cam6_3_014: contrail parameterization added #277
Conversation
cacraigucar
left a comment
cacraigucar
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Partial review (not completed yet). Submitting this as I know @chihchen24 is working hours offset from mine.
@gold2718 and @nusbaume - Can you please review my comments and augment them as needed. I've highlighted the ones which I'd like your feedback on. There are a few sections where I'm not sure if my proposed solution is the best one or if you have a better solution. I don't want to have @chihchen24 implement a change only to have to change it again after full code review.
Note that I know there are additional changes coming, but I am submitting this before I put it down for the day.
cacraigucar
left a comment
cacraigucar
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Finished second phase of my preliminary review
cacraigucar
left a comment
cacraigucar
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is getting much closer!
cacraigucar
left a comment
cacraigucar
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please make sure you compile and run your test on this code before requesting a review again as I found a typo that would prohibit the code from compiling.
|
@chihchen24 I will need to get from you a testing setup that tests the contrail setup. Could you please give me a create_newcase and any namelist mods that you are using to run this. |
|
Here is a case I used to test the code:
/glade/work/cchen/cases/COVID_2019_exp_v3/
…On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:20 AM cacraigucar ***@***.***> wrote:
@chihchen24 <https://github.com/chihchen24> I will need to get from you a
testing setup that tests the contrail setup. Could you please give me a
create_newcase and any namelist mods that you are using to run this.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#277 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMMF3B6NDH5DA62PIMQZWOLTBQVORANCNFSM4TX7ELCA>
.
|
gold2718
left a comment
gold2718
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are still a couple of unused imports (geopotential_dse, pbuf_set_field, get_curr_date).
There are still some old fashioned logical tests (e..g, .gt.) in unmodified parts of the file, please search and fix.
gold2718
left a comment
gold2718
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for fixing all those old lines.
Looks good now, thanks!
|
@chihchen24 We still need to setup a regression test for this configuration. I believe we still need the monthly files (complete with required AMWG metadata). Once you supply the list to me I can import them into the svn repo. We will use these files for a simple nine time step test to add to our regression suite. |
nusbaume
left a comment
nusbaume
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good now, thanks! I do have one minor change, but otherwise I approve.
| Mh2o = mwh2o | ||
|
|
||
| ! contrail paramter (G = CF*p/epi) | ||
| ! and Schumann 1996 DOI: 10.1127/metz/5/1996/4, reprinted by Ponater 2002, JGR (eq 6-8) DOI: 10.1029/2011MS000105 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe the DOI for Ponater 2002 here is incorrect, and instead should be:
DOI: 10.1029/2001JD000429
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That DOI is correct.
|
@siouxyalie We are adding a new contrail parameterization. Do we need to add anything to keep your horizontal momentum tendency current? If so, could you please supply the suggested code modifications? |
|
@cacraigucar After a quick skim, I don't think U or V are modified by this parameterization, so the additions in this PR should not affect the momentum budget closure. If you all think that this parameterization might one day affect U and V, then some lines to add and output ?TEND_CONTRAIL would have to be added. However, I'd guess that parameterizations of this process will never end up modifying U and V. So, no edits suggested. |
|
U & V are not going to be modified by this parameterization |
|
@gold2718 Could you please review the regression test? @chihchen24 Could you please checkout and run the current code one more time to make sure you are happy with it (your _v5 run used an older version of the code). |
|
@cacraigucar I have checked out the current code and did a test run. It went fine. Thank you. |
cacraigucar
changed the title
miscellaneous updates & fixes, including fixing cam_snapshot with CLUBB and nuopc cap changes
cacraigucar
changed the title
miscellaneous updates & fixes, including fixing cam_snapshot with CLUBB and nuopc cap changes
7 participants
closes #274
contrail parameterization added to CAM
@andrewgettelman @cacraigucar