Add shallow and deep convective precipitation rate diagnostics #181
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
nbren12
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 24, 2021
* point to dycore_dzmin6 branch * point to EMC production GFS.v16 branch Co-authored-by: Jun Wang <[email protected]>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR adds diagnostics for the precipitation rate due to shallow or deep convection alone. This notebook indicates that these diagnostics sum to the existing total convective precipitation rate diagnostic in their instantaneous, bucket averaged, or accumulated time averaged forms.
These are named:
which are slightly more verbose versions of the names for the existing total convective precipitation rate diagnostics:
Note that this implementation leads to four more 2D arrays allocated in the physics by default. Per discussion with @rheacangeo this should likely be fine from the DSL team's perspective.