Skip to content

Fix/add gusts#446

Merged
jedwards4b merged 2 commits into
ESCOMP:mainfrom
jedwards4b:fix/add_gusts
Apr 1, 2024
Merged

Fix/add gusts#446
jedwards4b merged 2 commits into
ESCOMP:mainfrom
jedwards4b:fix/add_gusts

Conversation

@jedwards4b
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Description of changes

When coldair_outbreak_mod is true the vmax field was changed without a corresponding change in wind0. This
leads to an unexpected difference in the So_u10 field.

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any: @mvertens found the problem in her tests for dglc.

CMEPS Issues Fixed (include github issue #):

Are changes expected to change answers? Corrects So_u10n

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)?

Testing performed

SMS_Ln5.f19_f19_mg17.2000_DATM%QIA_SLND_SICE_DOCN%SOMAQP_SROF_SGLC_SWAV.derecho_intel
as compared to baseline in cdeps1.0.28

@jedwards4b jedwards4b self-assigned this Mar 29, 2024
@jedwards4b jedwards4b requested a review from mvertens March 29, 2024 16:23
@megandevlan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I'd be curious to hear from @swrneale on this too. My instinct is that this should be the correct way of doing things, but does require a bit of a change in the way we've thought about this.

Originally, I had thought of and defined u10res to be only the large-scale resolved wind field, which should be based on UBOT and VBOT (as it is in the current code, stemming from wind0). But clearly, other parameterization options (coldair_outbreak_mod, in this case) can also impact the magnitude of the low-level wind (vmag). My thinking is ultimately that we want U10 as output from CMEPS to remain unchanged relative to before gusts were added, which requires that wind0 and u10res reflect all the ways in which vmag can change, including by the coldair_outbreak_mod (yes?). In that case, I agree that we need this change.

@jedwards4b jedwards4b merged commit a077536 into ESCOMP:main Apr 1, 2024
@jedwards4b jedwards4b deleted the fix/add_gusts branch April 1, 2024 16:45
@jedwards4b jedwards4b mentioned this pull request Apr 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants