Physics (Noah-MP), set zero for canopy liquid and canopy ice over gla…

[wzzheng90]

Description

This PR addresses the issue Fixes NCAR/ccpp-physics#272: ufs-community/ccpp-physics#272.

Failure of some UFS prototypes (e.g., GEFS) results from the "bad" canopy water used by the Noah-MP land surface model. In fact, canopy water is sum of canopy liquid and canopy ice in the Noah-MP, which is available only at the vegetation grids and there is no canopy variable at the glacier grids. Therefore, it doesn't really matter what canopy variables including canopy water are at initial time or at the forecast time over the glacier, so canopy liquid or canopy ice is set with a missing values (9.99e20_kind_phys).

However, some other processes such as UFS cold starts, outputs, restart and CHGRES steps, sometimes do not exclude 'glacier fraction' when processing canopy variables, and assign unrealistically canopy values over non-glacier points.

As one of options, set canopy liquid=0.0 and canopy ice=0.0 in Noah-MP, so that it avoids failure of some UFS prototypes (e.g., GEFS) results from the "bad" canopy water used by the Noah-MP land surface model.

Issue(s) addressed

Link the issues to be closed with this PR, whether in this repository, or in another repository.
(Remember, issues should always be created before starting work on a PR branch!)

• fixes Unreasonable canopy water values in Noah-MP ufs-community/ccpp-physics#272

Testing

How were these changes tested? Using the UFS RT suites
What compilers / HPCs was it tested with? Tests will be done on Hera
Are the changes covered by regression tests? (If not, why? Do new tests need to be added?) Yes
Have the ufs-weather-model regression test been run? On what platform? Part of them have been done on Hera

• Will the code updates change regression test baseline? If yes, why? Please show the baseline directory below. No
• Please commit the regression test log files in your ufs-weather-model branch

Dependencies

• waiting on In Noah-MP, set zero for canopy liquid and canopy ice over glacier ufs-community/ccpp-physics#278
• related to In Noah-MP, set zero for canopy liquid and canopy ice over glacier  ufs-community/ufs-weather-model#2723

[wzzheng90]

Combined the modification for snow glacier in "module_sf_noahmp_glacier.F90" from Mike Barlage.

[wzzheng90]

Further updated the glacier variables related to the canopy and set all the undefined over the glacier to some values suggested by Mike Barlage.

Performed some regression tests ( with Gaussian_grid and cubed_sphere_grid, separately ) for two sensitivity runs: a) setting all the "undefined" over glacier to some values, and b) modification of the snow glacier ( "module_sf_noahmp_glacier.F90" ) plus a) changes.
The a) run has no impacts at the non-glacier grids which we expected, while the b) run indicates some small changes of simulation. Several slides (PPT) are attached.

[grantfirl]

@wzzheng90 @jkbk2004 @rhaesung ufs-community/ccpp-physics#278 was merged. Please revert .gitmodules and update the ccpp-physics submodule commit hash to: ufs-community/ccpp-physics@2574825

[BrianCurtis-NOAA]

@DusanJovic-NOAA do we need to be concerned that checks are failing before merging?

[DusanJovic-NOAA]

@DusanJovic-NOAA do we need to be concerned that checks are failing before merging?

PR should not be merged if tests are failing, that's the purpose of tests, to make sure nothing is broken. Are you referring to two rrfs tests that have been commented out?

[BrianCurtis-NOAA]

@DusanJovic-NOAA do we need to be concerned that checks are failing before merging?

PR should not be merged if tests are failing, that's the purpose of tests, to make sure nothing is broken. Are you referring to two rrfs tests that have been commented out?

I am talking about the CI testing.

[jkbk2004]

@BrianCurtis-NOAA @DusanJovic-NOAA can you review/approve this pr?

[DusanJovic-NOAA]

@DusanJovic-NOAA do we need to be concerned that checks are failing before merging?

PR should not be merged if tests are failing, that's the purpose of tests, to make sure nothing is broken. Are you referring to two rrfs tests that have been commented out?

I am talking about the CI testing.

We know CI testing is broken, PR #975 will fix it.