Fix bugs in the pre-rad to have correct radii and radiation fluxes

[RuiyuSun]

The pressure in the wrong unit is used in density calculation and passed into the effective radius calculation for the Thompson MP in the GFS_rrtmg_pre.F90. The bug fix has been tested in gfsv16_ccpp global experiments and RRFS experiments. The results show significant impacts on the SW radiative fluxes and subsequently temperature when Thompson MP is used.

Also included: bugfix in physics/radiation_clouds.f for iovr==3

Associated PRs:

#566
NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#238
ufs-community/ufs-weather-model#421

For regression testing, see ufs-community/ufs-weather-model#421

[joeolson42]

Seems reasonable to me.

[tanyasmirnova]

@climbfuji @RuiyuSun Thank you, Ruiyu, for noticing this bug that we overlooked. This fix does effect the cloud-radiation interaction with the use of Thompson MP, especially in the areas of subgrid clouds from MYNN PBL. Below are the diff plots of surface LW and SW radiation after 120-h fcst initialized at 5 Sept 2020 0 UTC (fix minus bug). The differences are the largest in the polar regions.

[hannahcbarnes]

Thanks for finding this oversight. This change seems reasonable to me.

[RuiyuSun]

@climbfuji @RuiyuSun Thank you, Ruiyu, for noticing this bug that we overlooked. This fix does effect the cloud-radiation interaction with the use of Thompson MP, especially in the areas of subgrid clouds from MYNN PBL. Below are the diff plots of surface LW and SW radiation after 120-h fcst initialized at 5 Sept 2020 0 UTC (fix minus bug). The differences are the largest in the polar regions.

Thanks for making the test!

[RuiyuSun]

Thank you all for reviewing the change.

[climbfuji]

Thank you all for reviewing the change.

I'll look for a suitable spot in the commit queue to get this merged.

[RuiyuSun]

Thanks, Dom, for all your help with git! Ruiyu

…

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 1:46 PM Dom Heinzeller ***@***.***> wrote: Thank you all for reviewing the change. I'll look for a suitable spot in the commit queue to get this merged. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#566 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKFOCLD7MYKPAZWKI4FA4NDS6LH7RANCNFSM4XNCWZNA> .

-- Ruiyu Sun, PhD *IMSG* at NOAA/NWS/NCEP/EMC 5830 University Research Ct., Rm. 2097 College Park, MD 20740 Ruiyu.Sun@noaa.gov <Joe.Smith@noaa.gov> 301-683-3787

[dustinswales]

@ligiabernardet @climbfuji Just FYI
I can confirm that this bug doe not impact the RRTMGP-2-Thompson MP coupling. See lines 183-185, https://github.com/NCAR/ccpp-physics/blob/master/physics/GFS_rrtmgp_thompsonmp_pre.F90

[ligiabernardet]

Thanks for checking this.

…

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:41 PM dustinswales ***@***.***> wrote: @ligiabernardet <https://github.com/ligiabernardet> @climbfuji <https://github.com/climbfuji> Just FYI I can confirm that this bug doe not impact the RRTMGP-2-Thompson MP coupling. See lines 183-185, https://github.com/NCAR/ccpp-physics/blob/master/physics/GFS_rrtmgp_thompsonmp_pre.F90 — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#566 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE7WQAWKX7PAPNYOH7AWSETS6QXFXANCNFSM4XNCWZNA> .

[ericaligo-NOAA]

I have a question.  This fix is for the cloud liquid radius.  I'm not familiar with the type of clouds in polar regions.  I assumed liquid water presence in the polar regions would be very minimal and the largest impact of this change would be in mid-latitudes. Am I wrong about this?

…

On 2/10/2021 12:41 PM, tanyasmirnova wrote: ***@***.**** approved this pull request. @climbfuji <https://github.com/climbfuji> @RuiyuSun <https://github.com/RuiyuSun> Thank you, Ruiyu, for noticing this bug that we overlooked. This fix does effect the cloud-radiation interaction with the use of Thompson MP, especially in the areas of subgrid clouds from MYNN PBL. Below are the diff plots of surface LW and SW radiation after 120-h fcst initialized at 5 Sept 2020 0 UTC (fix minus bug). The differences are the largest in the polar regions. Screen Shot 2021-02-10 at 10 36 23 AM <https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/38667904/107548807-545e6d00-6b8c-11eb-9db8-d718afb62177.png> Screen Shot 2021-02-10 at 10 35 16 AM <https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/38667904/107548863-63ddb600-6b8c-11eb-94d3-c80faddb9fd5.png> — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#566 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MJYE37DF4NR5ITSBRTS6LAMDANCNFSM4XNCWZNA>.

[hannahcbarnes]

I am not an expert in polar clouds, but I remember I had a similar question a few years. Surprising there is quite a bit of literature about mixed-phase clouds in the arctic. (Here is one example https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1332). I am not sure where the largest impact from this code change should be, but having at least some impact in polar regions seems reasonable to me.

[ericaligo-NOAA]

Thanks for the info and the reference!

…

On 2/12/2021 8:41 AM, Hannah C Barnes wrote: I am not an expert in polar clouds, but I remember I had a similar question a few years. Surprising there is quite a bit of literature about mixed-phase clouds in the arctic. (Here is one example https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1332 <https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1332>). I am not sure where the largest impact from this code change should be, but having at least some impact in polar regions seems reasonable to me. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#566 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MNQUJMNPCLVRKR4NQDS6UVYZANCNFSM4XNCWZNA>.

[yangfanglin]

Two more references on mixed phase clouds in the Arctic (GFS SCM was included in the intercomparison) https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.416 https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qj.415 On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 8:43 AM ericaligo-NOAA <notifications@github.com> wrote:

…

Thanks for the info and the reference! On 2/12/2021 8:41 AM, Hannah C Barnes wrote: > > I am not an expert in polar clouds, but I remember I had a similar > question a few years. Surprising there is quite a bit of literature > about mixed-phase clouds in the arctic. (Here is one example > https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1332 > <https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1332>). I am not sure where the > largest impact from this code change should be, but having at least > some impact in polar regions seems reasonable to me. > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#566 (comment)>, > or unsubscribe > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MNQUJMNPCLVRKR4NQDS6UVYZANCNFSM4XNCWZNA >. > — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#566 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKY5N2KXHHTGKGXPAOJ6WMDS6UV7ZANCNFSM4XNCWZNA> .

-- *Fanglin Yang, Ph.D.* *Chief, Model Physics Group* *Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch* *NOAA/NWS/NCEP Environmental Modeling Center* *https://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wx24fy/fyang/ <https://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wx24fy/fyang/>*

[RuiyuSun]

Good question, Eric. I think the largest impact from the bug might not necessarily occur in the areas with the largest cloud water path, where the cloud water optical depth is large before and after the bug fix. The bug also affects the snow. Thanks, Hannah and Fanglin, for the references. To save the disk I didn't keep the data from the experiment with the bug. But I had an image. There are two plots in the attached figure. The top one is the difference in the DSW at the sfc between the controlled experiment, gfsv16ccpp, and the Thompson MP experiment with the bug. The plot at the bottom shows the difference after the bug was fixed. This is the 2019071100 case. On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 9:54 AM Fanglin Yang <notifications@github.com> wrote:

…

Two more references on mixed phase clouds in the Arctic (GFS SCM was included in the intercomparison) https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.416 https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qj.415 On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 8:43 AM ericaligo-NOAA ***@***.***> wrote: > Thanks for the info and the reference! > > On 2/12/2021 8:41 AM, Hannah C Barnes wrote: > > > > I am not an expert in polar clouds, but I remember I had a similar > > question a few years. Surprising there is quite a bit of literature > > about mixed-phase clouds in the arctic. (Here is one example > > https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1332 > > <https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1332>). I am not sure where the > > largest impact from this code change should be, but having at least > > some impact in polar regions seems reasonable to me. > > > > — > > You are receiving this because you commented. > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > > <#566 (comment) >, > > or unsubscribe > > < > https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MNQUJMNPCLVRKR4NQDS6UVYZANCNFSM4XNCWZNA > >. > > > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#566 (comment)>, > or unsubscribe > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKY5N2KXHHTGKGXPAOJ6WMDS6UV7ZANCNFSM4XNCWZNA > > . > -- *Fanglin Yang, Ph.D.* *Chief, Model Physics Group* *Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch* *NOAA/NWS/NCEP Environmental Modeling Center* *https://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wx24fy/fyang/ <https://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wx24fy/fyang/>* — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#566 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKFOCLGX6RXJFVUFM7WRLHTS6U6K5ANCNFSM4XNCWZNA> .

-- Ruiyu Sun, PhD *IMSG* at NOAA/NWS/NCEP/EMC 5830 University Research Ct., Rm. 2097 College Park, MD 20740 Ruiyu.Sun@noaa.gov <Joe.Smith@noaa.gov> 301-683-3787

[climbfuji]

Approved. Will merge when regression testing is completed.