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

Old aerosol bug fix (tr_aero). #330

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Jul 28, 2020
Merged

Old aerosol bug fix (tr_aero). #330

merged 18 commits into from
Jul 28, 2020

Conversation

dabail10
Copy link
Contributor

@dabail10 dabail10 commented Jul 28, 2020

For detailed information about submitting Pull Requests (PRs) to the CICE-Consortium,
please refer to: https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/About-Us/wiki/Resource-Index#information-for-developers

PR checklist

  • Short (1 sentence) summary of your PR:
    This is a bug fix to the old aerosol scheme (tr_aero). Some quantities were divided by aice and should not have been.
  • Developer(s):
    dabail10 (D. Bailey)
  • Suggest PR reviewers from list in the column to the right.
  • Please copy the PR test results link or provide a summary of testing completed below.
    https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/Test-Results/wiki/icepack_by_mach_forks#izumi
  • How much do the PR code changes differ from the unmodified code?
    • bit for bit
    • [X ] different at roundoff level
    • more substantial
  • Does this PR create or have dependencies on CICE or any other models?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Does this PR add any new test cases?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Is the documentation being updated? ("Documentation" includes information on the wiki or in the .rst files from doc/source/, which are used to create the online technical docs at https://readthedocs.org/projects/cice-consortium-cice/.)
    • Yes
    • No, does the documentation need to be updated at a later time?
      • Yes
      • No
  • Please provide any additional information or relevant details below:

The only Icepack test in the base_suite that is not bfb is the pondcesm test. Also, in the CICE base_suite the only test that is not bfb is the alt04. Curiously alt03 is bfb even though tr_aero is on here. There is some interaction of the topographic ponds and the aerosols that I have not figured out. Here are the QC results from alt04. They passed. This addresses Issue CICE-Consortium/CICE#483

ice_thickness_cheyenne_intel_smoke_gx1_320x1_alt04_qc qc_base
ice_thickness_cheyenne_intel_smoke_gx1_320x1_alt04_qc qc_te
ice_thickness_cheyenne_intel_smoke_gx1_320x1_alt04_qc qc_te_minus_cheyenne_intel_smoke_gx1_320x1_alt04_qc qc_base

Copy link
Contributor

@eclare108213 eclare108213 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't fully understand why this is wrong but will take your word for it! I think the confusion is related to CICE-Consortium/CICE#67

@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor Author

This impacts fluxes like melts, congel, snoice, etc. These are m/s fluxes from the thermodynamics are are not "volume" related. So, they don't need to be divided by aice.

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.

None yet

3 participants