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

Bug in weight for geos chem analysis increments #21

Open
jeromebarre opened this issue Nov 9, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #22
Open

Bug in weight for geos chem analysis increments #21

jeromebarre opened this issue Nov 9, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #22

Comments

@jeromebarre
Copy link

https://github.com/GEOS-ESM/geos-chem/blob/830985334191d1f2dfb9f3fe274f736dc695a097/Interfaces/GEOS/geos_analysis.F90#L707C3-L707C92

This can lead to a division by 0 if the condition is met...

@viral211

@viral211
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for catching it, @jeromebarre.

@viral211 viral211 linked a pull request Nov 12, 2024 that will close this issue
1 task
@viral211 viral211 linked a pull request Nov 12, 2024 that will close this issue
1 task
@jeromebarre
Copy link
Author

No problems. I am thinking on improving this code down the line. Those AnaL1-4 options can conflict with introp and instrat options, as if one define those coefficient too low and the tropopause of GEOS is high enough this would create a "zig zagging" profile of weights...
Also, we just found that keeping the NO/NO2 ratio can really mess up the UTLS chemistry. I would refrain from using this secondary species increment. Chemistry is non-linear, so trying to keep the NOx ratio doesn't work, especially messing with NO at those altitudes. This assumption might be more stable in the boundary layer but not in the UTLS with the very strong O3 gradient that we can have.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants