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

Connect TEMPO microphysics to CCPP #214

Draft
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: ufs/dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AndersJensen-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Development of the Thompson-Eidhammer microphysics is transitioning to a submodule, and this submodule is: https://github.com/NCAR/TEMPO

TEMPO stand for Thompson-Eidhammer Microphysics Parameterization for Operations.

The use of a submodule will enable centralized community development (and testing) of the microphysics scheme for various applications and dynamical cores. This submodule will eventually replace the Thompson parameterization currently in the CCPP after approval from all parties involved and significant testing.

@dustinswales
Copy link
Collaborator

@AndersJensen-NOAA Thanks for all of your hard work to generalize and centralize this scheme.

As you've proposed, I think it's a good idea to implement TEMPO alongside the preexisting Thompson MP scheme. This will allow the TEMPO development to occur w/o breaking/interfering with the existing Thompson scheme.

In the end, I expect that we will remove the legacy version of Thompson MP and use TEMPO. TEMPO should have only bitwise differences wrt the legacy Thompson MP scheme. We introduced CCPP constants and parameterized working precision, so there will be numerical differences, but scientifically equivalent. You, myself and @RuiyuSun should work together to reach this conclusion before we decide to switch to the new code base. This will require some T&E, which I can help with.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants