UFS-dev PR#65 #1020
UFS-dev PR#65 #1020
Conversation
Add CLM Lake Model and update Flake
grantfirl
requested review from
Qingfu-Liu,
HelinWei-NOAA,
JongilHan66,
lisa-bengtsson,
gthompsnWRF,
RuiyuSun,
tanyasmirnova,
YihuaWu-NOAA and
mzhangw
as code owners
grantfirl
requested review from
mkavulich
and removed request for
mzhangw,
gthompsnWRF,
tanyasmirnova,
RuiyuSun,
JongilHan66,
HelinWei-NOAA,
lisa-bengtsson and
YihuaWu-NOAA
physics/GFS_phys_time_vary.fv3.F90
Outdated
| ! The lake data must say there's a lake here (lakefrac) with a depth (lakedepth) | ||
| if (lakefrac(i) > lakefrac_threshold .and. lakedepth(i) > lakedepth_threshold ) then | ||
| ! This is a lake point. Inform the other schemes to use a lake model, and possibly nsst (lkm) | ||
| use_lake_model(i) = lkm |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This section is recommended not to be part of the forecast model. This should be predefined in the ufs_util. For the temporary solution, just make sure the thresholds used here are consistent with those in ufs_util. Otherwise there may be some mismatches with coldstart.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@HelinWei-NOAA This change was already merged into the ufs/dev branch: ufs-community#65. When this goes to the NCAR/main branch, it should be identical to the PR that went into the ufs/dev branch except for when something breaks a non-UFS model. If you think that this should be changed, I would suggest opening a new PR into the ufs/dev branch with your changes.
|
|
||
| do i=1,im | ||
| if (islmsk(i) == 1) then | ||
|
|
||
| if (use_lake_model(i)>0) then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is islmsk equal to 0 (water) for lake points (use_lake_model>0)?
| @@ -1213,6 +1224,18 @@ subroutine samfshalcnv_run(im,km,itc,ntc,cliq,cp,cvap, & | |||
| enddo | |||
| enddo | |||
| c | |||
| c turn off shallow convection if cloud depth is larger than cthk or less than cthkmn | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know this exists elsewhere in the scheme, but "c"- denoted comments are not compatible with the FORTRAN90 standard. Probably something we want to address in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, although I think that the CCPP documentation/rules state that code should be at least "Fortran90 where possible", there is still a smattering of F77 code that was grandfathered in from GFS physics. It would be nice to clean this up some day, although if the authors of the schemes prefer F77 and they're still maintaining the GFS schemes, it's hard to push back too much.
Identical to ufs-community#65