UFS-dev PR#299#694
Conversation
… current state variables to remove *_of_new_state
… new tendency functionality
scrasmussen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good, lots of changes here, thanks @grantfirl!
I scanned the changes and they make sense to me, though there are so many I am leaning on the CI passing.
hertneky
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good - just a comment on an extra line deletion that differed from UFS/dev to take/leave.
Also in GFS_typedefs.F90, I am guessing these changes weren't needed for SCM, but just making sure.
Good eye. I think that I didn't bring this change over because I thought it was just related to the difference in how UFS was doing tracers, but upon a little digging, this did fix an actual integer underflow bug in UFS. I'm not sure that it would have ever come up in the SCM context, but I fixed it nevertheless. Should be good now. |
|
I think that the RT differences look OK. I didn't look at all of the difference plots, but the ones that I did are consistent with what was experienced with the UFS. |
SOURCE: @grantfirl, CIRA/DTC
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
ISSUE: None
ASSOCIATED PRs:
NCAR/ccpp-physics#1220
TESTS CONDUCTED:
SCM RTs, UFS RTs, additional result change comparisons for selected suites in UFS/SCM
This PR catches the NCAR:main branch up with changes from the ufs-community:ufs/dev branch.
Associated ufs/dev PR:
Associated ufsatm PR:
Associated NCAR PR:
REGRESSION TEST CHANGES: All/most are expected to change results, but only very small changes.