-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 147
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
Lsm upgrades for p8c #873
Conversation
Add sfcdif3 subroutine
Some groundwater mods from NCAR repo
@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? |
@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. |
I will do RTs when we finalize the code before next week.
|
modify the eddy diffusivity for heat at the top of the canopy
@grantfirl I think our code is ready. Yes our upgrades will change those baselines using NoahMP. I am running RTs on WCOSS now.
|
…_for_p8c Revert "Lsm upgrades mynn for p8c"
@@ -863,9 +873,9 @@ subroutine noahmp_sflx (parameters, & | |||
nsnow ,ist ,errwat ,iloc , jloc ,fveg , & | |||
sav ,sag ,fsrv ,fsrg ,zwt ,pah , & | |||
#ifdef CCPP |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
To address some biases found in PT7