Open wperkins opened 5 years ago
@wperkins I think the way you suggested would work great.
One concern I have though, is about the memory needed to run the model - with a lot of spatial parameters and gap model, it would be hard to run the model on a PC with small memories. Users probably need to be aware of that. Or is there any smart ways we can reduce the memory occupancy? Not necessarily needs to be fixed right away but something to consider.
I should have looked at this closer. I have it wrong. Temperature lapse is currently handled with these phrases:
[OPTIONS]
Temperature lapse rate = CONSTANT | VARIABLE
[CONSTANTS]
Temperature Lapse Rate = -0.006
where the CONSTANT
option caused the value in the constants section to be used and with the VARIABLE
option, the lapse rate is read as an extra field from from met station data.
The precipitation lapse rate is currently handled with the following phrases:
[OPTIONS]
Precipitation Lapse Rate = CONSTANT | VARIABLE | MAP
[CONSTANTS]
Precipitation Lapse Rate = 0.0007
[METEOROLOGY]
Precipitation Lapse Rate Map = map.file
where CONSTANT
and VARIABLE
options are the same as with the temperature lapse and the MAP
option causes the map in METEOROLOGY
to be read.
It would be less disruptive, relative to the original suggestion, to just handle the temperature lapse just like the precipitation lapse by adding a MAP
option.
In the
[CONSTANTS]
section, a temperature and precipication lapse rates are specified likewhich are constant over the entire domain. For larger domains, these could vary spatially. I propose that these be handled as the snow parameters in that these phrases would either specify a numeric constant or a path to a map file. So, valid phrases would be
Perhaps there are other constants that should be handled this way?