Skip to content
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

dtc/hwrf-physics: merge HWRF saSAS with GFS version, update to a more recent version of ccpp-physics from master #433

Merged

Conversation

climbfuji
Copy link
Collaborator

@climbfuji climbfuji commented Apr 10, 2020

This PR contains

Associated PRs:
#433
NCAR/fv3atm#41
NCAR/ufs-weather-model#39

For regression testing information, see NCAR/ufs-weather-model#39.

mzhangw and others added 20 commits December 13, 2019 16:48
Update my fork with NCAR's master
master: regain bit-for-bit identical results between IPD and CCPP for coupled model runs
Copy link
Collaborator

@mzhangw mzhangw 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 to me

!
c physical parameters
! parameter(grav=grav,asolfac=0.958)
! parameter(asolfac=0.89) !HWRF
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why have comment with the HWRF setting? My understanding is that this routine will use whatever asolfac is passed in. Perhaps the comment should mention both asolfac options? Or none?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is coped from HWRF codes and also serves as a note to myself when I just started. It may also remind users that we need to change asolfac_deep/shal in NML for difference HWRF/GFS application.

enddo

else
do i=1,im
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note for future cleanup: It looks like there is unnecessary redundancy here. Most of these intializations are in common between the HWRF and GFS versions, right? Why not have the initializations that are different for HWRF be distinct from the entire list?

! enddo
! enddo
if (hwrf_samfdeep) then
do i=1,im
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note for future cleanup: indentation could be made more clear.

bb1 = 4.0
bb2 = 0.8
if (hwrf_samfdeep) then
do i = 1, im
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note for future cleanup: indent loop

@@ -215,10 +216,16 @@ subroutine samfshalcnv_run(im,ix,km,itc,ntc,cliq,cp,cvap, &
fact1 = (cvap-cliq)/rv
fact2 = hvap/rv-fact1*t0c

if (.not.hwrf_samfshal) then
cinacrmn=-80.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note for future: I'm curious why this initialization was put by itself only for the HWRF version. Was it not used in the GFS version?

@@ -234,7 +241,8 @@ subroutine samfshalcnv_run(im,ix,km,itc,ntc,cliq,cp,cvap, &
c initialize arrays
c
!> - Initialize column-integrated and other single-value-per-column variable arrays.
do i=1,im
if(hwrf_samfshal) then
do i=1,im
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note for future cleanup: Same comment as in deep scheme; there is redundancy in the initialization sections.

! endif
! enddo
if (hwrf_samfshal) then
do i = 1, im
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Indentation could be clearer.

Copy link
Collaborator

@grantfirl grantfirl 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. Only minor quibbles for cleanup in the future. The non-HWRF changes looked familiar, and my review concentrated on HWRF changes.

@climbfuji climbfuji merged commit dd891d8 into NCAR:dtc/hwrf-physics Apr 13, 2020
@climbfuji climbfuji deleted the merge_hwrf-sasas_into_dtc_hwrf-physics branch June 27, 2022 03:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants