cam6_4_025: Aerosol deposition fluxes #1096
Conversation
new file: src/chemistry/aerosol/aero_deposition_cam.F90
modified: src/chemistry/aerosol/aero_deposition_cam.F90
modified: src/chemistry/aerosol/aerosol_properties_mod.F90
modified: src/chemistry/aerosol/modal_aerosol_properties_mod.F90
modified: src/chemistry/modal_aero/aero_model.F90
…anup
modified: src/chemistry/aerosol/aero_deposition_cam.F90
modified: src/chemistry/aerosol/modal_aerosol_properties_mod.F90
modified: src/chemistry/modal_aero/aero_model.F90
modified: src/chemistry/aerosol/modal_aerosol_properties_mod.F90
|
This has yet to be tested and evaluated. |
modified: src/chemistry/modal_aero/aero_model.F90
| do ispec=1,bcphi_cnt | ||
| cam_out%bcphidry(i) = cam_out%bcphidry(i) & | ||
| + (aerdepdryis(i,bcphi_ndx(ispec))+aerdepdrycw(i,bcphi_ndx(ispec))) | ||
| enddo | ||
| do ispec=1,bcpho_cnt | ||
| cam_out%bcphodry(i) = cam_out%bcphodry(i) & | ||
| + (aerdepdryis(i,bcpho_ndx(ispec))+aerdepdrycw(i,bcpho_ndx(ispec))) | ||
| enddo |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps adding a comment above each of these loops (and for the group below) that differentiates what each loop is doing. At first I thought I'd found a bug, before I realized you were doing a two pass calculation
| if (cam_out%bcphidry(i) .lt. 0._r8) cam_out%bcphidry(i) = 0._r8 | ||
| if (cam_out%ocphidry(i) .lt. 0._r8) cam_out%ocphidry(i) = 0._r8 | ||
| if (cam_out%bcphodry(i) .lt. 0._r8) cam_out%bcphodry(i) = 0._r8 | ||
| if (cam_out%ocphodry(i) .lt. 0._r8) cam_out%ocphodry(i) = 0._r8 | ||
| if (cam_out%dstdry1(i) .lt. 0._r8) cam_out%dstdry1(i) = 0._r8 | ||
| if (cam_out%dstdry2(i) .lt. 0._r8) cam_out%dstdry2(i) = 0._r8 | ||
| if (cam_out%dstdry3(i) .lt. 0._r8) cam_out%dstdry3(i) = 0._r8 | ||
| if (cam_out%dstdry4(i) .lt. 0._r8) cam_out%dstdry4(i) = 0._r8 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CAM guidelines say "should" use < instead of .lt. . This is at your discretion since it is a "should" and not a "must"
| do l = 1,self%nspecies(m) | ||
| mm = self%indexer(m,l) | ||
| call self%get(m,l, spectype=spectype, density=dns_dst) ! kg/m3 | ||
| if (spectype==bulk_type) then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if it is doable (an error or not) to capture if no matches occur with spectype==bulk_type. I'm thinking of whether it is worth trying to capture a typo or completely incorrect name for bulk_type
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I could probably implement an error code and error string that get returned by the subroutine if you think it is worth while. As it is now, if the specified bulk_type is not valid then the fluxes returned are zeros.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that the fluxes will be zero, but I'm not sure if it would be readily apparent to a user that they had a typo or invalid name as zero fluxes might be pretty subtle in a run. It really is your call - I am just pointing this out for your consideration.
cacraigucar
changed the title
cacraigucar
changed the title
modified: src/chemistry/aerosol/aero_deposition_cam.F90
modified: src/chemistry/aerosol/aerosol_properties_mod.F90
modified: src/chemistry/aerosol/modal_aerosol_properties_mod.F90
Merge pull request ESCOMP#1096 from fvitt/aerosol_deposition_fluxes cam6_4_025: Aerosol deposition fluxes ESCOMP commit: 2f8ec4d
Merge pull request ESCOMP#1096 from fvitt/aerosol_deposition_fluxes cam6_4_025: Aerosol deposition fluxes ESCOMP commit: 2f8ec4d
Merge pull request ESCOMP#1096 from fvitt/aerosol_deposition_fluxes cam6_4_025: Aerosol deposition fluxes ESCOMP commit: 2f8ec4d
This repartitions the modal dust deposition fluxes into 4 bulk bins for passing to the surface models. The aerosol fluxes code was refactored in a generalized way which can easily be expanded for other aerosol representations, such as CARMA.
Closes #1060