[production/RRFS.v1] Fix improperly assigned fire emissions for ebb_dcycle==1 for retrospectives (NOT operational!)

[jordanschnell]

Commit Queue Requirements:

• [X] Fill out all sections of this template.
• [] All sub component pull requests have been reviewed by their code managers.
• [X] Run the full Intel+GNU RT suite (compared to current baselines) on either Hera/Derecho/Hercules

• [X] Commit 'test_changes.list' from previous step

  Description:

  For ebb_dcycle==1 (retrospective fire emissions), the 3-d emissions were incorrectly assgined assigned at all levels using the surface data.

Commit Message:

Fix improperly assigned fire emissions for ebb_dcycle==1 for retrospectives (NOT operational!)

* UFSWM - 
  * AQM - 
  * CDEPS - 
  * CICE - 
  * CMEPS - 
  * CMakeModules - 
  * FV3 - 
    * ccpp-physics - Fix improperly assigned fire emissions for ebb_dcycle==1 for retrospectives (NOT operational!)
    * atmos_cubed_sphere - 
  * GOCART - 
  * HYCOM - 
  * MOM6 - 
  * NOAHMP - 
  * WW3 - 
  * stochastic_physics - 

Priority:

• High: Time-sensitive project.
• High: Reason: Retrospective experiments with smoke and ebb_dcycle=1 will use the wrong wildfire emissions

Git Tracking

Sub component Pull Requests:

• FV3: NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#812
  • ccpp-physics: ufs-community/ccpp-physics#191

UFSWM Blocking Dependencies:

• None

---

Changes

Regression Test Changes (Please commit test_changes.list):

053 conus13km_control_intel failed in check_result conus13km_control_intel 053 failed in run_test 059 conus13km_debug_intel failed in check_result conus13km_debug_intel 059 failed in run_test 060 conus13km_debug_qr_intel failed in check_result conus13km_debug_qr_intel 060 failed in run_test 061 conus13km_debug_2threads_intel failed in check_result conus13km_debug_2threads_intel 061 failed in run_test 062 conus13km_radar_tten_debug_intel failed in check_result conus13km_radar_tten_debug_intel 062 failed in run_test

Input data Changes:

• None.

Library Changes/Upgrades:

• No Updates

---

Testing Log:

• RDHPCS
  • [ ] Hera
  • [ ] Orion
  • [ ] Hercules
  • [ ] Jet
  • [ ] Gaea
  • [ ] Derecho
• WCOSS2
  • [ ] Dogwood/Cactus
  • [ ] Acorn
• [ ] CI
• [ ] opnReqTest (complete task if unnecessary)

[jkbk2004]

@jordanschnell @MatthewPyle-NOAA Should we prepare to schedule to commit this pr to the rrfs.v1 production branch? Should same feature be added to develop branch?

[grantfirl]

@jordanschnell Please pull in the latest production/RRFS.v1 code for testing.

[MatthewPyle-NOAA]

@jordanschnell @MatthewPyle-NOAA Should we prepare to schedule to commit this pr to the rrfs.v1 production branch? Should same feature be added to develop branch?

@jkbk2004 yes on scheduling to get this into the rrfs.v1 production branch. I don't know enough about it to know if it also needs to go to the develop branch.

[jkbk2004]

@MatthewPyle-NOAA I am going to start testing on hera and hercules. @grantfirl we can figure out how to bring another pr to develop branch, right?

[MatthewPyle-NOAA]

@jkbk2004 I've started testing on WCOSS.

[MatthewPyle-NOAA]

My initial test on WCOSS confirmed the @jordanschnell result of those five tests failing.

[grantfirl]

@MatthewPyle-NOAA I am going to start testing on hera and hercules. @grantfirl we can figure out how to bring another pr to develop branch, right?

@jkbk2004 Yes. I can add it with the others. I need to figure out whether some of the PRs into the RRFS production branch can be safely combined into fewer PRs for develop.

[jkbk2004]

@MatthewPyle-NOAA note that I updated bl_date.conf to BL_DATE=20240410 since 5 cases changes results. Can you make sure about that on wcoss2?

[MatthewPyle-NOAA]

@jkbk2004 - yes, I did that on WCOSS2. But you've reminded me that I need to mirror the new develop-20240410 directory to the other side of WCOSS2.

[jkbk2004]

@jkbk2004 - yes, I did that on WCOSS2. But you've reminded me that I need to mirror the new develop-20240410 directory to the other side of WCOSS2.

Then, we can start merging process.

[jordanschnell]

@grantfirl , tried the same procedure -- met with:

[jkbk2004]

@grantfirl , tried the same procedure -- met with:

Sounds like I raced to push. But this pr looks good to merge.

[jordanschnell]

@grantfirl , tried the same procedure -- met with:

Sounds like I raced to push. But this pr looks good to merge.

Thanks, @jkbk2004!