wave-ocean coupling

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

This adds wave->ocean coupling, so that now the wave coupling is two-way with the atmosphere, two-way with the ocean and one way (ice concentration -> waves) with ice.

The wave model passes Stokes drift to the ocean model which is then used for sea-state dependent Langmuir mixing.

The wave regression test is updated to include wave coupling with both atm and ocean which requires a new baseline. All other baselines not using WW3 are the same as the old baseline though.

Related Issue:
#37

Related PRs:
WW3: NOAA-EMC/WW3#196
MOM6: NOAA-EMC/MOM6#23

outstanding issues:

• WW3 in debug mode: https://github.com/ufs-community/ufs-s2s-model/issues/66
• WW3 restart reproducibility Restart reproducibility #33
• Land/sea/lake mis-match issues with atm model mismatched land/sea/lake masks with atm and wave model #92
• WW3 export code performance could be improved NUOPC Cap export performance NOAA-EMC/WW3#199
• WW3 code clean up updates NUOPC Cap ISEA/JSEA NOAA-EMC/WW3#200

[DeniseWorthen]

Have regression tests and baselines been made for the new wave grid (with the unblocked med)?

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

Have regression tests and baselines been made for the new wave grid (with the unblocked med)?

No they have not. Before that is done, should we also add the lake oro? @SMoorthi-emc sent me the location of oro data with lakes, but now I do not know if that means I need to re-generate the ICs for atm with this new oro data or not.

[junwang-noaa]

If the oro only has lake fraction and lake depth added, and the lake locations are consistent with the slmsk, I think you do not need to generate ICs. My two cents

…

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:39 AM Jessica Meixner ***@***.***> wrote: Have regression tests and baselines been made for the new wave grid (with the unblocked med)? No they have not. Before that is done, should we also add the lake oro? @SMoorthi-emc <https://github.com/SMoorthi-emc> sent me the location of oro data with lakes, but now I do not know if that means I need to re-generate the ICs for atm with this new oro data or not. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#91 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TLD5BGVNOU7JFPJKJDRRUZWPANCNFSM4M6I7NEA> .

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

@shansun6 the oro data I got from @SMoorthi-emc is originally from you, if I am running with this orodata and the non-fractional grid, will it be consistent as @junwang-noaa describes is needed to not re-run chgres?

I have a run started with the new orodata now and I'll go ahead and start making the new baselines with the new wave model grid and then with the new wave model grid and the new oro data so that we can proceed forward with either strategy asap to complete this PR.

[SMoorthi-emc]

I have been running without regenerating initial conditions. We should really need to have access to the latest orography generation code.

…

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:49 AM Jun Wang ***@***.***> wrote: If the oro only has lake fraction and lake depth added, and the lake locations are consistent with the slmsk, I think you do not need to generate ICs. My two cents On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:39 AM Jessica Meixner ***@***.***> wrote: > Have regression tests and baselines been made for the new wave grid (with > the unblocked med)? > > No they have not. Before that is done, should we also add the lake oro? > @SMoorthi-emc <https://github.com/SMoorthi-emc> sent me the location of > oro data with lakes, but now I do not know if that means I need to > re-generate the ICs for atm with this new oro data or not. > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > < #91 (comment) >, > or unsubscribe > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TLD5BGVNOU7JFPJKJDRRUZWPANCNFSM4M6I7NEA > > . > — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#91 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYR46Y2IRZYXI664PJ3RRVB5VANCNFSM4M6I7NEA> .

-- Dr. Shrinivas Moorthi Research Meteorologist Modeling and Data Assimilation Branch Environmental Modeling Center / National Centers for Environmental Prediction 5830 University Research Court - (W/NP23), College Park MD 20740 USA Tel: (301)683-3718 e-mail: Shrinivas.Moorthi@noaa.gov Phone: (301) 683-3718 Fax: (301) 683-3718

[junwang-noaa]

I assume Jessica is going to update the oro data and new ww3 grid, then rerun RT before we merge the code and create a tag for benchmark 4? We may need to update the oro data for C96 later.

…

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:45 AM Denise Worthen ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** approved this pull request. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#91 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TJ6NXNSSVUC4HOCSH3RRVPPVANCNFSM4M6I7NEA> .

[DeniseWorthen]

Yes, that was my assumption; we can approve the PR but not merge until we have updated RTs.

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

@junwang-noaa yes, I will re-run regression tests after updating for oro data. I currently was only going to update the wave test, based on your comment about C96 oro data, do you want all C384 oro data updated?

[junwang-noaa]

Yes. please.

…

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:55 AM Jessica Meixner ***@***.***> wrote: @junwang-noaa <https://github.com/junwang-noaa> yes, I will re-run regression tests after updating for oro data. I currently was only going to update the wave test, based on your comment about C96 oro data, do you want all C384 oro data updated? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#91 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TKIDXM5MAJTX7WZRDLRRVQWLANCNFSM4M6I7NEA> .

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

Baselines with lake information in the oro_data for c384 and the new WW3 grid have been made. Regression test logs for Orion and Hera have been pushed to the branch. In the baseline area, a script and needed inputs were added in case anyone else needs to make a new mod_def file for WW3 after an update of WW3 which requires new mod_defs. The are /machine-specific-path-to-baseline/develop-20200515/WW3_input_data/createmoddefs/creategridfiles.sh

@DeniseWorthen and @junwang-noaa please let me know if there are any other updates that need to be made for this PR. A clean set of runs with and without waves are finishing on wcoss-phase2 soon. So it's this code+wcoss-phase2 porting updates.

[junwang-noaa]

That is great. Thanks for adding the information on creating mod_defs.

…

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:28 PM Jessica Meixner ***@***.***> wrote: Baselines with lake information in the oro_data for c384 and the new WW3 grid have been made. Regression test logs for Orion and Hera have been pushed to the branch. In the baseline area, a script and needed inputs were added in case anyone else needs to make a new mod_def file for WW3 after an update of WW3 which requires new mod_defs. The are /develop-20200515/WW3_input_data/createmoddefs/creategridfiles.sh @DeniseWorthen <https://github.com/DeniseWorthen> and @junwang-noaa <https://github.com/junwang-noaa> please let me know if there are any other updates that need to be made for this PR. A clean set of runs with and without waves are finishing on wcoss-phase2 soon. So it's this code+wcoss-phase2 porting updates. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#91 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TJWL4OV34MWFZBK5ELRSFO2JANCNFSM4M6I7NEA> .

[junwang-noaa]

@DeniseWorthen <https://github.com/DeniseWorthen>, if the code looks OK to you, would you please merge the code and create a tag (maybe s2s_benchmark4.0?) After that, please create a branch wcoss-phase2 porting updates, and then make a tag. Thank you! On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:08 PM Jun Wang - NOAA Federal <jun.wang@noaa.gov> wrote:

…

That is great. Thanks for adding the information on creating mod_defs. On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:28 PM Jessica Meixner ***@***.***> wrote: > Baselines with lake information in the oro_data for c384 and the new WW3 > grid have been made. Regression test logs for Orion and Hera have been > pushed to the branch. In the baseline area, a script and needed inputs were > added in case anyone else needs to make a new mod_def file for WW3 after an > update of WW3 which requires new mod_defs. The are > /develop-20200515/WW3_input_data/createmoddefs/creategridfiles.sh > > @DeniseWorthen <https://github.com/DeniseWorthen> and @junwang-noaa > <https://github.com/junwang-noaa> please let me know if there are any > other updates that need to be made for this PR. A clean set of runs with > and without waves are finishing on wcoss-phase2 soon. So it's this > code+wcoss-phase2 porting updates. > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#91 (comment)>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TJWL4OV34MWFZBK5ELRSFO2JANCNFSM4M6I7NEA> > . >

[DeniseWorthen]

Our previous tag was just v3.1, based on the naming convention for release tags. I can either stick with v4.0 or name it more descriptively. What do you think?

So just to be sure, we want a second branch in ufs-s2s-model for wcoss-phase2 porting? Don't changes need to be pushed to that branch (so I don't want to tag it right away?).

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

@DeniseWorthen It was my understanding for the tag, that it would be the version from the develop branch that can be run on orion/hera (since a tag for wcoss-phase2 would only be valid until Jun 1st). At least that was what I remember from last week.

[junwang-noaa]

Let's keep it more descriptive since we may have benchmark tag and other tags in the future (release tag, etc).

…

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:37 PM Denise Worthen ***@***.***> wrote: Our previous tag was just v3.1, based on the naming convention for release tags. I can either stick with v4.0 or name it more descriptively. What do you think? So just to be sure, we want a second branch in ufs-s2s-model for wcoss-phase2 porting? Don't changes need to be pushed to that branch (so I don't want to tag it right away?). — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#91 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TKEIUZMSTAAPBXZFD3RSF54TANCNFSM4M6I7NEA> .

[DeniseWorthen]

So, so I will make a tag from the current develop called s2s_prototype4.0

I will make a second branch called wcoss-phase2-port and a tag from that also.

[junwang-noaa]

Yes, thanks. For wcoss2 port tag, maybe give it a name such as s2s_prototype4.0_wcoss2?

…

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:51 PM Denise Worthen ***@***.***> wrote: So, so I will make a tag from the current develop called s2s_prototype4.0 I will make a second branch called wcoss-phase2-port and a tag from that also. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#91 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TNAQIAJYIZPK5N7OC3RSF7RNANCNFSM4M6I7NEA> .

[DeniseWorthen]

Will do.