-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 158
Add GEOS coupling capability including heatflux and massflux modifications #518
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
404b72c
Add GEOS heatflux and massflux updates. This allows coupling to the …
apcraig 427444f
fixed a bug which missed initializing fswthru_uvrdr etc. to zero
zhaobin74 34cd512
resetting to zero moves to init_flux_ocn
zhaobin74 3dc1f44
remove extra blank line
zhaobin74 84e2745
minor reorg
zhaobin74 07cc2d2
update some Icepack internal argument names
apcraig da69264
GEOS coupling cleanup
apcraig 5334205
Update treatment of rain coupling for GEOS, include rain in fresh
apcraig File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We do need to name these something more descriptive, not using geos. I'll think about this.
The mass flux is only associated with evaporation and sublimation. Is that also true for the heat flux here? Or does it also include contributions from conduction etc?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The mass flux is only relevant for evap/sublimation. There is no connection to conduction.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So then, are both
geos_massfluxandgeos_heatfluxonly associated with evaporation and sublimation? (Later you include deposition, right?) Why are both of these options needed? Do you ever need to run (in production mode) with one of them true and the other one false?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm leaving the previous comment to illustrate my confusion here. Such parallel nameing implies (to me) that they are mass and heat fluxes associated with the same process.
Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong), the 'massflux' option is about the assumed temperature of water vapor deposition/sublimation, and the 'heatflux' option is entirely different, having to do with the coupling strategy for for calculating the surface temperature. If so, then perhaps we could change
geos_massfluxtovapor_flux_correctionor something like that. But I suggested the same thing forenforcing_massfluxin sg_thermo.rst. They are both logicals. What is the difference betweengeos_massfluxandenforcing_massflux? Actually, I don't seeenforcing_massflux(orenforcing_heatflux) in the code, only in the docs, so that might be left over from a previous iteration.Would it make sense to change
geos_heatfluxtosemi-implicit_Tsfc? (I suggested that instead ofenforcing_heatflux)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@eclare108213, sorry about the
enforcing_heatfluxandgeos_heatfluxconfusion. It is just that the documentation is not synced with the code.I really like
semi-implicit_Tsfcas the replacement ofgeos_heatfluxas it captures the nature of GEOS coupling. Andvapor_flux_correctionis also appropriate name for its purpose.We do need these two flags as they are associated with two different processes (all related to coupling).
Thanks for these suggestions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done