cam6_3_046: PUMAS Updates #409
Conversation
|
Change requested by Cheryl made, and I think I updated the code (commit-add-push). Let me know if I did not do this right! |
… for do_implicit_fall
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Like the science behind the changes 1-4. Haven't quite understood 5 (ACCRE). #6 in the document (IFS replication) seems like a good idea but don't know what it entails. Approving PR.
Merge up to most recent Cam development
src/physics/cam/nucleate_ice_cam.F90
Outdated
| INndust(i,k)=dst_num*1e6_r8/dtime | ||
| INondust(i,k)=odst_num*1e6_r8/dtime | ||
| INFreIN(i,k)=1.0_r8 ! 1,ice nucleation occur | ||
| INhet(i,k) = (niimm(i,k) + nidep(i,k)) ! #/m3, nimey not in cirrus |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should the comment here say #/m3/s? Also not sure if the outer parentheses are needed.
| INndust(i,k)=dst_num*1e6_r8 | ||
| INondust(i,k)=odst_num*1e6_r8 | ||
| INFreIN(i,k)=1.0_r8 ! 1,ice nucleation occur | ||
| INhet(i,k) = (niimm(i,k) + nidep(i,k)) ! #/m3, nimey not in cirrus |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if the outer parentheses are needed here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think they are not needed, but also outside of the modifications of this PR.
|
@Katetc: The description block of this PR does not seem to be formatted in a way that allows GitHub to directly manage the linked issues. Please follow the syntax outlined in the PR instructions (section 4 of submit section, see note about correct syntax). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The following three tests have the error:
[22] /home/katec/sandboxes/PUMASDevelopmentupdater/src/physics/pumas-frozen/micro_pumas_data.F90, line 395: Error occurred in MICRO_
PUMAS_DATA:MGFIELDPOSTPROC_ACCUMULATE
FAIL PLB_D_Ln9_Vmct.ne5_ne5_mg37.QPC5.izumi_nag.cam-ttrac_loadbal0 RUN time=276
FAIL PLB_D_Ln9_Vmct.ne5_ne5_mg37.QPC5.izumi_nag.cam-ttrac_loadbal1 RUN time=561
FAIL PLB_D_Ln9_Vmct.ne5_ne5_mg37.QPC5.izumi_nag.cam-ttrac_loadbal3 RUN time=248
This error was also encountered during the making of #490 and went away when some additional code was added (not related to the MG routine at all).
@KateC said in email that:
" those three tests are failing. They passed before my last commit, which was adding some if-statements in the ice_nucleation code that in no way would change answers for these compsets."
Proposal is to allow this PR to go in with the ACCUMULATE failures as a known issue. The pack/unpack issue #254 should resolve this problem and significant progress has been made on the way to opening a PR for this issue.
Re-review will be asked from the relevant reviewers.
cacraigucar
requested review from
cacraigucar,
gold2718,
fvitt,
peverwhee and
nusbaume
|
I'm fine with the proposal to move forward with the failing tests. It makes getting rid of the pack/unpack a high priority, but agreed this should not hold up this or other similar work. Thanks! |
|
@Katetc, @cacraigucar, The request for a re-review seems premature as my previous comments have not been addressed. Please fix the ChangeLog (especially as we are being asked to review a variance in test procedure). Pleas also fix the description block of this PR so that is formatted correctly for our CI tools. |
| @@ -1,5 +1,128 @@ | |||
| =============================================================== | |||
|
|
|||
| Tag name: cam6_3_046 | |||
| Originator(s): katec, andrewgettelman | |||
| Date: 26 Jan 2022 | |||
|
|
||
| izumi/pgi/aux_cam: All PASS | ||
|
|
||
| izumi/nag/aux_cam: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add in the failing loadbal tests to document that they are approved failures and what is going on. This document is the first place a lot of folks look to understand why a test is failing.
Merge pull request ESCOMP#409 from PUMASDevelopment/gettelman_pumas_update0821
Merge pull request ESCOMP#409 from PUMASDevelopment/gettelman_pumas_update0821
This PR addresses a series of updates and bug fixes to the CAM microphysics and ice nucleation schemes.
PR linked to CAM issue #408
Note: this is ready for SE review, but it will need Science Review. I will advise Julio B. of this when the PR is started. Minor code changes. Major science changes.
Repeating some of that information below.
It addresses issues identified in PUMAS issue number 28:
ESCOMP/PUMAS#28
1, fixes issue Possible removal of ice number limiter....doesn't work with new ice nucleation. PUMAS issue number 20:
ESCOMP/PUMAS#20
2. adds in vapor deposition onto snow as a process
3. Fall speed correction for rain/snow/graupel (namelist option turned on)
4. Option for implicit fall speed (namelist option, initially off)
5. Option for the accretion to see newly autoconverted rain (liquid only, namelist option, initially off).
For the moment, 1 and 2 do not have switches, 3-5 have switches (though 3 is a bug fix). They will need science testing, but I have checked the code is functional in SCAM and 3D CAM, and @Katetc has verified it passes all the standard CAM tests (with lots of answer changes).
Fixes #408