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

WACCMX NO chemistry #1155

Open
fvitt opened this issue Sep 26, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

WACCMX NO chemistry #1155

fvitt opened this issue Sep 26, 2024 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@fvitt
Copy link

fvitt commented Sep 26, 2024

Issue Type

Other (please describe below)

Issue Description

After the JPL19 chemistry updates in tag cam6_3_095 it was noted that the thermosphere was much warmer. The change in thermosphere temperature had been traced to the change in rate parameters for reaction

   N + O2  -> NO + O

From Hanli's notes:

NO chemistry: Had a discussion (Doug K., Dan, Nick, Hanli) on August 16 2024. I didn’t hear any objections to adopting Fernandez et al (1998) for N(4S)+O2, and Duff et al (2003) for N(2D)+O2. In addition, we have added the following to WACCM-X (Roble, 1995, included in TIEGCM):

   N2D + NO -> N2  + O
   N2D  -> N4S+hv
   N2D + e  -> N4S + e + 2.38 eV

They slightly reduce NO, but also slightly cool the thermosphere (10 K in the upper thermosphere), probably due to decrease of N2D and thus exothermic heating.

Will this change answers?

Yes

Will you be implementing this yourself?

Yes, but I will need some help

@fvitt fvitt self-assigned this Sep 26, 2024
@fvitt
Copy link
Author

fvitt commented Sep 30, 2024

Hanli's source mods are here:

/glade/u/home/liuh/cesm/waccmx_N_O2rate03_Duff_plus

where he has updates to these reactions (in chem_mech.in):

[agn2d]                N2D -> N                                                 ; 1.06e-5
[usr_N2D_O2,cph=177.51] N2D + O2  -> NO + O1D
[N2D_NO,cph=543.13]    N2D + NO  -> N2 + O                                      ; 7e-11
[usr_N2D_e,cph=229.61] N2D + e  -> N + e
[usr_N_O2,cph=133.75]  N + O2  -> NO + O                                        

And new code for user defined reaction rates (in mo_usrrxt.F90):

 !-----------------------------------------------------------------
 !       ... N + O2 -> NO + O  Abel Fernandez, A. Goumri, and Arthur Fontijn; 1998
 !-----------------------------------------------------------------
        if( usr_N_O2_ndx > 0 ) then
           call comp_exp( exp_fac, -2557._r8*tinv, ncol )
           rxt(:,k,usr_N_O2_ndx) = 2.0e-18_r8 * temp(:ncol,k)**2.15_r8 * exp_fac(:)
        end if
 
 !-----------------------------------------------------------------
 !       ... N2D + O2 -> NO + O  Duff, J.W., H. Dothe, and R. D. Sharma, 2003
 !-----------------------------------------------------------------
        if( usr_N2D_O2_ndx > 0 ) then
           rxt(:,k,usr_N2D_O2_ndx) = 6.2e-12_r8 * temp(:ncol,k)/300.0_r8
        end if       
 
 !-----------------------------------------------------------------
 !       ... N2D + e -> N + e  Roble, 1995
 !-----------------------------------------------------------------
        if( usr_N2D_e_ndx > 0 ) then
           rxt(:,k,usr_N2D_e_ndx) = 3.6e-10_r8 * sqrt(tempe(:ncol,k)/300.0_r8)
       end if

@fvitt
Copy link
Author

fvitt commented Oct 3, 2024

@dkinnison @hanli-liu @dan800 @lkemmons @mijeong135

Hanli has indicated that these changes should be applied to WACCM as well as WACCMX. Are we okay with that?
@lkemmons may need to provide new waccm mechanism files produced by the chemistry Cafe.

@hanli-liu, It looks like the N2D + e -> N + e reaction rate is dependent on electron temperature which is only available in WACCMX. Should we use neutral temperature for this reaction rate in WACCM?

@hanli-liu
Copy link

In the lower thermosphere it is ok to assume electron temperature and ion temperature are equal to neutral temperature. So I think in WACCM it's ok to set the temperature to neutral temperature.

@dan800
Copy link
Collaborator

dan800 commented Nov 15, 2024

@fvitt I expect these changes to not impact WACCM and agree with @hanli-liu that keeping WACCM and WACCM-X chemistry aligned is a good thing to do. Can a short term SD run be completed to make sure there are no adverse impacts in WACCM?

@fvitt
Copy link
Author

fvitt commented Nov 20, 2024

I believe Jun is doing some testing for these changes in waccm.
@jzhan166 or @dkinnison can comment on the testing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: To Do
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants