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

Implement KeyClim cloud2 modifications for Oslo Aero #26

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 17, 2024

Conversation

gold2718
Copy link
Contributor

@gold2718 gold2718 commented Apr 12, 2024

  • oslo_aero_hetfrz.F90
    • Scale bc, dst1, and dst3 by a new namelist variable, hetfrz_aer_scalfac.
    • hetfrz_aer_scalfac replaces hetfrz_bc_scalfac and hetfrz_dust_scalfac from the KeyClim cloud2 code.
    • Add diagnostics for new scaled fields
    • Scale total_aer_num, total_aer_num, uncoated_aer_num, and total_interstitial_aer_num by the same factor for the hetfrz_classnuc_calc computation.

addresses NorESMhub/NorESM#465

- oslo_aero_hetfrz.F90
  - Scale bc, dst1, and dst3 by a new namelist variable, hetfrz_aer_scalfac.
  - hetfrz_aer_scalfac replaces hetfrz_bc_scalfac and hetfrz_dust_scalfac
       from the KeyClim cloud2 code.
  - Add diagnostics for new scaled fields
  - Scale total_aer_num, total_aer_num, uncoated_aer_num, and
       total_interstitial_aer_num by the same factor for the
       hetfrz_classnuc_calc computation.
@gold2718 gold2718 added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 12, 2024
@gold2718 gold2718 added this to the NorESM2.3 milestone Apr 12, 2024
@gold2718 gold2718 self-assigned this Apr 12, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@mvertens mvertens left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see nothing wrong.

Copy link

@oyvindseland oyvindseland left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The code changes looks fine to me. It may be that there will be a tuning split in NorESM2.5 / NorESM3 for the different variables, but in the model it is better to keep one.

@gold2718
Copy link
Contributor Author

The code changes looks fine to me. It may be that there will be a tuning split in NorESM2.5 / NorESM3 for the different variables, but in the model it is better to keep one.

Do you want me to use two variables when I port this work to the noresm2_5_develop branch? They would start off with the same value.

@oyvindseland
Copy link

Yes if it is not to much work splitting the two variables are good, since from a science point of view they should have different values.

Copy link

@DirkOlivie DirkOlivie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi Steve, looks fine for me.

@gold2718 gold2718 merged commit 1a03f8c into NorESMhub:noresm2_3_develop Apr 17, 2024
@gold2718 gold2718 deleted the implement_cloud2 branch April 17, 2024 15:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants