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

Minor modification and bug fix in GFS cumulus convection schemes #232

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: ufs/dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rhaesung
Copy link
Collaborator

@rhaesung rhaesung commented Oct 31, 2024

The code of this PR was provided by @JongilHan66.

  1. Modified prognostic updraft fraction (sigmab) calculation in 'progsigma_calc.f90' which is physically more sound:
    a) moisture convergence calculation: integrate from the convection source level rather than from the cloud base
    b) 2D advection of sigmab: sigmab advection averaged over the cloud layers rather than taking a maximum sigmab advection from k=2 to the model top
    c) To suppress unrealistically large reflectivity in the model first time step, minimum sigmab at the first time step is set to zero

  2. Fix in missing vertical transport of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) when aerosol transport is turned on (samfdeepcnv.f & samfshalcnv.f)

  3. Introduce TKE at model layer interfaces (tkeh) for use in convection schemes (GFS_typedefs.F90, GFS_typedefs.meta, satmedmfvdifq.F, satmedmfvdifq.meta, samfdeepcnv.f, samfdeepcnv.meta, samfshalcnv.f, and samfshalcnv.meta)

  4. Vertical transports of hydrometeor variables are currently not allowed in the convection schemes. But vertical transports of number concentrations of only cloud water and ice are mistakenly allowed, which is fixed in this update (CCPP_typedefs.F90)

  5. All the modifications and bug fixes above had neutral impacts on the GFS forecasts

@JongilHan66
Copy link
Collaborator

@rhaesung Please add one more under item 1. in the PR description:
c) To suppress unrealistically large reflectivity in the model first time step, minimum sigmab at the first time step is set to zero

@rhaesung
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@rhaesung Please add one more under item 1. in the PR description: c) To suppress unrealistically large reflectivity in the model first time step, minimum sigmab at the first time step is set to zero

@JongilHan66 Done!

Copy link
Collaborator

@lisa-bengtsson lisa-bengtsson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!

Copy link
Collaborator

@dustinswales dustinswales left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@rhaesung These changes all look good to me.
I have a few tiny suggestions for the precision to make the code more portable.

sigmab(i) = sigmain(i,k)
else
sigmab(i) = sigmab(i) / sumx(i)
sigmab(i) = min(sigmab(i), 1.0)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Change 1.0 to 1._kind_phys

sigmab(i)=0.03
do i = 1,im
if(cnvflg(i))then
DEN=MIN(termC(i)+termB(i),1.E8)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same comment as above for all the fortran intrinsics in this block. (Explicitly setting the precision for these calls removes any ambiguity and makes to code more portable)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dustinswales Thanks! I've updated the code to replace the hardcoded precision constants with the appropriate precision.

Copy link
Collaborator

@grantfirl grantfirl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me, @rhaesung

Copy link

@climbfuji climbfuji left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks ok to me.

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.

7 participants