-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Two-way Nesting #82
Comments
After reflection on the way two-way nesting is passing in and out variables and looking into the registry, I may get the reason for failure of SUEWS in this mode: WRF-SUEWS/coupling-automator/registry.suews Lines 9 to 13 in 59ddb96
As shown above, the ref: https://www.climatescience.org.au/sites/default/files/WRF_gill_registry.pdf So I think we can similarly add Let's try this out when you are back from holiday @hamidrezaomidvar . |
I will do a test adding |
if you do a global search in the WRF repo, |
@sunt05 I see. Thanks for the info. quick question. When we change the |
I don't think the But, bear with me if anything would blow up 😢 |
Makes sense. I am compiling the new version and first I will do a test with old |
@sunt05 I did a test with new registry ( |
Sorry to learn that: OK, let's see if the magic can happen! |
I did the other two tests and they failed with the same situation. So it seems that the problem is something that we still don't know or have ignored! |
It's a bit frustrating. Would the modified version still be running in one-way mode? |
I will check but I think it does. |
Hopefully this won't cause any regression in the functionality. Please push your progress today and I'll have a look at your changes later. |
Ok I will do it now. Let's have a quick chat tomorrow morning and discuss how to proceed! |
I was just looking at your changes to WRF-SUEWS/coupling-automator/registry.suews Lines 9 to 13 in 457fc5f
and comparing them to settings in https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/blob/f311cd5e136631ebf3ebaa02b4b7be3816ed171f/Registry/Registry.EM_COMMON#L844-L850, it seems the d section is not filled up.
I don't if it's the cause; but we can explore this more tomorrow. |
also looked at setting in the CLM file, where most variables use this:
Given the similarity in model structure between CLM and SUEWS, I think we may want to use this for SUEWS registry. |
I see! Thanks for noticing this. Let me do a test with this option and see if it works. |
one more reference just for record: https://www.climatescience.org.au/sites/default/files/werner_nesting.pdf and got reply here: wrf-model/WRF#1282 (comment) |
For record: after multiple tests, we found out the problem we are getting here. It is related to the part of |
excellent you have found it |
Given the code here:
we might need to print out |
Based on @hamidrezaomidvar's finding, it seems WRF-SUEWS/coupling-automator/module_sf_suews.F Lines 496 to 501 in a26f136
Following my comment above, I checked the So we need to make sure which term among the three is causing the |
@sunt05 |
The issue was because of |
excellent - which period is being tested? |
tested with the January case. |
Yes, that is the plan. I have submitted jobs but Jasmin has been recently very slow in letting the jobs to go to run state. |
It seems that enabling Two-way nesting for WRF-SUEWS needs a detail investigation of how the domain variables are interpolated to their parents and what are the variables from SUEWS needs to be added to this interpolation.
feedback =1
is where this happens but the subroutine under this method seem complicated to me. I will try to find some documentation for this part, but at the moment, we can make it as TODO in WRF-SUEWS to fix it.Originally posted by @hamidrezaomidvar in #81 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: