UFS-SRW v3.0.0 SciDoc updates by mzhangw · Pull Request #80 · ufs-community/ccpp-physics

mzhangw · 2023-06-08T15:45:46Z

It is to initialize scientific documentation update for UFS-SRW v3.0.0 release from DTC.
The web link is here.

mkavulich · 2023-06-08T21:37:33Z

I am worried about the size of these images; ideally there should be no binary files (images included) in a github repository, especially for one that is a submodule for many other repositories. 5MB may not seem like a lot but that is an extra 5MB every time the repository is cloned, and it increases the entire ccpp-physics repository size by ~15%. And if we continue adding images for every new capability this problem will only get worse.

Is there a way for us to host these images elsewhere instead of keeping them in the ccpp-physics repository?

ligiabernardet · 2023-06-09T17:56:31Z

@mzhangw Pls provide la link to the rendered html so we can use as part of the review. Tks

@mkavulich Good point. What do you suggest? I suppose it could be distributed as a release asset??

ligiabernardet · 2023-06-14T14:25:55Z

Thanks for collecting these updates.
Given how extensive the changes described in the .txt files are, is the inline documentation contained in the Fortran files still current or does it need to be updated?

index.html
- app -> App
- Please add an explanation to say that the GFS v16 suite is not the same code as the operational GFS v16 code uses. First because GFS v16 does not use CCPP at all. Second because the code has marched ahead. Similarly, the code in the all other suites has evolved, so the RAP suite/param is not what the operational RAP uses. Then say that P8 is like P8A (not the final P8) but also with evolved schemes. I suggest repeating this info on the page for each suite.
rap_suite_page.html: Currently, the RAP suite is supported in SCM only. (not correct)
_r_r_f_s_v1beta_page.html
- The RRFS_v1beta suite is the primary suite target for the upcoming operational implementation of the Rapid Refresh Forecast System (RRFS) (not correct. The operational RRFS v1 will use RUC LSM and may use GF. Say that this WAS the primary target but that things have evolved since then)
- which is used in the UFS SRW App -> which can be configured using the UFS SRW App
HRRR and RAP suite: you can add that these are candidates for RRFS v1 operational implementation
_wo_f_s_v0_page.html
- targeted for use in the upcoming operational implementation of the NOAA's Warn-on-Forecast System (WoFS) and for the RRFS ensemble.
c_l_m__l_a_k_e_model.html
- Define acronyms at first occurrence
- The CLM lake model...
- It also computes 2-m temperature: Of the air?? That is surprising to me.
- in the regional application of UFS (RRFS) -> in the UFS SRW App
- To cold-start the CLM lake model in RRFS -. To cold-start the CLM lake model in the UFS SRW App
- The differences of surface variables from the RRFS 6-h forecast -> The differences of surface variables from the experimental RRFS 6-h forecast
RUC LSM
- some of these recent modifications -> some of these modifications
- The sensitivity of surface fluxes and turbine-height winds to the RUC LSM parameters has been explored by Geng Xia, NREL. This study will determine the uncertainty range for the selected parameters in the RUC LSM and will be described in the journal paper. -> The sensitivity of surface fluxes and turbine-height winds to the RUC LSM parameters has been explored by Geng Xia, NREL to determine the uncertainty range for the selected parameters in the RUC LSM.
  -NOAH LSM -> Noah LSM
NoahMP LSM
- It is not necessary to describe how to cite the reference. People can click on the link and go see how to cite. However, the citation in the CCPP SciDoc differs from what is recommended in the text. Should it be changed to be as shown in the "how to cite"?
GF
- In GF scale awareness, and the aerosol dependence through rain generation (following Berry (1968) [28] and evaporation formulations (following Jiang et al. (2010) [102] ), depending on the cloud concentration nuclei at cloud base were added. -> The GF scheme takes into account aerosol dependence through rain generation (following Berry (1968) [28] and evaporation formulations (following Jiang et al. (2010) [[102]] (https://dtcenter.ucar.edu/GMTB/UFS_SRW_App_v3.0.0p/sci_doc/citelist.html#CITEREF_Jiang_2010) ), depending on the cloud concentration nuclei at cloud base. (No need to mention scale awareness here- it is discussed later in this paragraph)
- GF included -> The GF scheme includes
- massflux -> mass flux
- PDF's -> PDFs
- The deep and congestus convection considers scale awareness (Arakawa et al. (2011) [8] ), the shallow convection is not scale-aware. -> The deep and congestus convection considers scale awareness (Arakawa et al. (2011) [8] ). However, the shallow convection is not scale-aware.
- Aerosol dependence is implemented through dependence of rain generation and evaporation formulations depending on the cloud concentration nuclei at cloud base (Berry 1968 [28], Jiang et al.(2010) [102], and Lee and Feingold (2010) [115] ). Not needed??? Already mentioned previously in this paragraph??
- Aerosol dependence is considered experimental and is turned off at this point. -> Aerosol dependence is considered experimental and is not supported in this release. This should be mentioned earlier in the paragraph, when aerosol-dependence is introduced.
- CCPP v6.0.0. I recommend incorporating info related to all previous releases into the main text. Then just describe the changes for the current distribution (SRW v3)
- Operational Impacts in RAP/HRRR -> Why is this under "Physics Updates"? The last RAP/HRRR op impl was a while back.
- Updates for aerosol-awareness (I suggest removing this since it seems it is not supported in the App)

I may have more comments later.

mkavulich · 2023-06-14T19:20:04Z

@mzhangw Can you also include a change in physics/docs/pdftxt/suite_input.nml.txt? Currently the section for imp_physics shows the default value as 99 but does not describe what this default is, can you add its description (should be Zhao-Carr/Sundqvist microphysics cloud I believe)?

@ligiabernardet I am not 100% sure (the doxygen documentation is unclear), but it should be possible to point to external images when building documents with Doxygen, using the syntax@image html https://example.com/image.jpg. We could host these images by uploading them to a page on the Github wiki; this is what we have done for hosting some large images for the UFS SRW App users guide.

Thanks!

… into srw300_scidoc

mkavulich · 2023-06-30T19:41:03Z

@mzhangw I opened a PR to your branch (mzhangw#7) with changes that would move the images to an external location. I did a test locally to make sure it would work the way I expected in doxygen and it looks like it does. Let me know if you have any questions.

… into srw300_scidoc

tanyasmirnova · 2023-07-13T22:07:18Z

+    d2_bg_k1 = 0.2
+    d2_bg_k2 = 0.04
+    d4_bg = 0.12
+    d_con = 1.0


In RRFS we use d_con=0.5

tanyasmirnova · 2023-07-13T22:09:41Z

+    hord_dp = -5
+    hord_mt = 5
+    hord_tm = 5
+    hord_tr = 10


RRFS uses: hord_dp = 6
hord_mt = 6
hord_tm = 6
hord_tr = 8
hord_vt = 6

tanyasmirnova · 2023-07-13T22:11:00Z

+    make_nh = .true.
+    mountain = .false.
+    n_split = 5
+    n_sponge = 24


In RRFS:
n_sponge = 9

tanyasmirnova · 2023-07-13T22:11:40Z

+    nggps_ic = .true.
+    no_dycore = .false.
+    nord = 3
+    nord_tr = 2


In RRFS:
nord_tr=0

tanyasmirnova · 2023-07-13T22:12:12Z

+    npx = 220
+    npy = 132
+    npz = 64
+    nrows_blend = 10


In RRFS nrows_blend = 20

tanyasmirnova · 2023-07-13T22:25:40Z

+    lsoil              = 4
+    lsoil_lsm          = 9
+    ltaerosol          = .true.
+    lwhtr              = .true.


Insert here:
mix_chem = .true.
mosaic_lu = 1
mosaic_soil = 1

tanyasmirnova · 2023-07-13T22:26:10Z

+    ltaerosol          = .true.
+    lwhtr              = .true.
+    nsfullradar_diag   = 3600
+    nst_anl            = .true.


nst lines could be removed

tanyasmirnova · 2023-07-13T22:27:27Z

+    print_diff_pgr     = .false.
+    prslrd0            = 0.0
+    random_clds        = .false.
+    redrag             = .true.


Add:
rrfs_sd = .true.
rrfs_smoke_debug = .false.

tanyasmirnova · 2023-07-13T22:28:07Z

+    redrag             = .true.
+    satmedmf           = .false.
+    sfclay_compute_flux = .true.
+    shal_cnv           = .false.


add:
smoke_forecast = 0

tanyasmirnova · 2023-07-13T22:30:00Z

+    swhtr              = .true.
+    trans_trac         = .true.
+    ttendlim           = -999
+    use_ufo            = .true.


Add:
wetdep_ls_opt = 1

tanyasmirnova · 2023-07-13T22:33:57Z

+    print_memory_usage = .false.
+/
+
+&fv_core_nml


same changes here as in the previous FV3_HRRR

mkavulich

@mzhangw Can you please merge the changes to remove the large images from this PR? If you have any questions please let me know.

mzhangw#7

mkavulich · 2023-07-20T14:57:37Z

Since Man is now on leave, we have re-opened this PR at #91

@tanyasmirnova Thank you for your comments, I will reach out to you to make sure these get addressed.

Initiate SRW v3.0.0 SciDoc

a96c486

mzhangw assigned ligiabernardet Jun 8, 2023

Some format and file size adjustments

a9017a5

mzhangw added 2 commits June 15, 2023 11:43

address some review comments

12c6210

Merge branch 'ufs/dev' of https://github.com/ufs-community/ccpp-physics…

7e6ec4b

… into srw300_scidoc

mzhangw added 4 commits July 5, 2023 14:54

Scidoc updates

f7f00e3

Scidoc updates

5e3e94c

narrative description for previous update

cf51e1a

Merge branch 'ufs/dev' of https://github.com/ufs-community/ccpp-physics…

7be5608

… into srw300_scidoc

mzhangw marked this pull request as ready for review July 13, 2023 21:49

mzhangw requested review from JongilHan66, Qingfu-Liu, dustinswales, grantfirl, haiqinli and tanyasmirnova as code owners July 13, 2023 21:49

tanyasmirnova reviewed Jul 13, 2023

View reviewed changes

mkavulich requested changes Jul 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

mkavulich mentioned this pull request Jul 20, 2023

UFS-SRW v3.0.0 SciDoc updates #91

Merged

mkavulich closed this Jul 20, 2023

Conversation

mzhangw commented Jun 8, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mkavulich commented Jun 8, 2023

Uh oh!

ligiabernardet commented Jun 9, 2023

Uh oh!

ligiabernardet commented Jun 14, 2023

Uh oh!

mkavulich commented Jun 14, 2023

Uh oh!

mkavulich commented Jun 30, 2023

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mkavulich left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mkavulich commented Jul 20, 2023

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

mzhangw commented Jun 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mkavulich left a comment •

edited

Loading