Calculation of sedimentation fluxes in P3 is changed. #5827
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
whannah1
reviewed
Jul 21, 2023
Comment on lines
-3975
to
+3986
| cflx(k+1) = cflx(k+1) + flux_qx(k) | ||
| !<shanyp 06252023 | ||
| ! cflx(k+1) = cflx(k+1) + flux_qx(k) | ||
| cflx(k+1) = cflx(k+1) + flux_qx(k)*dt_sub | ||
| !shanyp 06252023> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know this is still a draft, but... remember to delete all these tags and commented lines!
| !<shanyp 06252023 | ||
| ! precip_liq_flux(k+1) = precip_liq_flux(k+1) + flux_qx(k) ! AaronDonahue | ||
| ! rflx(k+1) = rflx(k+1) + flux_qx(k) | ||
| precip_liq_flux(k+1) = precip_liq_flux(k+1) + flux_qx(k)*dt_sub ! AaronDonahue |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can delete my name from this line now that it is sort of a community changed line of code.
|
In order to keep EAMxx and EAM BFB when running the same parameterizations we will need to make the same changes in the eamxx code. See for example: |
|
Hi @yunpengshan2014 , can you please do some clean up as @whannah1 suggested. Also do you still consider it a draft? The branch this PR targets, Will the changes affect surface precipitation? |
Base automatically changed from
v3atm/eam/master_MAM5_wetaero_chemdyg
to
master
August 7, 2023 14:52
|
@yunpengshan2014 please respond to above. |
|
Hi Dr. Lin,
I will close this PR since this change will be implemented on the top of
the most recent master. It is okay to delete this PR.
This change is for the diagnostic output and will not affect any simulation
result.
Regards,
Yunpeng
…On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 5:35 AM wlin7 ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi @yunpengshan2014 <https://github.com/yunpengshan2014> , can you please
do some clean up as @whannah1 <https://github.com/whannah1> suggested.
Also do you still consider it a draft? The branch this PR targets,
v3atm/eam/master_MAM5_wetaero_chemdyg could be merged to master and
auto-deleted soon. In that case, the PR should be changed for master.
Will the changes affect surface precipitation?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5827 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APW7K6NZUYM65Z6XSU57WM3XTOLKDANCNFSM6AAAAAA2QYSEP4>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
wlin7
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2024
…6722) Set diagnositc ice falling flux as zero to avoid ice double counting in COSP PR #5827 introduced an unexpected issue affecting the COSP CALIPSO simulator diagnostics. This issue arises from assigning the P3 diagnostic precipitating solid phase particle falling flux to “precip_ice_flux” for diagnostic purposes. Since “precip_ice_flux” is also a required input field and is treated as snow in the CALIPSO simulator, this results in the double-counting of solid phase particles. This is because the E3SMv3 implemented the single-ice category version of P3 as used in SCREAM, where the simulated solid particles are either precipitating or non-precipitating. While assigning the P3 diagnostic precipitating solid phase particle falling flux to “precip_ice_flux” is technically correct, it inadvertently leads to double-counting of ice in the CALIPSO simulator's cloud diagnostics. Note that this issue does not impact model simulations. [BFB] except for tests with COSP CALIPSO simulator output
wlin7
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 22, 2024
Set diagnositc ice falling flux as zero to avoid ice double counting in COSP PR #5827 introduced an unexpected issue affecting the COSP CALIPSO simulator diagnostics. This issue arises from assigning the P3 diagnostic precipitating solid phase particle falling flux to “precip_ice_flux” for diagnostic purposes. Since “precip_ice_flux” is also a required input field and is treated as snow in the CALIPSO simulator, this results in the double-counting of solid phase particles. This is because the E3SMv3 implemented the single-ice category version of P3 as used in SCREAM, where the simulated solid particles are either precipitating or non-precipitating. While assigning the P3 diagnostic precipitating solid phase particle falling flux to “precip_ice_flux” is technically correct, it inadvertently leads to double-counting of ice in the CALIPSO simulator's cloud diagnostics. Note that this issue does not impact model simulations. [BFB] except for tests with COSP CALIPSO simulator output
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Original calculation in the P3 code: the precipitation (rain and snow) flux (sflx for snow ) is summed over the flux at each sub-timestep during one microphysics timestep: sflx=flux_qit_1+ flux_qit_2+ flux_qit_3+… flux_qit_n, where the flux_qit_i (i=1,2,3,…n) represents the snow flux at each sub-timestep for sedimentation. This should not be correct. The correct flux should be the mean value for each microphysics timestep.
Changed calculation in the current version: In E3SM-P3, since the sub-timestep is not a fixed value, the mean flux over the microphysics timestep should be calculated with: sflx=(flux_qit_1dt1+ flux_qit_2dt2+ flux_qit_3dt3+… flux_qit_ndtn)/( dt1+ dt2+ dt3+… dtn), where dti represents sub-timestep length. This is similar to the equation used to calculate the surface precipitation rate.
This PR does not effect the model simulation results, but only change the diagnostic precipitation flux output.