UFS-dev PR#98#1035
Conversation
Changes to Logging and Initialization of the CLM Lake Model
| <subcycle loop="2"> | ||
| <scheme>mynnsfc_wrapper</scheme> | ||
| <scheme>GFS_surface_loop_control_part1</scheme> | ||
| <scheme>sfc_nst_pre</scheme> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please, removed lines 45-47 related to nsst: RAP suite similar to HRRR suite does not use the NSST physics.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd rather not modify the RAP suite. Even if it doesn't match the actual RAP, people have a dozen or so variants of the "FV3_RAP" using nsst with only one or two tweaks.
| <scheme>sfc_nst_pre</scheme> | ||
| <scheme>sfc_nst</scheme> | ||
| <scheme>sfc_nst_post</scheme> | ||
| <scheme>lsm_ruc</scheme> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should clm_lake be also added to RAP suite similar to HRRR?
| <scheme>sfc_nst_post</scheme> | ||
| <scheme>noahmpdrv</scheme> | ||
| <scheme>sfc_sice</scheme> | ||
| <scheme>GFS_surface_loop_control_part2</scheme> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should CLM lake model be added to RRFS_v1beta suite?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should not modify the RRFS_v1beta. It matches a released version of CCPP (theoretically).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@SamuelTrahanNOAA I agree. Let's keep it as is.
|
@tanyasmirnova The changes to the documentation were already reviewed by you in ufs-community#91. This PR is bringing changes that were already approved/merged into the ufs/dev branch back to the ncar/main branch. If there are changes that need to get into the documentation, we should notify @mkavulich and @mzhangw who worked on ufs-community#91. |
|
@grantfirl Grant, sounds good. In terms of RUC LSM everything looks good to me. |
mkavulich
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me. Previous comments don't seem to correspond to these changes, I'm guessing they were showing up incorrectly due to merge conflicts?
Identical to ufs-community#98
Contains changes from #1034 until it is merged.