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

Match ozone diagnostics to terms of the parametrization #1068

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

DWesl
Copy link
Contributor

@DWesl DWesl commented Apr 3, 2024

I changed each diagnostic to correspond to a single term in the parametrization, rather than one-and-a-half and then the sum of all four.

That is, the first diagnostic of the old version was the first term of the parametrization plus the part of the second term that does not uses variables at the future time in the implicit update step (the $\left.\frac{d(P-L)}{dr}\right|_0 (r - r_0)$ term is implicit in r; the first diagnostic included the $r_0$ part and excluded the $r(t+dt)$ part), and the second looked like the total photochemical tendency from the scheme, which the driver could accumulate on its own. In the new version, each diagnostic in run_o3prog_2015 corresponds to a term of the equation in the documentation.

I want the ozone tendency diagnostics to have the same units as each other (it looks like kg/kg here, presumably there's a step in the driver to accumulate these and divide by the interval of accumulation).  

I would also like each diagnostic to correspond to a single term in the parametrization, rather than one-and-a-half and then a different half.
@DWesl DWesl changed the title BUG: Match ozone diagnostics to terms of the parametrization Match ozone diagnostics to terms of the parametrization Apr 3, 2024
@DWesl DWesl marked this pull request as draft April 3, 2024 19:30
@grantfirl
Copy link
Collaborator

@DWesl This can be closed since ufs-community#196 exists. It'll be brought back to this fork by us code managers.

@grantfirl grantfirl closed this May 3, 2024
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.

2 participants