Update EMC develop from NCAR dtc/develop 2020/03/17

[climbfuji]

See ufs-community/ufs-weather-model#84 for a description of the changes.

Associated PRs:

NOAA-EMC/NEMS#43
NCAR/ccpp-physics#410
NCAR/ccpp-framework#268
#81
ufs-community/ufs-weather-model#84

See ufs-community/ufs-weather-model#84 for regression testing information.

[climbfuji]

@junwang-noaa @DusanJovic-NOAA @SMoorthi-emc @shansun6 @ericaligo-NOAA

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

Using this fv3atm in ufs-s2s-model in the current regression tests, all regtests pass. However, when I tried to use this fv3atm in a new regression tests (see: ufs-community/ufs-s2s-model#57 ) that uses the same physics options that we are using for benchmark studies with ufs-s2s-model, the test does not pass. I don't see why this should be the case. I'm re-running to confirm I didn't do something obviously wrong. To replicate what I am doing you can do the following:

git clone https://github.com/JessicaMeixner-NOAA/ufs-s2s-model
cd ufs-s2s-model
git checkout feature/new1dRTbm
cd FV3/
git remote add DH https://github.com/climbfuji/fv3atm
git fetch DH
git checkout update_ncar_master_from_dtc_develop_20200317
git submodule sync
git submodule update --init --recursive
cd ../
./NEMS/NEMSCompsetRun bm

If someone else has insight on how changing the ICs or the physics options in input.nml would change the answers for the fully coupled model using non-fractional masks, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[climbfuji]

Using this fv3atm in ufs-s2s-model in the current regression tests, all regtests pass. However, when I tried to use this fv3atm in a new regression tests (see: ufs-community/ufs-s2s-model#57 ) that uses the same physics options that we are using for benchmark studies with ufs-s2s-model, the test does not pass. I don't see why this should be the case. I'm re-running to confirm I didn't do something obviously wrong. To replicate what I am doing you can do the following:

git clone https://github.com/JessicaMeixner-NOAA/ufs-s2s-model
cd ufs-s2s-model
git checkout feature/new1dRTbm
cd FV3/
git remote add DH https://github.com/climbfuji/fv3atm
git fetch DH
git checkout update_ncar_master_from_dtc_develop_20200317
git submodule sync
git submodule update --init --recursive
cd ../
./NEMS/NEMSCompsetRun bm

If someone else has insight on how changing the ICs or the physics options in input.nml would change the answers for the fully coupled model using non-fractional masks, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Hard to tell! The minimum we need to know is what the differences are between the current and new regression tests.

[junwang-noaa]

So this works for non-fractional grid, where ocean fraction is either close 1 or 0, but does this work for fraction grid where ocean fraction may <1 (50%ocean and 50%land)?

[climbfuji]

@shansun6

[ShanSunNOAA]

When ice and land co-exist, slmsk cannot be 2, since it would crash at gcycle.

[junwang-noaa]

I see, thanks.

[junwang-noaa]

I feel this can only be applied for non-fractional grid, is it correct?

[climbfuji]

@shansun6 this question is for you.

[ShanSunNOAA]

This should work for both nonfrac and frac grid. It is to prevent slmsk to be set to zero when partial ocean exists. When both land and ocean exist in one cell, slmsk is set to 1.

[junwang-noaa]

Thanks for the explanation.

[SMoorthi-emc]

I am afraid the correct lines would be " IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix) = max(zero, min(one, datar8(i,j)/IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%oceanfrac(ix))) !LHS: ice frac wrt water area + if (IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix) >= IPD_control%min_seaice) then + IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%slmsk(ix) = 2" Moorthi

…

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 2:35 PM Dom Heinzeller ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In atmos_model.F90 <#81 (comment)>: > @@ -1747,13 +1746,17 @@ subroutine assign_importdata(rc) IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix) = zero IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%slimskin_cpl(ix) = IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%slmsk(ix) if (IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%oceanfrac(ix) > zero) then - if (datar8(i,j) >= IPD_control%min_seaice*IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%oceanfrac(ix)) then - IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix) = max(zero, min(datar8(i,j),one)) - IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%slmsk(ix) = 2. !slmsk=2 crashes in gcycle on partial land points + IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix) = max(zero, min(one, datar8(i,j)/IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%oceanfrac(ix))) !LHS: ice frac wrt water area + if (IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix) > one-epsln) IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix)=one + if (IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix) >= IPD_control%min_seaice) then + if (abs(one-IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%oceanfrac(ix)) < epsln) IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%slmsk(ix) = 2. !slmsk=2 crashes in gcycle on partial land points @shansun6 <https://github.com/shansun6> — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#81 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYXVTNUA2ECEWFKHJN3RIEH7JANCNFSM4LNP2OIA> .

-- 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

[climbfuji]

I am afraid the correct lines would be " IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix) = max(zero, min(one, datar8(i,j)/IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%oceanfrac(ix))) !LHS: ice frac wrt water area + if (IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix) >= IPD_control%min_seaice) then + IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%slmsk(ix) = 2" Moorthi
…

@shansun6 please check with @SMoorthi-emc on what is correct and what not. Can this be fixed in a follow-up PR? Otherwise we have to start from scratch and rerun all the regression tests again.

[ShanSunNOAA]

Hi Dom, Am checking. Will chat with Moorthi separately. Shan

…

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:45 PM Dom Heinzeller ***@***.***> wrote: I am afraid the correct lines would be " IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix) = max(zero, min(one, datar8(i,j)/IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%oceanfrac(ix))) !LHS: ice frac wrt water area + if (IPD_Data(nb)%Coupling%ficein_cpl(ix) >= IPD_control%min_seaice) then + IPD_Data(nb)%Sfcprop%slmsk(ix) = 2" Moorthi … <#m_5808082259268884242_> @shansun6 <https://github.com/shansun6> please check with @SMoorthi-emc <https://github.com/SMoorthi-emc> on what is correct and what not. Can this be fixed in a follow-up PR? Otherwise we have to start from scratch and rerun all the regression tests again. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#81 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALORMVXPSBNLHJKBANK37O3RIEQDTANCNFSM4LNP2OIA> .

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

Using this fv3atm in ufs-s2s-model in the current regression tests, all regtests pass. However, when I tried to use this fv3atm in a new regression tests (see: ufs-community/ufs-s2s-model#57 ) that uses the same physics options that we are using for benchmark studies with ufs-s2s-model, the test does not pass. I don't see why this should be the case. I'm re-running to confirm I didn't do something obviously wrong. To replicate what I am doing you can do the following:
git clone https://github.com/JessicaMeixner-NOAA/ufs-s2s-model
cd ufs-s2s-model
git checkout feature/new1dRTbm
cd FV3/
git remote add DH https://github.com/climbfuji/fv3atm
git fetch DH
git checkout update_ncar_master_from_dtc_develop_20200317
git submodule sync
git submodule update --init --recursive
cd ../
./NEMS/NEMSCompsetRun bm
If someone else has insight on how changing the ICs or the physics options in input.nml would change the answers for the fully coupled model using non-fractional masks, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Hard to tell! The minimum we need to know is what the differences are between the current and new regression tests.

The differences between the regression tests are:

1. IC date and source: For the existing regression tests in ufs-s2s-model the atm ICs come from GFS or one of the ufs-weather-model ICs and ocean/ice ICs come from CFSR. For the ocean this means that there is just temperature and salinity and no currents. For the new benchmark "bmrt" for short regression test, the IC for atm comes from CFSR and ocean comes from CPC 3D Var so there are currents and ice is from CPC ice analysis.
2. The atm model options. (Comparing the original regression test (there is at least one other physics option) https://github.com/ufs-community/ufs-s2s-model/blob/develop/parm/input.mom6.nml.IN vs benchmark v3.1 physics https://github.com/ufs-community/ufs-s2s-model/blob/develop/parm/input.benchmark.nml.IN ). The ocean model options are the same except for starting from the restart and not just T & S and the ice has options turned on for "cpc" ice ICs. Otherwise ocean/ice are largely the same.
   The differences between the two input.nml (removing trivial differences such as T vs true) are attached here: diff.input.nml.txt

[junwang-noaa]

I see, thanks.

[junwang-noaa]

Thanks for the explanation.

[SMoorthi-emc]

gcycle still need changes for use with fractional grid.

[climbfuji]

gcycle still need changes for use with fractional grid.

Thanks! Yes, I believe we all agreed to make this a standalone commit (gcycle.F90,sfcsub.F) since it changes the answer of all tests.

[SMoorthi-emc]

Dom, This comment is not related to my version of gcycle; even that will need update for the fractional grid. Moorthi

…

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:07 AM Dom Heinzeller ***@***.***> wrote: gcycle still need changes for use with fractional grid. Thanks! Yes, I believe we all agreed to make this a standalone commit ( gcycle.F90,sfcsub.F) since it changes the answer of all tests. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#81 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALLVRYSDJUHBBXBZ2RXQMSLRIIREJANCNFSM4LNP2OIA> .

-- 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]

Using this fv3atm in ufs-s2s-model in the current regression tests, all regtests pass. However, when I tried to use this fv3atm in a new regression tests (see: ufs-community/ufs-s2s-model#57 ) that uses the same physics options that we are using for benchmark studies with ufs-s2s-model, the test does not pass. I don't see why this should be the case. I'm re-running to confirm I didn't do something obviously wrong. To replicate what I am doing you can do the following:
git clone https://github.com/JessicaMeixner-NOAA/ufs-s2s-model
cd ufs-s2s-model
git checkout feature/new1dRTbm
cd FV3/
git remote add DH https://github.com/climbfuji/fv3atm
git fetch DH
git checkout update_ncar_master_from_dtc_develop_20200317
git submodule sync
git submodule update --init --recursive
cd ../
./NEMS/NEMSCompsetRun bm
If someone else has insight on how changing the ICs or the physics options in input.nml would change the answers for the fully coupled model using non-fractional masks, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Hard to tell! The minimum we need to know is what the differences are between the current and new regression tests.

The differences between the regression tests are:

1. IC date and source: For the existing regression tests in ufs-s2s-model the atm ICs come from GFS or one of the ufs-weather-model ICs and ocean/ice ICs come from CFSR. For the ocean this means that there is just temperature and salinity and no currents. For the new benchmark "bmrt" for short regression test, the IC for atm comes from CFSR and ocean comes from CPC 3D Var so there are currents and ice is from CPC ice analysis.
2. The atm model options. (Comparing the original regression test (there is at least one other physics option) https://github.com/ufs-community/ufs-s2s-model/blob/develop/parm/input.mom6.nml.IN vs benchmark v3.1 physics https://github.com/ufs-community/ufs-s2s-model/blob/develop/parm/input.benchmark.nml.IN ). The ocean model options are the same except for starting from the restart and not just T & S and the ice has options turned on for "cpc" ice ICs. Otherwise ocean/ice are largely the same.
   The differences between the two input.nml (removing trivial differences such as T vs true) are attached here: diff.input.nml.txt

Jessica,

If you find the differences in your new test are caused by the change in this commit, please create a separate issue, we will work on that. At this time, we will commit this pull request.