RRTMK bugs reported #1312
Assignees
Comments
|
@dudhia |
|
Yes, Hong thinks so too.
…On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:04 PM Dave Gill ***@***.***> wrote:
@dudhia <https://github.com/dudhia>
Jimy,
With just a cursory view, these seem bug fixes seem to be correct.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1312 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77DJYL4BUVWUZEIK4H3SOGQSVANCNFSM4TKJN7WA>
.
|
|
Are you going to make a PR? |
|
Also, does it affect model results otherwise? |
|
I guess the last two do... |
|
The first one might not because it outputs gsw which is the one that
other physics uses, but that swdnb array is going to be wrong for
diagnostics.
The others would but they did not show the impacts of those.
I might do the PR. Hong is contacting the developers. Perhaps they
will provide a fixed code.
…On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:27 PM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
I guess the last two do...
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1312 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77B26F2XVP6KIZLA7TTSOGTKRANCNFSM4TKJN7WA>
.
|
|
Dave,
Hong approves these changes. I will do a PR.
I notice that there is a setting in compile flags where RRTMK is not built.
Is there anything
I need to do to make sure it is? I am compiling the changed code now and
will see if it does these.
Jimy
…On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 1:18 PM Jimy Dudhia ***@***.***> wrote:
The first one might not because it outputs gsw which is the one that
other physics uses, but that swdnb array is going to be wrong for
diagnostics.
The others would but they did not show the impacts of those.
I might do the PR. Hong is contacting the developers. Perhaps they
will provide a fixed code.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:27 PM weiwangncar ***@***.***>
wrote:
> I guess the last two do...
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#1312 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77B26F2XVP6KIZLA7TTSOGTKRANCNFSM4TKJN7WA>
> .
>
|
|
Dave,
The flag appears in my compilation so I don't expect RRTMK routines to be
compiled. I am using gnu and clang on my laptop. How would you suggest
testing the RRTMK compilation?
Jimy
…On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:25 AM Jimy Dudhia ***@***.***> wrote:
Dave,
Hong approves these changes. I will do a PR.
I notice that there is a setting in compile flags where RRTMK is not
built. Is there anything
I need to do to make sure it is? I am compiling the changed code now and
will see if it does these.
Jimy
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 1:18 PM Jimy Dudhia ***@***.***> wrote:
> The first one might not because it outputs gsw which is the one that
> other physics uses, but that swdnb array is going to be wrong for
> diagnostics.
> The others would but they did not show the impacts of those.
> I might do the PR. Hong is contacting the developers. Perhaps they
> will provide a fixed code.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 12:27 PM weiwangncar ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
>> I guess the last two do...
>>
>> —
>> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> <#1312 (comment)>,
>> or unsubscribe
>> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77B26F2XVP6KIZLA7TTSOGTKRANCNFSM4TKJN7WA>
>> .
>>
>
|
|
@dudhia Once you have configure.wrf file, search for BUILD_RRTMK, and set the value to 0. However your laptop version of gfortran may not be able to compile this scheme. It looks like you need 9 and above. |
|
The default was 0. It does seem to have built this correctly when I set the
build flag to 1.
Before it had short *.o files, now they are long. I am not sure why
the default build stubs this option out.
Jimy
…On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:54 AM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
@dudhia <https://github.com/dudhia> Once you have configure.wrf file,
search for BUILD_RRTMK, and set the value to 0. However your laptop version
of gfortran may not be able to compile this scheme. It looks like you need
9 and above.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1312 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77FVCPTCK3PX5YUIY5LSOLKCXANCNFSM4TKJN7WA>
.
|
Merged
vlakshmanan-scala
pushed a commit
to scala-computing/WRF
that referenced
this issue
Apr 4, 2024
TYPE: bug fix KEYWORDS: RRTMG-K option (sw and lw option 14) SOURCE: Soonyoung Roh and Hwan-Jin Song (National Institute of Meteorological Science, Korea) DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES: The bugs include wrong surface downward diagnostic output for long- and short-wave fluxes (clear sky fluxes misplaced in cloudy sky flux arrays), a wrong data statement value for wavenum2 and a wrong value used for bound check for effective size of snow. Affects radiation driver call arguments for lw and sw scheme and internal numerical values in two places of the shortwave scheme (rrtmg_swk). This has been confirmed as a correct fix by the developers. ISSUE: Fixes wrf-model#1312 LIST OF MODIFIED FILES: M phys/module_ra_rrtmg_swk.F M phys/module_radiation_driver.F TESTS CONDUCTED: Test reported by source (documented in Issue wrf-model#1312) Jenkins testing all pass RELEASE NOTE: Fixed a bug in surface downward diagnostic output of long- and short-wave fluxes and two other bugs involving wrong numerical values used in the code (Thanks to Roh and Song of NIMS, Korea).
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I am attaching the docx file (see if it works) from Soonyoung Roh (NIMS, Korea)
I have looked at this and their issues seem valid. Sent to Songyou Hong for developers to look at.
Bug_report_On_WRF.docx
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: