Lsm upgrades for p8c

[HelinWei-NOAA]

To address some biases found in PT7

• consistent surface coupling with GFS surface layer scheme
• add stability subroutine call to inside NoahMP
• add thermal roughness length options
• changes to snow parameters for thermal conductivity and compaction
• modification to soil thermal conductivity
• diagnostics

[grantfirl]

@HelinWei-NOAA I'm going to review this in a bit, but I wanted to understand the "readiness" level of this code for potential inclusion into the UFS commit queue. The UFS code management meeting is set for tomorrow morning, where it is planned what code will be merged in the next 2 weeks. In your estimation, do you think this will be ready to merge next week some time?

[HelinWei-NOAA]

@grantfirl If the time frame is two weeks, we prefer to have our changes to be merged in the second week. @barlage and I are still working to try to get something in. But if other PRs need more time, we can also do it some time next week.

[grantfirl]

These changes look good to me. Please consider removing the changes to sfc_diag_post.F90/meta if they are no longer needed for code cleanliness reasons.

[grantfirl]

@HelinWei-NOAA From looking at the code changes, it appears that this pull request has the potential to change regression test baselines for those suites that use NoahMP. Is this your understanding? Also, have these changes been regression tested yet? If you need help running those (e.g. on Hera) please let me know.

[HelinWei-NOAA]

I will do RTs when we finalize the code before next week.

@HelinWei-NOAA From looking at the code changes, it appears that this pull request has the potential to change regression test baselines for those suites that use NoahMP. Is this your understanding? Also, have these changes been regression tested yet? If you need help running those (e.g. on Hera) please let me know.

[HelinWei-NOAA]

@grantfirl I think our code is ready. Yes our upgrades will change those baselines using NoahMP. I am running RTs on WCOSS now.

@HelinWei-NOAA From looking at the code changes, it appears that this pull request has the potential to change regression test baselines for those suites that use NoahMP. Is this your understanding? Also, have these changes been regression tested yet? If you need help running those (e.g. on Hera) please let me know.

[ChunxiZhang-NOAA]

Wondering if this condition still needed?

[climbfuji]

Unless someone goes in and cleans up all the CCPP error handling versus WRF error handling, yes.

[ChunxiZhang-NOAA]

Yup, maybe in the future, the code owner is encouraged to clean the WRF related stuff in the physics schemes.