Skip to content

Phase 2 of rk_stratiform CCPPization: diagnostic schemes #234

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

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: development
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jimmielin
Copy link
Member

@jimmielin jimmielin commented Apr 14, 2025

Originator(s): @jimmielin

Description (include issue title and the keyword ['closes', 'fixes', 'resolves'] and issue number):

List all namelist files that were added or changed: N/A

List all files eliminated and why: N/A

List all files added and what they do:

A       schemes/sima_diagnostics/compute_cloud_fraction_diagnostics.F90
A       schemes/sima_diagnostics/compute_cloud_fraction_diagnostics.meta
A       schemes/sima_diagnostics/convective_cloud_cover_diagnostics.F90
A       schemes/sima_diagnostics/convective_cloud_cover_diagnostics.meta
  - cldfrc diagnostic schemes,
  - including split out shallow/deep convective cloud cover in convective_cloud_cover scheme

A       schemes/sima_diagnostics/cloud_particle_sedimentation_diagnostics.F90
A       schemes/sima_diagnostics/cloud_particle_sedimentation_diagnostics.meta
A       schemes/sima_diagnostics/rk_stratiform_diagnostics.F90
A       schemes/sima_diagnostics/rk_stratiform_diagnostics.meta
  - RK diagnostic schemes

List all existing files that have been modified, and describe the changes:
(Helpful git command: git diff --name-status development...<your_branch_name>)

M       schemes/cloud_fraction/compute_cloud_fraction.meta
M       schemes/cloud_fraction/convective_cloud_cover.meta
M       schemes/hack_shallow/hack_convect_shallow.meta
M       schemes/rasch_kristjansson/cloud_particle_sedimentation.F90
M       schemes/rasch_kristjansson/cloud_particle_sedimentation.meta
M       schemes/rasch_kristjansson/prognostic_cloud_water.F90
M       schemes/rasch_kristjansson/prognostic_cloud_water.meta
M       schemes/rasch_kristjansson/rk_stratiform.meta
  - update with assigned standard names
  - minor cleanup of unused variables

List all automated tests that failed, as well as an explanation for why they weren't fixed:
N/A

Is this an answer-changing PR? If so, is it a new physics package, algorithm change, tuning change, etc?
N/A - SIMA diagnostics only

If yes to the above question, describe how this code was validated with the new/modified features:
N/A

@jimmielin jimmielin self-assigned this Apr 14, 2025
@jimmielin
Copy link
Member Author

jimmielin commented Apr 21, 2025

Note to self that once ESCOMP/CAM#1296 (review) is merged the magic numbers here for iwc/lwc also need to be updated to use physconst::rair

Completed in 2639a45

@jimmielin jimmielin marked this pull request as ready for review May 6, 2025 19:34
@nusbaume nusbaume self-requested a review May 7, 2025 16:59
Copy link
Collaborator

@nusbaume nusbaume left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good @jimmielin! I did have some questions and suggestions, but hopefully nothing that will be too difficult to resolve (although if that is not the case please let me know). Thanks!

call history_add_field('DLSED', 'tendency_of_cloud_liquid_water_mixing_ratio_wrt_moist_air_and_condensed_water_due_to_sedimentation', 'lev', 'avg', 'kg kg-1 s-1')
call history_add_field('HSED', 'tendency_of_dry_air_enthalpy_at_constant_pressure_due_to_sedimentation', 'lev', 'avg', 'J kg-1 s-1')
call history_add_field('PRECSED', 'stratiform_cloud_water_surface_flux_due_to_sedimentation', horiz_only, 'inst', 'm s-1')
call history_add_field('SNOWSED', 'lwe_cloud_ice_sedimentation_rate_at_surface_due_to_microphysics', horiz_only, 'inst', 'm s-1')
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a reason SNOWSED has a different long name compare to the PRECSED and RAINSED variables? For example I imagine one could do the following instead to better match the other two fields:

stratiform_lwe_cloud_ice_surface_flux_due_to_sedimentation

But maybe there is a reason to keep the long name as-is?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the question! SNOWSED had a previously-assigned standard name from pbuf_SNOW_SED so it looks different than the others maybe due to the passage of time. So maybe it can be updated to be up to the more recent guidelines / consistency with the current standard names?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the explanation @jimmielin! Given that SNOWSED appears to be the exact same physical quantity as PRECSED but just for ice I might vote to give the name I specified above. Of course if this is going to involve additional work elsewhere (e.g. in other physics schemes) then feel free to just make an issue for it and we can deal with it later. Thanks!

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @nusbaume, updated to stratiform_lwe_cloud_ice_surface_flux_due_to_sedimentation!

@jimmielin jimmielin requested a review from nusbaume May 13, 2025 21:30
Copy link
Collaborator

@nusbaume nusbaume left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks great to me now! I did leave one comment unresolved with regards to the SNOWSED variable but I am happy to just make an issue for it and deal with it later if that is easiest.

@nusbaume nusbaume requested a review from cacraigucar May 14, 2025 03:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: No status
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants