search

NOAA-SWPC / GSMWAM-IPE

Coupled NEMS app for WAM-IPE
5 stars 11 forks source link

the issue on lower atmosphere variables changed right away after purturbing geomegnetic drivers #57

Closed ZhuxiaoLi66 closed 2 years ago

ZhuxiaoLi66 commented 3 years ago

Clayton is working with Tomoko on the WAM ensembles for data assimilation. They are getting some curious results in the lower atmosphere right away (after 1 timestep) just perturbing the geomagnetic drivers. This issue has been investigated by doing experiences to check the code in idea_phys.f and idea_ion.f. Based on the results, we found the physics status (temperature) in the lower atmosphere (below WAM level 90) happened outside of idea_phys.f( upper atmosphere physics). In gsm/phys/gloopb.f where the physics variables (status) have been integrated, it has been found that the gbphys (which are the usual lower atmosphere physics) has been called after the idea_phys.f, there is temperature tendency for the whole column have been calculated in gb_phys due to adjusting mean radiation fluxes and heating rates to fit for faster model timestep, and that adjustment imposes the physics status from the idea_phys in gloopb.f, besides some SPPT stochastic perturbing adjustment in gloopb.f.
The physics status adjustments in phys/gbphys.f and gsm/phys/gloopb.f are considered as the cause of the issue.

ZhuxiaoLi66 commented 3 years ago

The following plot indicate the issue After we perturb the geomagnetic drivers, the temperature changed after one timestep at WAM level 1.

idea_phys_Temp_diff_t3-t1

ZhuxiaoLi66 commented 3 years ago

Based on the checking of the printout of the dtdt in idea_phys.f, we can see the dtdt at levels below Lev90 hasn't changed right after the calling of idea_ion.f where the temperature tendency due to Joule heating and ion collision etc physics. I also compared the dtdt in idea_phys,f at low levels after this calling at the first and second time step, they are the same. while not the same beyond the second time step.