search

wrf-model / WRF

The official repository for the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model
Other
1.18k stars 658 forks source link

Shared physics sfclayrev #1997

Closed weiwangncar closed 5 months ago

weiwangncar commented 5 months ago

TYPE: enhancement, new feature

KEYWORDS: shared physics, revised MM5 sfclay scheme

SOURCE: internal

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES: Add revised MM5 surface layer scheme from the shared physics directory, which is ccpp-compliant. Also added salinity effect in the shared physics subroutine. It also includes change made in PR-1924.

Solution: The CCPP-compliant revised MM5 surface layer code will be residing in phys/physics_mmm/ directory. Currently it is a copy of the code from the future MMM-physics repo, plus the salinity change made recently in WRF.

LIST OF MODIFIED FILES: M arch/postamble M arch/preamble M clean M main/depend.common M phys/Makefile M phys/module_physics_init.F M phys/module_sf_sfclayrev.F M phys/module_surface_driver.F A phys/physics_mmm/sf_sfclayrev.F90

TESTS CONDUCTED:

  1. The runs before and after this change produce bit-for-bit results when compiled with -d option.
  2. The Jenkins tests are all passing.

RELEASE NOTE: Add revised MM5 surface layer scheme from the future shared MMM-physics repository.

weiwangncar commented 5 months ago

The regression test results:

Test Type              | Expected  | Received |  Failed
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = =
Number of Tests        : 23           24
Number of Builds       : 60           57
Number of Simulations  : 158           150        0
Number of Comparisons  : 95           86        0

Failed Simulations are: 
None
Which comparisons are not bit-for-bit: 
None
smileMchen commented 5 months ago

@weiwangncar For codes saved in phys/physics_mmm/, in this PR it is "sf_sfclayrev.F90", can we change the name to "phys/physics_mmm/sf_sfclayrev.F" so that they are consistent with the name convention of other codes? Another benefit is that we don't need to modify arch/postamble and arch/preamble. Is there any special reason we need to name the code .F90?

weiwangncar commented 5 months ago

@smileMchen Thanks for reviewing this PR. Unfortunately the decision to make CCPP-compliant physics code using .F90 is not ours, but the CCPP community. It will apply to MPAS as well.