-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 150
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
Remove zorl interstitial variables #596
Conversation
…move_zorl_interstitial
…rface_composites_pre_run
7d739b9
to
edc9194
Compare
…move_zorl_interstitial
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.
I approve it. Thanks for cleaning up, -Shan
…e no longer existant Interstitial%dtdtc
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.
looks good to me, approved
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.
Looks fine to me. Why the file permissions change on module_sf_exchcoef.f90?
This file had the executable permissions set (755), but a Fortran source file isn't an executable, therefore rw-r-r (=644) is correct. |
Makes perfect sense. Thanks. I guess the file permissions were set to 755 in error at some time in the past then and this file was the only one in ccpp-physics? |
We fixed several of those over time, but they keep coming back. Assuming that some users have their editors set up wrong and that the files get the executable flags automatically. We need to watch out for this in future PRs. |
This PR removes the zorl (surface roughness length) interstitial variables and uses the persistent variables instead. This reduces memory footprint and computational overhead.
In order to maintain b4b reproducibility with all existing regression tests, commit edc9194. Without this change, the two coupled model runs (both fractional and binary mask) using a high-resolution ocean model have slightly different results (all other tests still pass). The b4b mismatch is due to a number of isolated points over open ocean (i.e. far away from the coast) with ice fractions close to one (but not exactly one, around 0.995). I believe that the requirement to reset those points to
huge
values for zorl is incorrect, that this commit edc9194 should be reverted, and that the baselines for the two coupled, high-res ocean runs should be updated. @DeniseWorthen helped me investigate these differences (thanks!).Fixes #552
Associated PRs:
#596
NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#261
ufs-community/ufs-weather-model#479
For regression testing, see ufs-community/ufs-weather-model#479.