-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 146
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
CCPP scheme simulator #996
Conversation
Dustin, this is a great tool to have. Does this only work for SCM or for both SCM and full dimension models ? |
@yangfanglin I plan on testing this in the full model in the coming days. Technically it shouldn't be a problem, the real "gotcha" is creating useful data tendencies to drive the model. For testing I've been using SCM output to create the temporal data tendencies to drive the simulators, but one could easily do the same with the UFS, creating temporal/spatially varying data tendencies. |
95e32bf
to
e49f1f6
Compare
228bb4e
to
a3933a5
Compare
@dustinswales Don't we need to check for flag_for_diagnostics_3D and flag_for_tracer_diagnostics_3D both being true if we're relying on the existing diagnostic variables? The SCM sets these to T by default and in the physics namelists, but it would probably be good to have a check for these somewhere since the functionality relies on them being T. |
Also, the same comment applies by adding a check for fhzero = dt_phys. |
physics/ccpp_scheme_simulator.F90
Outdated
! (Suites where active scheme is last physical process) | ||
! | ||
iprc = minval([iprc,proc_end]) | ||
if (.not. physics_process(iprc)%time_split) then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, when using this, one needs to remove the state_update scheme from the SDF and put this scheme as the last process-split scheme, right?
physics/GFS_ccpp_scheme_sim_pre.F90
Outdated
if (status == nf90_noerr) then | ||
status = nf90_get_var( ncid, varID, physics_process(iprc)%tend2d%time) | ||
else | ||
errmsg = 'SCM data tendency file: '//trim(scheme_sim_file)//' does not contain times variable' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could one interpret the data as constant for all time if a time dimension is missing rather than error?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not at the moment, but that's a good idea.
Good idea. Will do. |
physics/GFS_ccpp_scheme_sim_pre.F90
Outdated
if (prc_SWRAD_cfg(1) == 1) then | ||
physics_process(iprc)%use_sim = .true. | ||
else | ||
physics_process(1)%nprg_active = 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you help me understand why this is setting physics_process(1)
instead of physics_process(iprc)
?
type(phys_tend_2d) :: tend2d ! 2-dimensional data | ||
type(phys_tend_3d) :: tend3d ! Not used. Placeholder for 3-dimensional spatial data. | ||
type(phys_tend_4d) :: tend4d ! Not used. Placeholder for 4-dimensional spatio-tempo data. | ||
character(len=16) :: active_name ! "Active" scheme: Physics process name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@grantfirl In response to your comment above regarding physics_process(1) vs. physics_process(iprc).
I added the metadata related to the active scheme to this type, which gets allocated by the number of physics process set in the namelist, but I only need to use the (1) index for the active metadata, since there is only one active scheme.
Two questions:
- Do we want to be able to have multiple "active" schemes? (I think so)
- Should I create a second DDT here with the metadata, and data, for the active scheme(s)? This would clean up the interface to the simulator a bit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, now I think I'm confused. You're using "active" as opposed to "simulated", right? They're mutually exclusive? If so, ya, I thought that we would be able to have any combination of "active" and "simulated" schemes, not one active and the rest simulated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice job on implementing this. It's probably a good idea to go ahead and merge this and if there are additional "features" that need to be added, we can add an issue to address them later.
This PR adds a new functionality, a physics process scheme simulator, to the CCPP-physics.
Data-driven tendencies can be used to drive process schemes (e.g. PBL, Deep-Convection, etc..). The control over which schemes are used are set in a new physics namelist, scm_data_nml. These data tendencies are read in during the CCPP initialization stage, and applied during the _run stage, if requested by the nml. There are new interstitial variables for the data tendencies.
To use this feature on the host-model side the Suite Definition File (SDF) needs to be modified to include the ccpp_scheme_simulator scheme, and GFS_ccpp_scheme_sim_pre.
Caveats worth mentioning.