-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 177
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
Update model and settings for Prototype P8b #681
Changes from all commits
27feb93
3d4a65c
ed2adc5
0c85a71
182b36a
4b4ae47
a2a8f58
a3cb216
5287df3
e225b97
b96221e
8d05e3d
759ec92
71a9050
b055edd
1f1d6a5
c4ec552
d67e8b0
2fbc08f
f54c117
a0c343e
3105ce6
3f3fcca
7321d8d
14b711e
0ee13ca
2027252
0a27c71
f036d2a
06ad5e7
22845fd
5f89c4e
652324d
ebfd444
c4c7ee9
0443af9
c7cbaa7
033556c
db99fa7
104f8b6
503662f
9a18e71
fadde3b
a2c143f
217a949
c7ef36b
8260aa0
7eb6b6e
a2204d2
7777d64
9e8ada4
5bc927d
8750acc
22feb73
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ export DO_WAVE=YES | |
export WAVE_CDUMP="both" | ||
|
||
# Microphysics Options: 99-ZhaoCarr, 8-Thompson; 6-WSM6, 10-MG, 11-GFDL | ||
export imp_physics=11 | ||
export imp_physics=8 | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Same question as with config.base.emc.dyn. |
||
|
||
# Shared parameters | ||
# Hybrid related | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -87,14 +87,14 @@ case $case_in in | |
export WRTIOBUF="8M" | ||
;; | ||
"C384") | ||
export DELTIM=${DELTIM:-240} | ||
export DELTIM=${DELTIM:-300} | ||
export layout_x=6 | ||
export layout_y=8 | ||
export layout_x_gfs=${layout_x_gfs:-6} | ||
export layout_y_gfs=${layout_y_gfs:-8} | ||
export layout_x_gfs=${layout_x_gfs:-8} | ||
export layout_y_gfs=${layout_y_gfs:-12} | ||
export nth_fv3=2 | ||
export nth_fv3_gfs=${nth_fv3_gfs:-2} | ||
export cdmbgwd="1.0,2.2,1.0,1.0" # mountain blocking, ogwd, cgwd, cgwd src scaling | ||
export cdmbgwd="1.1,0.72,1.0,1.0" # mountain blocking, ogwd, cgwd, cgwd src scaling | ||
Comment on lines
-90
to
+97
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Have these updates been testing in atmos-only mode when cycling with the enkf? This may have a significant impact on the C384 enkf forecast jobs, particularly the layout which will change the calculated resources. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I have not run any cycled tests. |
||
export WRITE_GROUP=1 | ||
export WRTTASK_PER_GROUP=$npe_node_max | ||
export WRITE_GROUP_GFS=${WRITE_GROUP_GFS:-2} | ||
|
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.
In line with @WalterKolczynski-NOAA's comments...this change will impact the GDAS forecast job in atmos-only cycled mode so need to have that signed off on and tested.
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.
Then please point me to the tests I'm supposed to do. The requirements for what I'm supposed to test is not documented anywhere. In the past, @WalterKolczynski-NOAA has done any cycled tests that has been required.
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.
Will likely discuss this in tomorrow's g-w CM tag-up and come up with a test plan. Stay tuned.
You're right, we need to add requirements to the wiki and/or PR template. This was discussed today by the CMs and we'll work to flesh out those requirements for future PRs.
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.
They need to be tested, but I wanted an evaluation of the settings for general use before we even move on to that point.
I don't mind doing setting up the cycling tests, but here is how I've been setting up my cycling tests if you want to do them:
cp -as $SOURCE_DIR $PSLOT
Where SOURCE DIR is (the trailing slash is important):
hera:
/scratch2/NCEPDEV/ensemble/noscrub/Walter.Kolczynski/global-workflow/C384_warm_IC/
orion:
/work2/noaa/global/wkolczyn/noscrub/global-workflow/C384_warm_IC/
dell:
/gpfs/dell2/emc/modeling/noscrub/Walter.Kolczynski/global-workflow/C384_warm_IC/
This should copy the directory structure of the source, but all the files will be symlinks.
a. In config.base, edit FHMAX_GFS to be 24.
b. In config.resources, edit wtime_fcst_gfs to be "01:00:00"
setup_workflow.py
as normala. Change the MAXTRIES to 1, so if there is a failure it doesn't try to do it twice
b. Change TASKTHROTTLE to "80" so more EnKF jobs run at once
Normally I'm just looking for successful completion, but with changes like these (particularly to Thompson MP), we should get someone from the GDAS team to evaluate.
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.
This document has been linked in the Wednesday Coupled Model Meeting notes since Feb 16th. We've been talking about this PR since about that time. So I would hope that these settings are in fact settled and nothing is coming as a surprise to anyone. I make one change of settings today based off of a misunderstanding I had and the fact that I had only been able to test with aerosols since Friday. Also, please know that all changes to the settings were made with @yangfanglin awareness and help.
Thank you for providing instructions for the cycled test @WalterKolczynski-NOAA. That's great information to have for the future. Are we far enough along in the settings changes to get start coordinating the evaluation of the impact to DA?
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.
@JessicaMeixner-NOAA @WalterKolczynski-NOAA I agree with you the development should be happening in the develop branch. Walter referred to the setbacks to other systems. I'd say it will get increasing difficult to maintain backward combability with legacy systems like GFS.v16 which is even still running with the IPD physics. I am sure the workflow team will find the best way to balance the support for existing system with the need of moving the development forward.
The back-and-forth change of physics options is part of the development process, the "Physics Wheel of Pain" as Brad Ferrier depicted when he was working at EMC. We will work with the workflow team to eventually set up everything thing correctly. This is part of the physics integration.
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.
@JessicaMeixner-NOAA The settings for the atmos and land components in your input.nml look to be correct.
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.
As far as I am aware, we are not continuing to support a GFSv16-like system in develop, that's purely in the
operations
branch and it's sibling branches (feature/ops-wcoss2
anddev_v16
, the latter of which will maintain support for GFSv16 on our tier-1 platforms). Thedevelop
branch is moving forward for GFSv17. As @WalterKolczynski-NOAA and @aerorahul have said, we need to know that incoming changes like this PR have been tested in all major modes and do not break things like cycling. Since no cycling tests were done yet the concern was raised.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.
It is certainly not my intention to break cycling. I will run cycled tests and coordinate with someone in the DA group to ensure they sign off on the changes.
Please let me know how I can better understand what will be required of PRs to the workflow in the future. The changes here have been advertised and discussed in the coupled modeling tag ups every Wednesday for a month + in which @KateFriedman-NOAA and @WalterKolczynski-NOAA are active participants at the meeting. There will be more changes coming like this and knowing what will be required will assist in planning efforts.
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.
Note that DA development might be required to update both workflow and code (GSI) to run gdas forecast and data assimilation with updated physics options such as Thompson MP, Noah-MP, and RRTMGp radiation (to be included in p8c) etc. It might be getting more and more difficult to maintain the cycling capability but still use the GSI and its associated scripts developed for GFS.v16.