Cleanup radiation tendencies (standard names)

[climbfuji]

This PR addresses issue #179. It only deals with the clean up of the standard names as described in the issue, it does not remove the LTP (extra layers for radiation) logic.

Associated PRs:

#422
NCAR/fv3atm#34
NCAR/ufs-weather-model#32

For regression testing information, see NCAR/ufs-weather-model#32.

[llpcarson]

looks good to me, but Grant's more familiar with this issue

approved.

[grantfirl]

This looks good to me, although its been 16 months (!) since the issue was started, so my memory is certainly foggy WRT this. So now, the heating rates coming out of RRTMG are on radiation timesteps and levels, get converted to physics levels in the RRTMG post interstitial schemes (albeit within the Radtend DDTs), then used throughout the rest of the physics on the appropriate levels. My only nitpick is that I thought we agreed on using "timestep" rather than "time step". Doing a search on the previous version of GFS_typedefs.meta shows a ratio of like 4:1 using timestep over time step, but of course, these PRs will shift that.

[climbfuji]

This looks good to me, although its been 16 months (!) since the issue was started, so my memory is certainly foggy WRT this. So now, the heating rates coming out of RRTMG are on radiation timesteps and levels, get converted to physics levels in the RRTMG post interstitial schemes (albeit within the Radtend DDTs), then used throughout the rest of the physics on the appropriate levels. My only nitpick is that I thought we agreed on using "timestep" rather than "time step". Doing a search on the previous version of GFS_typedefs.meta shows a ratio of like 4:1 using timestep over time step, but of course, these PRs will shift that.

Argh. I missed that - I thought it was the other way round. It will be no problem to make this change as a quick follow up PR. Do we want to discuss this at the ccpp-framework meeting? I feel that this should be standardized across the organizations.