Background effective radius consistency fix #1295
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
1) Detect unresolved clouds 2) Add horizontal cloud fraction to calculate surface irradiances 3) Change cloud effective radii to local variables
|
@juhyejuhye @dudhia @weiwangncar |
|
@juhyejuhye Does change the default constants change the results WITHOUT FARMS? |
|
Wei,
I've checked SWDOWN before (This is from RRTMG) and it showed some changes
in the WRF-Solar simulation results. I'll test this WRF PR version and let
you know. Then is there a variable you want to check?
Thanks,
Ju-Hye
…On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 9:19 AM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
@juhyejuhye <https://github.com/juhyejuhye> Does change the default
constants change the results WITHOUT FARMS?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKB4YLRZVENMCL3RCJ7VBI3SIH3GLANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
@juhyejuhye Do you expect results to be different without FARMS? If not, we should check for bit-for-bit results using diffwrf utility in external/io_netcdf/. Run WRF with previous constants and new and use diffwrf to compare the results: diffwrf file1 file2. And what's reason to change the constants, some of them only slightly (e.g. 2.49e-6 to 2.51e-6)? |
|
Wei,
We expect the results will be different.
The changes in minimum values are very small for Thompson, so it brings a
very small difference in the output as well. However, for the WSM and WDM
MPs family, the minimum re_qi changed from 10.01e-6 to 4.99e-6 and re_qs
changed from 25.e-6 to 9.99e-6, so the effect of the changed minimum on the
results is bigger. We were with Jimy on this test and he agreed that this
is a positive direction for the results of the WSM WDM MPs as well.
Thanks,
Ju-Hye
…On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:25 PM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
@juhyejuhye <https://github.com/juhyejuhye> Do you expect results to be
different without FARMS? If not, we should check for bit-for-bit results
using diffwrf utility in external/io_netcdf/. Run WRF with previous
constants and new and use diffwrf to compare the results: diffwrf file1
file2. And what's reason to change the constants, some of them only
slightly (e.g. 2.49e-6 to 2.51e-6)?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKB4YLRVS7TIIZLU3U4OF5TSIIRBJANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
@juhyejuhye OK. Can you then show some of the differences from the runs? It could be surface rainfall, surface temperature, or downward shortwave flux, and so on. |
|
Wei,
I’ll compare results using this PR version and send you.
Thanks,
Ju-Hye
…On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 1:11 PM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
@juhyejuhye <https://github.com/juhyejuhye> OK. Can you then show some of
the differences from the runs?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKB4YLWWQUSYMALK7Q3M66LSIIWNTANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
@juhyejuhye Thanks. Do we need to get the developers for WSM/WDM to agree on the change? |
|
Wei,
These are plots comparing GHIs from RRTMG. The first figure is a comparison
of the domain averaged GHIs of previous Thompson and WSM6 codes with the
Thompson and WSM6 codes with the minimum cloud effective raii changed, and
the other is the differences. GHI has not changed much for Thompson scheme,
but as I explained, it has changed a lot more in WSM6.
[image: mean_swdown_cycle.png]
[image: diff_mean_swdown_cycle.png]
And, I'll talk with Jimy and Pedro if we should talk to the WSM/WDM
developers on this issue.
Thanks,
Ju-Hye
…On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:02 PM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
@juhyejuhye <https://github.com/juhyejuhye> Thanks. Do we need to get the
developers for WSM/WDM to agree on the change?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKB4YLW5QMXCDRUZXTUWMOLSII4NBANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
@juhyejuhye Thanks. But your figures were not posted. Can you try again? |
|
Wei, I'll try one more time. I'm attaching the files.
Ju-Hye
…On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 9:13 AM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
@juhyejuhye <https://github.com/juhyejuhye> Thanks. But your figures were
not posted. Can you try again?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKB4YLURJNHFVT7H3I4ZKBTSINDI7ANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
Can you see? |
|
@juhyejuhye Yes, I can see now. Thanks. |
|
Dave,
We updated the code to share the background effective radii of clouds in
'module_model_constats.F' for WSM/WDM and Thompson microphysics schemes.
Please let me know if there is anything strange.
Wei,
We talked about the changes related to the effective radii of clouds with
the WSM/WDM MPs group and they agreed to this change. One thing to clarify
is that what we have done is that we assigned the background effective
radii values differently from the minimum radii values of clouds in WSM/WDM
MPs. The background effective radius and the minimum effective radius were
not exactly distinguished in WSM/WDM MPs before. (The background effective
radius indicates the size of effective radius when there is no cloud.) We
only changed the background effective radius values. And inside of
subroutine effecRad_wsm6 remains unchanged, so the minimum size of clouds
has not changed when there is a cloud.
Thanks,
Ju-Hye
…On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
@juhyejuhye <https://github.com/juhyejuhye> Yes, I can see now. Thanks.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKB4YLX7UZDZRLYBZHHEOZLSINPOVANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
@juhyejuhye Thanks for addressing my questions. I'm ok with this PR. Could you add a comment in the PR (if it is appropriate) to state that it will have up to 30 (or another number) Wm-2 impact on the clear sky GHI for the WSM/WDM schemes. I have to say I'm still not clear about this: the background effective radii have an impact on radiation flux. So simply by turning on this option we get less radiation flux even without clouds? What does the background value represent? |
|
The background value determines whether RRTMG uses the radius from the
microphysics or its own climatology. This usually should happen with clouds
from other physics, but not when the microphysics is active. If the
microphysics
provides a radius less than the background, RRTMG does its own climatology
which this fix addresses by making sure it is larger than the background
value
when there is a cloud.
…On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 10:42 AM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
@juhyejuhye <https://github.com/juhyejuhye> Thanks for addressing my
questions. I'm ok with this PR. Could you add a comment in the PR (if it is
appropriate) to state that it will have up to 30 (or another number) Wm-2
impact on the clear sky GHI for the WSM/WDM schemes. I have to say I'm
still not clear about this: the background effective radii have an impact
on radiation flux. So simply by turning on this option we get less
radiation flux even without clouds? What does the background value
represent?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77AJCQ667W72UMS5OX3SJNCG7ANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
@dudhia So you're saying that by reducing the background radius values for these species, the effective radii from a microphysics would be used more than the RRTMG climatology, and hence the differences in radiation fluxes. |
|
Yes, for example 2.51 would not be detected by RRTMG as a no microphysics
cloud case, but the new 2.49 will
because RRTMG uses 2.5. I think this only matters when other physics
produces the clouds and not microphysics.
Jimy
…On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:29 AM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
@dudhia <https://github.com/dudhia> So you're saying that by reducing the
background radius values for these species, the effective radii from a
microphysics would be used more than the RRTMG climatology, and hence the
differences in radiation fluxes.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77GJABIIAW6LR4VAPCTSJNHXDANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
@dudhia Thanks for the explanation. I'm less confused now... |
|
Thanks, Jimy and Wei!
It's good to summarize this together.
What I understand is when there is no cloud from MPs and yes cloud from
other physics, Re_QC/RE_QI/RE_QS were 2.51,10.01, 25 micron (in this case
RRTMG does not use their own values, just use 2.51, 10.01, and 25 micron)
in previous code. However, as a result of our modifications, those values
have been changed to 2.49, 4.99, and 9.99 micron from microphysics, so
RRTMG WILL use their own climatology values in this case (no clouds in MPs
and yes clouds in physics). And it brings a difference in SWDOWN.
Thanks,
Ju-Hye
…On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 12:10 PM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
@dudhia <https://github.com/dudhia> Thanks for the explanation. I'm less
confused now...
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKB4YLUGTXORC7LWNJXTQ2DSJNMRPANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
Correct.
…On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ju-Hye Kim ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks, Jimy and Wei!
It's good to summarize this together.
What I understand is when there is no cloud from MPs and yes cloud from
other physics, Re_QC/RE_QI/RE_QS were 2.51,10.01, 25 micron (in this case
RRTMG does not use their own values, just use 2.51, 10.01, and 25 micron)
in previous code. However, as a result of our modifications, those values
have been changed to 2.49, 4.99, and 9.99 micron from microphysics, so
RRTMG WILL use their own climatology values in this case (no clouds in MPs
and yes clouds in physics). And it brings a difference in SWDOWN.
Thanks,
Ju-Hye
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 12:10 PM weiwangncar ***@***.***>
wrote:
> @dudhia <https://github.com/dudhia> Thanks for the explanation. I'm less
> confused now...
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#1295 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKB4YLUGTXORC7LWNJXTQ2DSJNMRPANCNFSM4R47FBPQ
>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77ARWVDWVLZYCPJOPGDSJNNUZANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
@juhyejuhye Since these are not just fixes for FARMS, the title of this PR, as well as the RELEASE NOTE, should be updated to reflect the actual change. |
|
A suggested title may be
Background effective radius consistency fix
…On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:17 AM weiwangncar ***@***.***> wrote:
@juhyejuhye <https://github.com/juhyejuhye> Since these are not just
fixes for FARMS, the title of this PR should be updated to reflect the
actual change.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77B5ZSP3GE7BIUHX5DTSJSPCXANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
Wei,
I agree to change by 'Background effective radius consistency fix'.
Then how can I change the title?
Thanks,
Ju-Hye
…On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:28 AM dudhia ***@***.***> wrote:
A suggested title may be
Background effective radius consistency fix
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:17 AM weiwangncar ***@***.***>
wrote:
> @juhyejuhye <https://github.com/juhyejuhye> Since these are not just
> fixes for FARMS, the title of this PR should be updated to reflect the
> actual change.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#1295 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77B5ZSP3GE7BIUHX5DTSJSPCXANCNFSM4R47FBPQ
>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKB4YLRBUJY4HEURS24YPPDSJSQNFANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
|
OK, I did.
…On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:01 PM Ju-Hye Kim ***@***.***> wrote:
Wei,
I agree to change by 'Background effective radius consistency fix'.
Then how can I change the title?
Thanks,
Ju-Hye
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:28 AM dudhia ***@***.***> wrote:
> A suggested title may be
> Background effective radius consistency fix
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:17 AM weiwangncar ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
> > @juhyejuhye <https://github.com/juhyejuhye> Since these are not just
> > fixes for FARMS, the title of this PR should be updated to reflect the
> > actual change.
> >
> > —
> > You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > <#1295 (comment)>,
or
> > unsubscribe
> > <
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77B5ZSP3GE7BIUHX5DTSJSPCXANCNFSM4R47FBPQ
> >
> > .
> >
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#1295 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKB4YLRBUJY4HEURS24YPPDSJSQNFANCNFSM4R47FBPQ
>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1295 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEIZ77HVHKAEZRSKV3RAEDTSJSUIBANCNFSM4R47FBPQ>
.
|
dudhia
approved these changes
Oct 20, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
FARMS correctly detects unresolved clouds
TYPE: bug fix
KEYWORDS: FARMS, effective radius of unresolved hydrometeors, cloud fraction
SOURCE: Ju-Hye Kim and Pedro A. Jimenez (NCAR/RAL), and Jimy Dudhia (NCAR/MMM)
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
Problem:
The previous version of FARMS did not correctly account for the radiative effects of unresolved clouds, because the FARMS calculates the surface irradiances using both cloud water contents and cloud effective radii. In previous version, cloud water contents came from both resolved and unresolved clouds, on the other hand, effective radii came only from resolved clouds.
Solution:
The climatological effective radii are assigned to unresolved clouds of liquid, ice and snow species, and are specified as the effective radii of clouds in microphysics schemes (e.g. mp=2) that do not provide any effective radii. The fix is also valid for Thompson MPs, WSMMPs, and WDMMPs by adjusting the background effective radii of these schemes. In addition to this, we improved calculations of surface irradiance by adding cloud fraction to the FARMS scheme.
ISSUE: N/A
LIST OF MODIFIED FILES:
M phys/module_mp_thompson.F
M phys/module_mp_wdm5.F
M phys/module_mp_wdm6.F
M phys/module_mp_wdm7.F
M phys/module_mp_wsm3.F
M phys/module_mp_wsm5.F
M phys/module_mp_wsm6.F
M phys/module_mp_wsm7.F
M phys/module_physics_init.F
M phys/module_ra_farms.F
M phys/module_radiation_driver.F
TESTS CONDUCTED:
Yes. The downward short wave flux (GHI) will increase in the cloud region with unresolved clouds by reduced scatterings due to increased cloud size. This was tested in the WRF-Solar model.
We did't do the Jenkins tests.
RELEASE NOTE: Bug fix to account for the effective radius of the unresolved hydrometeors by FARMS.