options for IN/CNN and MERRA2 climo of microphysics fv3atm #46
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…use machine and py program error caused by dcyc2t3_post
This was referenced Mar 26, 2020
|
Is this code up to date with the current FV3 and ccpp/physics?
(if yes, the merging is awfully fast)
If yes, where can I find the complete code?
Thanks
Moorthi
…On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:43 PM Jun Wang ***@***.***> wrote:
@junwang-noaa <https://github.com/junwang-noaa> requested your review on:
#46 <#46> options for IN/CNN and
MERRA2 climo of microphysics fv3atm.
—
You are receiving this because your review was requested.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYTYJMYKXPC6JB3OGYTRJZVOBANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
--
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
|
|
Moorthi:
The code can be found here:
usf_weather_model: MG3_rv1
fv3atm: MG3_v1
ccpp_physics: MG3_v1
There is one more PR overtaking this PR. We might need remerging and
performing RT again.
Anning
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 7:46 PM SMoorthi-emc <notifications@github.com>
wrote:
… Is this code up to date with the current FV3 and ccpp/physics?
(if yes, the merging is awfully fast)
If yes, where can I find the complete code?
Thanks
Moorthi
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:43 PM Jun Wang ***@***.***> wrote:
> @junwang-noaa <https://github.com/junwang-noaa> requested your review
on:
> #46 <#46> options for IN/CNN and
> MERRA2 climo of microphysics fv3atm.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because your review was requested.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#46 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYTYJMYKXPC6JB3OGYTRJZVOBANCNFSM4KJWCZGA
>
> .
>
--
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: ***@***.***
Phone: (301) 683-3718 Fax: (301) 683-3718
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQPMIITN3CV5VBINJ5QSJTRJ2D6DANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
|
|
Moorthi,
The code is ready, would you please review it? Thanks
…On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 8:43 AM Dusan Jovic ***@***.***> wrote:
@DusanJovic-NOAA <https://github.com/DusanJovic-NOAA> requested your
review on: #46 <#46> options for
IN/CNN and MERRA2 climo of microphysics fv3atm.
—
You are receiving this because your review was requested.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI7D6TPISSLAUWZDWH5S5T3RL4H5FANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
|
climbfuji
reviewed
Apr 10, 2020
| Diag%fluxr(i,37) = Diag%fluxr(i,37) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,4) ! OC aod at 550nm | ||
| Diag%fluxr(i,38) = Diag%fluxr(i,38) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,5) ! SU aod at 550nm | ||
| Diag%fluxr(i,39) = Diag%fluxr(i,39) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,6) ! SS aod at 550nm | ||
| ! Diag%fluxr(i,34) = Diag%fluxr(i,34) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,1) ! total aod at 550nm |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not seeing this change in lines 2062 to 2073 in CCPP - is this not required?
If it is, what do you want to do with it? Also fix as part of our NCAR dtc/develop to EMC develop PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Made this change in NCAR's dtc/develop branch (ccpp-physics). Will come to NCAR master with the next commit from our side.
|
Hi, Moorthi:
I agree with you that all microphysics schemes should use a common
climatological aerosol data set in order to a fair comparison and all
scheme should use the aerosol dataset that have the best qualities.
Anning
…On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:48 AM SMoorthi-emc ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In gfsphysics/GFS_layer/GFS_typedefs.meta
<#46 (comment)>:
> @@ -2113,9 +2113,9 @@
units = count
dimensions = ()
type = integer
-[aero_in]
- standard_name = flag_for_aerosol_input_MG
- long_name = flag for using aerosols in Morrison-Gettelman MP
+[iaerclm]
+ standard_name = flag_for_aerosol_input_MG_radiation
+ long_name = flag for using aerosols in Morrison-Gettelman MP_radiation
Why is climatological aerosol specific to MG microphysics (in radiation)?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (review)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQPMIJFN7BCAY7PIZQLG2TRL4PTRANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
|
| ! Diag%fluxr(i,37) = Diag%fluxr(i,37) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,4) ! OC aod at 550nm | ||
| ! Diag%fluxr(i,38) = Diag%fluxr(i,38) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,5) ! SU aod at 550nm | ||
| ! Diag%fluxr(i,39) = Diag%fluxr(i,39) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,6) ! SS aod at 550nm | ||
| Diag%fluxr(i,34) = aerodp(i,1) ! total aod at 550nm |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These "fluxr" fields are not accumulated anymore. Is this intentional?
|
Dom:
Diag%fluxr(i,34) = Diag%fluxr(i,34) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,1) !
total aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,35) = Diag%fluxr(i,35) +
Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,2) ! DU aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,36) = Diag%fluxr(i,36) +
Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,3) ! BC aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,37) = Diag%fluxr(i,37) +
Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,4) ! OC aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,38) = Diag%fluxr(i,38) +
Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,5) ! SU aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,39) = Diag%fluxr(i,39) +
Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,6) ! SS aod at 550nm
+! Diag%fluxr(i,34) = Diag%fluxr(i,34) +
Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,1) ! total aod at 550nm
is for diagnostic purpose only. It is better for ccpp_physics to include it.
Anning
…On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:49 AM Dom Heinzeller ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
Please take a look at my comment on one of the changes in
GFS_radiation_driver.F90 and what to do with it. Thanks!
------------------------------
In gfsphysics/GFS_layer/GFS_physics_driver.F90
<#46 (comment)>:
> @@ -4949,32 +4949,30 @@ subroutine GFS_physics_driver &
! write(1000+me,*)' maxwatncb=',maxval(Stateout%gq0(1:im,k,ntlnc)),' k=',k,' kdt',kdt
! enddo
-!## CCPP ##* m_micro.F90/m_micro_run
This comment in line 4952 and in line 4977 in the "old" code should
remain. I can add it back in as part of our next NCAR dtc/develop to EMC
develop PR.
------------------------------
In gfsphysics/GFS_layer/GFS_radiation_driver.F90
<#46 (comment)>:
> @@ -2058,12 +2059,18 @@ subroutine GFS_radiation_driver &
if (Model%lssav) then
if (Model%lsswr) then
do i=1,im
- Diag%fluxr(i,34) = Diag%fluxr(i,34) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,1) ! total aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,35) = Diag%fluxr(i,35) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,2) ! DU aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,36) = Diag%fluxr(i,36) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,3) ! BC aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,37) = Diag%fluxr(i,37) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,4) ! OC aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,38) = Diag%fluxr(i,38) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,5) ! SU aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,39) = Diag%fluxr(i,39) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,6) ! SS aod at 550nm
+! Diag%fluxr(i,34) = Diag%fluxr(i,34) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,1) ! total aod at 550nm
I am not seeing this change in lines 2062 to 2073 in CCPP - is this not
required?
If it is, what do you want to do with it? Also fix as part of our NCAR
dtc/develop to EMC develop PR?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (review)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQPMINM2H4R2CKG42OINS3RL4PVLANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
|
|
Moorthi:
Yes. It is intentional.
Anning
…On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:01 AM SMoorthi-emc ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In gfsphysics/GFS_layer/GFS_radiation_driver.F90
<#46 (comment)>:
> @@ -2058,12 +2059,18 @@ subroutine GFS_radiation_driver &
if (Model%lssav) then
if (Model%lsswr) then
do i=1,im
- Diag%fluxr(i,34) = Diag%fluxr(i,34) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,1) ! total aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,35) = Diag%fluxr(i,35) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,2) ! DU aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,36) = Diag%fluxr(i,36) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,3) ! BC aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,37) = Diag%fluxr(i,37) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,4) ! OC aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,38) = Diag%fluxr(i,38) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,5) ! SU aod at 550nm
- Diag%fluxr(i,39) = Diag%fluxr(i,39) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,6) ! SS aod at 550nm
+! Diag%fluxr(i,34) = Diag%fluxr(i,34) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,1) ! total aod at 550nm
+! Diag%fluxr(i,35) = Diag%fluxr(i,35) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,2) ! DU aod at 550nm
+! Diag%fluxr(i,36) = Diag%fluxr(i,36) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,3) ! BC aod at 550nm
+! Diag%fluxr(i,37) = Diag%fluxr(i,37) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,4) ! OC aod at 550nm
+! Diag%fluxr(i,38) = Diag%fluxr(i,38) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,5) ! SU aod at 550nm
+! Diag%fluxr(i,39) = Diag%fluxr(i,39) + Model%fhswr*aerodp(i,6) ! SS aod at 550nm
+ Diag%fluxr(i,34) = aerodp(i,1) ! total aod at 550nm
These "fluxr" fields are not accumulated anymore. Is this intentional?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (review)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQPMIJZO3OC77EOQAOVRMTRL4RD3ANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
|
|
So we are having different aerosols in radiation depending on microphysics?
This is not exciting.
Moorthi
…On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:51 AM Dom Heinzeller ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In gfsphysics/GFS_layer/GFS_typedefs.meta
<#46 (comment)>:
> @@ -2113,9 +2113,9 @@
units = count
dimensions = ()
type = integer
-[aero_in]
- standard_name = flag_for_aerosol_input_MG
- long_name = flag for using aerosols in Morrison-Gettelman MP
+[iaerclm]
+ standard_name = flag_for_aerosol_input_MG_radiation
+ long_name = flag for using aerosols in Morrison-Gettelman MP_radiation
@SMoorthi-emc <https://github.com/SMoorthi-emc> Other microphysics are
using different aerosol climatology input. For instance, Thompson MP uses a
completely different input dataset of water-friendly and ice-friendly 3d
aerosol distributions. As unfortunate as this is, it seems to me that these
days aerosols are very much microphysics dependent. Hopefully the
developers can at some point agree to use a common data set and format.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYXCWKEF4NWUG6ET4HLRL4P5LANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
--
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
|
Not exciting at all. But there is hope on the horizon, because Morrison & Gettelman & Thompson are working on a unification of their microphysics ("the best of two worlds"). |
|
Yes, It is a kind of awkward for ccpp. I did have some time to understand
it, but I have not found a good way out.
…On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:04 AM SMoorthi-emc ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In gfsphysics/GFS_layer/GFS_typedefs.F90
<#46 (comment)>:
> @@ -3340,6 +3330,15 @@ subroutine control_initialize (Model, nlunit, fn_nml, me, master, &
Model%ialb = ialb
Model%iems = iems
Model%iaer = iaer
+ if (iaer/1000 == 1 .or. Model%iccn == 2) then
+ Model%iaerclm = .true.
+ ntrcaer = ntrcaerm
+ else
+ ntrcaer = 1
+ endif
+#ifdef CCPP
+ Model%ntrcaer = ntrcaer
Is this truly specific to CCPP?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (review)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQPMIMPFMYGMHRPHB42FITRL4ROJANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
|
| klev = ( dim3 - k ) + 1 | ||
| endif | ||
| do i = 1, hmx | ||
| aerin(i+hmx,j,k,ii,imon) = 1.d0*buffx(i,j,klev,1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we really need this multiplication by 1.0d0? There are several places like this.
|
So there is Thompson microphysics aerosols are in "radiation_aerosol.f"? I
don't see it there - may be I missed it?
…On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:15 AM Dom Heinzeller ***@***.***> wrote:
So we are having different aerosols in radiation depending on
microphysics? This is not exciting. Moorthi
… <#m_3717017236695637685_>
Not exciting at all. But there is hope on the horizon, because Morrison &
Gettelman & Thompson are working on a unification of their microphysics
("the best of two worlds").
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYS733VVWVOUCVX4FRDRL4SZPANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
--
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
|
|
do we really need this multiplication by 1.0d0?
I think it is for a change from float to double precision in case the data
is in float precision.
…On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:21 AM SMoorthi-emc ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In gfsphysics/physics/aerinterp.f90
<#46 (comment)>:
> - enddo
-! if (imon==1 .and. me == master) then
-! print *, "EJ, lat:", aer_lat(:)
-! print *, "EJ, lon:", aer_lon(:)
-! endif
- endif
+ do j = 1, latsaer
+ do k = 1, levsaer
+! input is from toa to sfc
+ if ( iflip == 0 ) then ! data from toa to sfc
+ klev = k
+ else ! data from sfc to top
+ klev = ( dim3 - k ) + 1
+ endif
+ do i = 1, hmx
+ aerin(i+hmx,j,k,ii,imon) = 1.d0*buffx(i,j,klev,1)
do we really need this multiplication by 1.0d0? There are several places
like this.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (review)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQPMIPBGHXAFUJ2UD6DNE3RL4TMVANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
|
No, these are completely separate. Coming in as part of the initial conditions. |
|
So there is Thompson microphysics aerosols are in "radiation_aerosol.f"? I
don't see it there - may be I missed it?
There is no Thompson microphysics aerosols in "radiation_aerosol.f".
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM SMoorthi-emc <notifications@github.com>
wrote:
… So there is Thompson microphysics aerosols are in "radiation_aerosol.f"? I
don't see it there - may be I missed it?
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:15 AM Dom Heinzeller ***@***.***>
wrote:
> So we are having different aerosols in radiation depending on
> microphysics? This is not exciting. Moorthi
> … <#m_3717017236695637685_>
>
> Not exciting at all. But there is hope on the horizon, because Morrison &
> Gettelman & Thompson are working on a unification of their microphysics
> ("the best of two worlds").
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#46 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYS733VVWVOUCVX4FRDRL4SZPANCNFSM4KJWCZGA
>
> .
>
--
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: ***@***.***
Phone: (301) 683-3718 Fax: (301) 683-3718
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQPMILIXLX6KBXWZ4RLNXLRL4T7JANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
|
SMoorthi-emc
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2020
climbfuji
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Based on the comments in the code review, I am approving this PR, but the changes for Diag%fluxr in GFS_radiation_driver.F90 will need to be made in ccpp-physics as part of the next dtc/develop goes to master commit. I don't think this changes the regression test baseline, because these diagnostics are usually turned off (i.e. they are not included in diag_table).
junwang-noaa
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2020
|
Good to know and Thank you all!
…On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:07 PM Dusan Jovic ***@***.***> wrote:
Merged #46 <#46> into develop.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#46 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQPMINI4BC4V3T5E3BMXT3RL5VAPANCNFSM4KJWCZGA>
.
|
climbfuji
pushed a commit
to climbfuji/fv3atm
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 2, 2020
…update_20200826 Update submodule pointer for ccpp/physics 20200826
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
add the two options for IN/CCN activation and have totalthree options now: iccn=0 fortemperature dependence, iccn=1 for climatological IN/CCN, and iccn=2 for MERRA2aersol add the option to enable RRTMg aerosol attenuation to bedetermined from prescribed MERRA2 climatologyadd aerosol optical depth outputs for total, dust, blackcarbon, organic carbon, sulfate, and sea saltadd 4 regression tests completed in HERA and DELL: 1)SAS+GFDL with enabled RRTMg aerosol attenuation from prescribed MERRA2climatology (fv3_gocart_clm in rt.conf_csaw), 2) CSAW+MG3 with with enabledRRTMg aerosol attenuation from prescribed MERRA2 climatology (fv3_gfsv16_csawmg in rt.conf_csaw), 3) CSAW+MG3 with enabled RRTMg aerosolattenuation from OPAC(fv3_gfsv16_csawmgt in rt.conf_csaw), and 4) CSAW+MG3 with climatologicalIN/CCN with enabled RRTMg aerosol attenuation from prescribed MERRA2climatology (fv3_csawmg)
Associated PRs:
#46
NCAR ccpp/physics #381
ufs-weather-model #90