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

New Thompson cloud fraction (updated subroutine cal_cldfra3) #432

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Dec 10, 2021

Conversation

climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

@climbfuji climbfuji commented Nov 23, 2021

Description

This PR supports the changes in NCAR/ccpp-physics#781, which add a new method to calculate cloud fraction for Thompson MP. A few diagnostic variables are added for use by the cloud fraction schemes in CCPP, and the icloud==3 switch is repurposed from currently being unused to switch between the original progcld6 and the new progcld_thompson scheme in CCPP.

Issue(s) addressed

n/a

Testing

See ufs-community/ufs-weather-model#929

Dependencies

@climbfuji climbfuji marked this pull request as ready for review November 29, 2021 23:15
@@ -215,6 +287,46 @@ subroutine GFS_externaldiag_populate (ExtDiag, Model, Statein, Stateout, Sfcprop
ExtDiag(idx)%data(nb)%var2 => IntDiag(nb)%ulwsfc(:)
enddo

idx = idx + 1
ExtDiag(idx)%axes = 2
ExtDiag(idx)%name = 'rad_swdnt'
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We are using "DSWRFI" for 'instantaneous surface downward shortwave flux' and "DSWRFtoa" for the averaged 'top of atmos downward shortwave flux'. Can we use "DSWRFItoa" as the field name for consistency?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gthompsnWRF wanted to use these names, but I agree that it would be more consistent to use the UFS-GFS names and not the WRF names. I'll change this.


idx = idx + 1
ExtDiag(idx)%axes = 2
ExtDiag(idx)%name = 'rad_swupt'
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

suggest to use "USWRFItoa"

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure.


idx = idx + 1
ExtDiag(idx)%axes = 2
ExtDiag(idx)%name = 'rad_lwupt'
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

suggest to use: "ULWRFItoa"

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure.

Copy link
Contributor

@ericaligo-NOAA ericaligo-NOAA left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good.

@gthompsnJCSDA
Copy link

Someday in the "ideal future," someone should really do a job of unifying names to easier-to-find variables names for groups of variables in some logical manner. No naming schema is ever perfect, but the proliferation of shortened variable names is just so frustrating to anyone outside of the small group who are familiar with the 'legacy' names used. While we don't need 60 characters for most variables, our arcane variable names are too mismatched and disjointed.

Feel free to move ahead how others wish. I just wanted to record the comment. If I was asked to review the PR, I would approve.

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Someday in the "ideal future," someone should really do a job of unifying names to easier-to-find variables names for groups of variables in some logical manner. No naming schema is ever perfect, but the proliferation of shortened variable names is just so frustrating to anyone outside of the small group who are familiar with the 'legacy' names used. While we don't need 60 characters for most variables, our arcane variable names are too mismatched and disjointed.

Feel free to move ahead how others wish. I just wanted to record the comment. If I was asked to review the PR, I would approve.

Yes, absolutely. The CCPP standard names or another set of standard names would be better than these cryptic names (be it WRF or UFS names) that could all well serve as passwords ... I didn't ask you to review because I thought you were still on leave.

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Submodule pointer for ccpp-physics is correct (fb752d4), and .gitmodules change is reverted. Ready to merge.

@DusanJovic-NOAA DusanJovic-NOAA merged commit 283bd50 into NOAA-EMC:develop Dec 10, 2021
junwang-noaa pushed a commit to ufs-community/ufs-weather-model that referenced this pull request Dec 10, 2021
Includes code changes described in NCAR/ccpp-physics#795 and NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#432: the addition of a new cloud fraction scheme for Thompson MP.
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.

5 participants