Combination PR for ozone diagnostics, metadata intent bugfixes, sfcsub.F landmask bugfix, and canopy resistance output #205
Conversation
The ozone photochemistry parametrization is a first-order Taylor expansion of the net ozone production in three variables. This commit changes the four diagnostics the parametrization manages to match the four terms in the Taylor expansion. When comparing to the implementation in lines 301-304, note that it is implicit in the model ozone mixing ratio, so line 301 has the first term and the second half of the second term, while the first half of the second term is part of the denominator on line 304. I could use ozi or ozib for an explicit approximation to that term, but we already calculated the value needed for the implicit calculation actually used for the update.
GLDAS data. Fixes NCAR#199.
…d some output variables in module_sf_noahmplsm subroutines to accomplish this)
|
@cenlinhe @barlage @drnimbusrain Please see 68ea163 |
The rca calculation in noahmp driver module looks good to me. |
Yes, seems OK to me too. Thank you! |
|
@grantfirl @drnimbusrain @cenlinhe OK, this is fine with me for now to keep this moving. I probably would not have used the "effective" LAI. This is legacy from times when the LAI was scaled by vegetation fraction to prevent unrealistic values (this scaling has been removed). The limit of 6 is rather restrictive, but has no effect on the current model since the parameter table values max out at 4.5 so there will be no difference in the current model if LAISUN and LAISHA are used instead of effective values. Moving forward as we start using satellite inputs, which usually max out at 10, the "effective" LAI should be removed entirely. |
|
@barlage @drnimbusrain @cenlinhe I would be happy to switch it to using the standard LAIs that are already being passed back. That minimizes the total changes, and we would only need the changes to pass back a valid value of the leaf boundary layer resistance. My changes were meant to replicate those from @drnimbusrain exactly. @drnimbusrain In your opinion, is there a reason to keep the "effective" values in the calculation of |
grantfirl
requested review from
Qingfu-Liu,
dustinswales and
mzhangw
as code owners
|
No reason to keep/use the "effective" values. I defer to Mike's suggestion, so its great if you can switch it to use the standard LAISUN and LAISHA. Thank you! |
|
@grantfirl OK, if you can do this, I think it would be better since we will likely remove the "effective" part when we get the time varying LAI capability from satellite data working (@sanatcumar). I believe everything needed for the |
|
@barlage I thought the effective LAI and SAI also accounts for the snow-buried canopy effect. Would this be a concern if we use standard LAI and SAI? |
|
|
|
OK, I see. too many variables with similar names... |
@barlage Sure, I'll do this. Although it is true that |
|
@grantfirl ahh, OK, that looks like a wrf modification that didn't get incorporated in ccpp |
|
@barlage @cenlinhe @drnimbusrain Initial testing showed failures for the tests that call NOAHMP through the NUOPC interface. I suppose that this is expected since the interface for noahmpdrv_run was changed with the new variable. I started a new branch in the noahmp repo with changes to the NUOPC interface that should allow the model to at least run: grantfirl/noahmp@1e25901...12aef87 Note that I didn't change lnd_comp_io.F90 because I don't know if there would be any further downstream effects. I'm retesting again with the updates to the noahmp NUOPC interface. |
Update CODEOWNERS
|
@grantfirl Sorry, but I need to test this implementation of rca calculation. Seems to be giving strange values from my assessment. I will be in touch ASAP. |
|
@drnimbusrain Thanks for letting me know. Please keep me in the loop if something needs to be changed. |
@drnimbusrain I think that part (all?) of the problem could be that |
@drnimbusrain Nevermind, the calculation of |
OK, thanks @grantfirl. I am still looking at the rca calculation itself and values. I will need to likely revise the conditions I have there. I'll be in touch soon. |
Updated rca calculation with rsmin and rsmax limits.
|
@mkavulich @dustinswales @Qingfu-Liu Could one of you please review this combination PR when you get a chance. Note that there are a couple of changes since the approval by @Qingfu-Liu . One is an updated CODEOWNERS file to update source file paths for automatically requesting reviews and to add a new person. Another is that @drnimbusrain added limits to the calculation of the diagnostic canopy resistance. A third is that a bug (openACC directive typo) was fixed in cu_gf_deep.F90 to fix failing NVidia compiler CI tests in the CCPP-SCM. |
|
@dustinswales regression testing is complete on WM PR#2264. Can you please merge this PR for us? |
This PR combines the following:
#196 (credit @DWesl) Note: changes baselines for tests that use
diag_additional_control_dtendordiag_additional_rap_dtenddiag tables: control_diag_debug_intel/gnu, rap_diag_debug_intel/gnu#201 (credit @dustinswales)
#202 (credit @GeorgeGayno-NOAA)
#204 (credit @drnimbusrain)
Also, there are a couple of other bugfixes: