet! We can go through it and distribute the missing parts to get it filled!?

Yep... After the kitchen meeting and our group's meeting!?

[leifdenby]

This looks great @Geet-George! The only thing I'd suggest is to split the code into more individual functions:

1. pass in dataset -> return the dataset "annotated" so that there is a new variable (say layer) with dimensions of the underlying dataset that describes which layer each point (in space and time) belongs to. Having this functionality lets the user do .groupby("layer").mean() operations them selves and get the values out. This also makes it possible to do plots like ds.rh.plot(hue="layer") for example

2. make the plotting function use this annotated dataset, I think that should mean you could avoid the eval(...) calls you have :)

[Geet-George]

Oh yeah.. An annotated dataset makes so much more sense. I'll add this functionality and this will also let me avoid using eval(), which I was really not happy with. Thanks!

[leifdenby]

@Geet-George should we just merge this? Then I can take a stab at making it work with the changes in #30

[leifdenby]

Or are you working on the changes we talked about above?

[Geet-George]

This is unfinished... I'll probably change it quite a bit, but won't be able to do it before next week. Could we wait until then before merging? I'll make sure changes are compatible with #30

[leifdenby]

This is unfinished... I'll probably change it quite a bit, but won't be able to do it before next week. Could we wait until then before merging? I'll make sure changes are compatible with #30

Yes, great. Let's leave it for now, just wanted to check :)