-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 360
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
implementation of new orographic drag parameterization scheme to alleviate wind bias in E3SM #6667
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
1. A new toolkit for generation of the topographic file for new orographic drag schemes is included in code/components/eam/tools/topo_tool/. new file: orographic_drag_toolkit/Makefile new file: orographic_drag_toolkit/README new file: orographic_drag_toolkit/Tempest-remap_generation.sh new file: orographic_drag_toolkit/cube_to_target.F90 new file: orographic_drag_toolkit/make.ncl new file: orographic_drag_toolkit/ogwd_sub.F90 new file: orographic_drag_toolkit/reconstruct.F90 new file: orographic_drag_toolkit/remap.F90 new file: orographic_drag_toolkit/run.sh new file: orographic_drag_toolkit/shr_kind_mod.F90 new file: orographic_drag_toolkit/transform.F90 [BFB]
1. The new orographic drag schemes is implemented into physics package. It includes nonlinear orographic gravity wave drag (oGWD), flow-blocking drag (FBD), small-scale GWD (sGWD), turbulent orographic form drag (TOFD). The code modifications are in physics, clubb, and control of eam (for input of the new topo file). 2. A new topo file including new topo parameters is input into the model. namelist_defaults_eam.xml is modified to add the new topo file. 3. See #PR 6665 for more info. modified: bld/namelist_files/namelist_defaults_eam.xml modified: src/control/startup_initialconds.F90 modified: src/physics/cam/clubb_intr.F90 modified: src/physics/cam/comsrf.F90 modified: src/physics/cam/gw_common.F90 modified: src/physics/cam/gw_drag.F90 modified: src/physics/cam/hb_diff.F90 modified: src/physics/cam/physics_types.F90 modified: src/physics/cam/physpkg.F90 modified: src/physics/cam/ppgrid.F90 modified: src/physics/clubb/advance_windm_edsclrm_module.F90 [Non-BFB]
|
A few questions, please -- are these drags energy conserving? I assume at least the one in clubb is not (from reading the code)? Should we run some checks to confirm this? Separately, if these are topo drag parameterizations, why does this PR introduce changes in the topo tool? In other words, how/why are these parameterizations affecting topo generation? Were these parameterizations tuned to show smaller bias? I assume only one was used to report smaller biases as above, what about the other 3? (unless they all run together?) UPDATE -- it seems they ran together. If i knew that this code base (physpkg.F90, etc) is to be used for a while, i would suggest for you to remove the code from clubb_intr and make is a separate module/routine. You can then use that new code to add another forcing term to cam_in structure to be "absorbed/diffused" by clubb. This is to separate clubb interface code from clearly a different parameterization. thanks! |
Hi Oksana @oksanaguba , The introduction of changes in topo tool (creation of a separate folder for generation of additional topographic parameter) does not affect the current topo generation. It is used to generate additional topographic parameters (such as orographic asymmetry, effective orographic length) that are needed for the new OGWD parameterization. The process is documented here. For implementation of turbulent orographic form drag (TOFD, the turbulent mountain stress (TMS) equivalent) into the CLUBB intr. I was following the previous implementation of TMS. What we input into the clubb_intr is an interface that utilizes the module of the new schemes (with only TOFD opened, others closed here. The other 3 schemes are opened in gw_drag.F90). Unlike TMS, the TOFD can generate a profile rather than a single-level surface stress. We had to find a way to input this forcing profile of TOFD into the clubb to join the vertical diffusion (or maybe what you meant by "absorbed" by clubb?). So in this code, I was inputting an interface for the calculation of the TOFD into clubb_intr while the module is somewhere else in physics folder. I was wondering if you'd meant to put this interface of the new scheme out in physpkg.F90 instead? Jinbo |
1. The new orographic drag schemes are added with namelist variables to turn on/off the schemes in E3SM. 2. The correspondent model files are modified in the namelist defaults. 3. Some bugs are modified. See #PR 6667 for more info. modified: components/eam/bld/build-namelist modified: components/eam/bld/namelist_files/namelist_defaults_eam.xml modified: components/eam/bld/namelist_files/namelist_definition.xml modified: components/eam/src/physics/cam/clubb_intr.F90 modified: components/eam/src/physics/cam/comsrf.F90 modified: components/eam/src/physics/cam/gw_common.F90 modified: components/eam/src/physics/cam/gw_drag.F90 modified: components/eam/src/physics/cam/hb_diff.F90 modified: components/eam/src/physics/cam/phys_control.F90 modified: components/eam/src/physics/cam/physpkg.F90 modified: components/eam/src/physics/cam/ppgrid.F90 [Non-BFB]
@mt5555 |
The current pull request includes incorporation of a suite of new orographic drag parameterization schemes into E3SM. It includes 4 components all combined in one module (i.e. subroutine gwdo2d). The schemes include orographic gravity wave drag (oGWD, Xie et al.,2020), flow-blocking drag (FBD, Xie et al.,2020), small-scale GWD (sGWD, Tsiringakis et al.,2017), and turbulent-scale orographic form drag (TOFD, Beljaars et al., 2004).
The scheme are distributed by the interface named gwdo_gsd.
The oGWD, FBD, and sGWD are implemented in gw_drag.F90, while TOFD is implemented in clubb_intr.F90 to join the vertical diffusion process. Another change is in the startup_initialconds.F90/gw_drag.F90 where the new topographic parameters (OA, OC, OL) are input into the model.
(formation of the additional topographic parameters are documented here).
The results tested in E3SMv2/v3 documented here. The overall 5-yr F2010 results between CTL run (default E3SMv3) and 3GWD-3FBD-sGWD-TOFD run (experimental run using new schemes) show that the new schemes help to alleviate the 10-m wind speed bias compared to ERA5 in E3SMv3.
The namelist control is added for the 4 schemes. The 4 schemes are separately control by namelist variables
use_od_ls (oGWD)
use_od_bl (FBD)
use_od_ss (sGWD)
use_od_fd (TOFD)
tunable parameters in the schemes are also controllable via namelist, e.g.
ncleff_ls (oGWD)
ncd_bl (FBD)
sncleff_ss (sGWD).
The code has passed all the tests in the "e3sm_atm_developer" suites.
Figure 1 5-yr F2010 simulation for E3SMv3 (0001-0005) vs ERA5 climatology (1979-2019) for 10-m wind speed (a-b) and 2-m temperature (c-d).