Should we rename OceanSeaIceModel to something else?

[simone-silvestri]

I feel that OceanSeaIceModel might be a bit of a misnomer as we can already pass an atmosphere to the model.
I would propose something that emphasizes that is coupled but a bit more generic, for example, CoupledEarthModel.

Happy to hear other proposals or opinions

[glwagner]

It's a bold change at this point, I would wait a month or two. We also may move the whole thing to ClimaEarth. There is no actual working coupled model for users yet. Once there is, I think you are right. But given that coupled models are simply development concepts and not real, I disagree that OceanSeaIceModel is a misnomer.

[glwagner]

And just to elaborate,

OceanSeaIceModel might be a bit of a misnomer as we can already pass an atmosphere to the model

I personally think that "model" means the "equations we solve". Therefore the fact that we "pass an atmosphere" to OceanSeaIceModel is not sufficient criterion to call it an "EarthModel". The atmosphere is prescribed, not prognostic.

In my opinion, there is scope to consider a new name if there is a way --- with examples, documentation, etc --- for users to evolve / solve equations for an atmosphere. In that case we are actually "modeling" the atmosphere, and good communication would account for it in the name. We could then relegate OceanSeaIceModel as a new const specific to the case of PrescribedAtmosphere.

We aren't there yet. There's been some effort to support prognostic atmosphere. It's not useable for science, not even by the people who developed it. The point of a name is to communicate a feature, not to communicate "maybe this object will be useable for this at some point in the future".

I want to point out that there is some precendent for naming:

• OM4 is GFDL's ocean and sea ice model
• CM4 is GFDL's "physical climate model" --- that is to say, ocean, atmosphere, land, sea ice, but lacking biogeochemistry
• ESM4 is the Earth system model including atmospheric chemistry and ocean biogeochemistry