Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add RAS to CCPP, update SHOC and MG2/3 #378

Merged
merged 29 commits into from
Mar 5, 2020

Conversation

SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Collaborator

Dom and Ligia,
I think it is time to merge my physics branch SM_Jan2020 back to the master.
This version has many updates including RAS, and updated SHOC and MG2/3 related routines.
In addition to testing as standalone FV3, I have also run RAS/MG3/SHOC combination in the Fv3-MOM6-CICE5-WW3 coupled model mode.
Thanks
Moorthi

@climbfuji climbfuji changed the title Sm jan102020 Add RAS to CCPP, update SHOC and MG2/3 Jan 24, 2020
Copy link
Collaborator

@climbfuji climbfuji left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi Moorthi, please see my email that I just sent to you for further explanation. Thanks!

physics/gcm_shoc.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
physics/micro_mg3_0.F90 Show resolved Hide resolved
physics/rascnv.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
physics/GFS_DCNV_generic.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
physics/GFS_DCNV_generic.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
physics/rascnv.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
physics/rascnv.F90 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
physics/rascnv.meta Show resolved Hide resolved
physics/sfc_cice.f Show resolved Hide resolved
physics/sfc_drv_ruc.meta Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

Associated PRs:
NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44
#378

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SMoorthi-emc commented Jan 27, 2020 via email

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SMoorthi-emc commented Jan 27, 2020 via email

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

I found the triple point.  Only thing that I need is for "con_csol".
Moorthi
On 1/27/20 9:09 AM, Shrinivas Moorthi wrote:

Dom,
   I am trying to bring physical constants to RAS argument, but I
don't know the definition of "triple point temperature"
"con_ttp" and specific heat of solid "con_csol" defined in physcons.F90.
(this is part of the reason I used the module physcons".  No0ne of the
"meta" tables are using these variables.
Thanks
Moorthi
On 1/24/20 7:36 PM, Dom Heinzeller wrote:

Associated PRs:
NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44 NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44
#378 #378


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#378,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYTISBQLKFY3VVFD2ODQ7OCPLANCNFSM4KHW5MEA.

--
Dr. Shrinivas Moorthi
Research Meteorologist
Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch
Environmental Modeling Center / National Centers for Environmental Prediction
5830 University Research Court - (W/NP23), College Park MD 20740 USA
Tel:(301)683-3718

I admit this is (unnecessarily) complicated. For "historical" reasons, the constants in physcons.F90 are passed to CCPP through GFS_typedefs.F90. Thus: in GFS_typdefs.F90, change line 11 from

                                           con_sbc, con_tice, cimin, con_p0, rhowater

to

                                           con_sbc, con_tice, cimin, con_p0, rhowater,     &
                                           con_csol

and add the following entry to GFS_typedefs.meta just below the [con_cliq] entry:

[con_csol]
  standard_name = specific_heat_of_ice_at_constant_pressure
  long_name = specific heat of ice at constant pressure
  units = J kg-1 K-1
  dimensions = ()
  type = real
  kind = kind_phys

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SMoorthi-emc commented Jan 27, 2020 via email

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

Coming back to the long_name issue. Maybe our original wording was misleading (but I don't think it was wrong):

moist (dry+vapor, no condensates) mixing ratio of cloud water (condensate)

This means mass of cloud water (condensate) divided up the mass of (dry air plus vapor, without condensates). An alternative suggestion, hopefully clearer, is to use:

ratio of mass of cloud water to mass of dry air plus vapor (without condensates)

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SMoorthi-emc commented Jan 27, 2020 via email

@ligiabernardet
Copy link
Collaborator

On 1/27/20 11:19 AM, Dom Heinzeller wrote: Coming back to the |long_name| issue. Maybe our original wording was misleading (but I don't think it was wrong): |moist (dry+vapor, no condensates) mixing ratio of cloud water (condensate) | This means mass of cloud water (condensate) divided up the mass of (dry air plus vapor, without condensates). An alternative suggestion, hopefully clearer, is to use: |ratio of mass of cloud water to mass of dry air plus vapor (without condensates)|

|yes, this is more precise, but that is the definition of mixing ratio of cloud condensate (unless it is specific condensate).|

Through our experience in supporting CCPP users and developers, we learned that there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding with respect to the meaning of mixing ratio, especially mixing ratio of condensates. For that reason, I recommend erring on the side of being extra clear. I suggest the following long name be used:
ratio of mass of cloud water to mass of dry air plus vapor (without condensates)

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SMoorthi-emc commented Jan 28, 2020 via email

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SMoorthi-emc commented Jan 28, 2020 via email

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

@SMoorthi-emc, I created two PRs for your branches SM_Jan102020 for ccpp-physics and fv3atm:

SMoorthi-emc#1
SMoorthi-emc/fv3atm#1

Please have a look. For the MG3 scidoc, I found it best to compare it with a proper diff tool (e.g. meld) on my machine instead of the GitHub diff view. You will see that I only added in existing documentation in doxygen format, nothing else. If you merge those, your PRs will automatically be updated.

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SMoorthi-emc commented Jan 31, 2020 via email

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi Moorthi, no, it is much easier than that. When you open the two pull requests I created on GitHub, you can find a "merge pull request" button towards the bottom of the page. You can simply click on it and your code is update (on GitHub). Afterwards, you can update your local copy by either checking out the code to a new directory or refreshing an existing directory. The latter step is a little more involved. I know that Eric (Aligo) and Chunxi have done that in the past, they could help you getting started. Also, Jun and Dusan and all other EMC code managers are experts on GitHub.

…o_mg3

Update long_names of hydrometeors and restore scientific documentation in MG3
@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SMoorthi-emc commented Jan 31, 2020 via email

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi Moorthi, !v is not a doxygen command but a typo from my side. Sorry. Do you want to fix this when you update the code next time? Or should I?

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

SMoorthi-emc commented Jan 31, 2020 via email

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

Dom,    I already merged the code and checked out.  I could just correct and commit back. I was able compile and run in the coupled mode. Moorthi

Thanks, that would be great.

Copy link
Collaborator

@climbfuji climbfuji left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I revisited the PR and looked at the new commits. This PR looks good to me and can be merged, pending a successful pass of the regression tests in PROD mode and REPRO mode (for the latter against the IPD REPRO baseline). If this requires changes from dtc/develop to be brought back to master first, then we need to insert a step in between. @junwang-noaa @DusanJovic-NOAA.

@junwang-noaa
Copy link
Collaborator

Associated PRs:
NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#44
#378
ufs-weather-model#72

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants