Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

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

remove sp dependency in ufs #687

Closed
junwang-noaa opened this issue Jul 12, 2021 · 18 comments
Closed

remove sp dependency in ufs #687

junwang-noaa opened this issue Jul 12, 2021 · 18 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@junwang-noaa
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

Currently the ccpp-physics has dependency on splat from sp library. The dependency can be removed.

Solution

Two solutions are proposed:

  1. remove the Gaussian grid support for the fixed files read in the ccpp-physics. Currently model has the capability to read in the fixed files on the native tiled grid. So if model switches to use the tiled files, the dependency of sp lib can be removed.
  2. the splat used in ccpp-physics from sp lib is a small Fortran subroutine without further dependency on any other file and it is available in the fv3/io. It is possible to use one version of splat shared by both ccpp-physics and fv3/io. This way the Gaussian grid fixed file will still be supported in ccpp-physics.

Related to

Directly reference any issues or PRs in this or other repositories that this is related to, and describe how they are related.

  • Update update will be in ccpp-physics.
@junwang-noaa junwang-noaa added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 12, 2021
@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

Solution (2) replaces the sp lib dependency with another dependency, unless you want to move the routine into ccpp-physics and then use it in fv3atm (I don't think we should do this, because it is really a shared dependency).

Another option would be to duplicate the splat routine and add it to sfcsub.F, but I do not like this approach either.

I prefer solution (1) if we are sure that we don't need to support reading Gaussian grid fixed files in ccpp-physics in the future.

@DusanJovic-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

These latlon fixed files are used by the model (according to control regression test):

FNAISC   latlon   CFSR.SEAICE.1982.2012.monthly.clim.grb
FNALBC2  latlon   global_albedo4.1x1.grb
FNGLAC   latlon   global_glacier.2x2.grb
FNMXIC   latlon   global_maxice.2x2.grb
FNVMXC   latlon   global_shdmax.0.144x0.144.grb
FNVMNC   latlon   global_shdmin.0.144x0.144.grb
FNSLPC   latlon   global_slope.1x1.grb
FNSNOC   latlon   global_snoclim.1.875.grb
FNTG3C   latlon   global_tg3clim.2.6x1.5.grb
FNVEGC   latlon   global_vegfrac.0.144.decpercent.grb
         latlon   global_zorclim.1x1.grb
FNTSFC   latlon   RTGSST.1982.2012.monthly.clim.grb

and these Gaussian fixed files:

FNABSC   gaussian global_mxsnoalb.uariz.t126.384.190.rg.grb
FNMSKH   gaussian global_slmask.t1534.3072.1536.grb
FNALBC   gaussian global_snowfree_albedo.bosu.t126.384.190.rg.grb
FNSMCC   gaussian global_soilmgldas.statsgo.t1534.3072.1536.grb
         gaussian global_soilmgldas.t126.384.190.grb
FNSOTC   gaussian global_soiltype.statsgo.t126.384.190.rg.grb
FNVETC   gaussian global_vegtype.igbp.t126.384.190.rg.grb

Maybe we can just convert these gaussian to latlon. Do they have to be on Gaussian grid? I doubt.

@junwang-noaa
Copy link
Collaborator Author

junwang-noaa commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Contributor

SMoorthi-emc commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Contributor

SMoorthi-emc commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@junwang-noaa
Copy link
Collaborator Author

junwang-noaa commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Contributor

SMoorthi-emc commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@junwang-noaa
Copy link
Collaborator Author

junwang-noaa commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Contributor

SMoorthi-emc commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

climbfuji commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Contributor

SMoorthi-emc commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@junwang-noaa
Copy link
Collaborator Author

junwang-noaa commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

climbfuji commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@junwang-noaa
Copy link
Collaborator Author

junwang-noaa commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@yangfanglin
Copy link
Collaborator

yangfanglin commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@SMoorthi-emc
Copy link
Contributor

SMoorthi-emc commented Jul 12, 2021 via email

@climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

Another option that came up has to do with the "gray zone" where this functionality belongs. It is debatable whether this code (nudging towards sfc climatology) should be part of the physics or the host models. If it is agreed that the latter is the case, then the surface subcycling should be moved out of ccpp-physics into fv3atm.

@arunchawla-NOAA
Copy link

@junwang-noaa @climbfuji @yangfanglin @SMoorthi-emc I am changing this issue to a discussion as no solution has been agreed to here. Once a path forward is decided we can create an issue

@ufs-community ufs-community locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 4, 2022
@arunchawla-NOAA arunchawla-NOAA converted this issue into discussion #1081 Mar 4, 2022

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants