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

Lsm upgrades for p8c #873

Merged
merged 43 commits into from
Mar 29, 2022
Merged

Conversation

HelinWei-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

To address some biases found in PT7

  • consistent surface coupling with GFS surface layer scheme
  • add stability subroutine call to inside NoahMP
  • add thermal roughness length options
  • changes to snow parameters for thermal conductivity and compaction
  • modification to soil thermal conductivity
  • diagnostics

@grantfirl
Copy link
Collaborator

@HelinWei-NOAA I'm going to review this in a bit, but I wanted to understand the "readiness" level of this code for potential inclusion into the UFS commit queue. The UFS code management meeting is set for tomorrow morning, where it is planned what code will be merged in the next 2 weeks. In your estimation, do you think this will be ready to merge next week some time?

@HelinWei-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@grantfirl If the time frame is two weeks, we prefer to have our changes to be merged in the second week. @barlage and I are still working to try to get something in. But if other PRs need more time, we can also do it some time next week.

@HelinWei-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I will do RTs when we finalize the code before next week.

@HelinWei-NOAA From looking at the code changes, it appears that this pull request has the potential to change regression test baselines for those suites that use NoahMP. Is this your understanding? Also, have these changes been regression tested yet? If you need help running those (e.g. on Hera) please let me know.

@grantfirl grantfirl mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2022
modify the eddy diffusivity for heat at the top of the canopy
@HelinWei-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@grantfirl I think our code is ready. Yes our upgrades will change those baselines using NoahMP. I am running RTs on WCOSS now.

@HelinWei-NOAA From looking at the code changes, it appears that this pull request has the potential to change regression test baselines for those suites that use NoahMP. Is this your understanding? Also, have these changes been regression tested yet? If you need help running those (e.g. on Hera) please let me know.

@@ -863,9 +873,9 @@ subroutine noahmp_sflx (parameters, &
nsnow ,ist ,errwat ,iloc , jloc ,fveg , &
sav ,sag ,fsrv ,fsrg ,zwt ,pah , &
#ifdef CCPP
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Wondering if this condition still needed?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unless someone goes in and cleans up all the CCPP error handling versus WRF error handling, yes.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yup, maybe in the future, the code owner is encouraged to clean the WRF related stuff in the physics schemes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CCPP v6 Needed for CCPP v6 public release
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants