Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Skip using fluxes provided by land component for first time step #234

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: ufs/dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator

Due to the dependency between atmosphere and land components, the atmosphere model gets all zero from land component model in the initial coupling time step. This PR aims to fix this issue and skips data coming from land component (all zero) at first coupling time step and use the land fluxes calculated by noahmp land model found in ccpp/physics. After first coupling time step, the coupled configuration (cpld_control_p8_lnd) will continue to use fluxes coming from component model.

@uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

JFYI, The top level UFS WM PR is still in draft mode. I am still working on it.

@uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@grantfirl JFYI, I might also need to introduce another input.nml option to make skipping first time step for land optional since it is related with the run sequence of the coupled application and we might not need for the data atmosphere coupled configurations.

@grantfirl grantfirl requested a review from climbfuji November 15, 2024 16:05
@grantfirl
Copy link
Collaborator

@grantfirl JFYI, I might also need to introduce another input.nml option to make skipping first time step for land optional since it is related with the run sequence of the coupled application and we might not need for the data atmosphere coupled configurations.

@uturuncoglu Thanks. I see that the upstream PRs are in draft. We'll re-review if necessary. There are several PRs to be merged before this one, so it's unlikely this would bubble to the top in 2 weeks time anyway.

@uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@grantfirl Thanks. That is totally fine. I am still working on it. Once it is ready I'll change UFS WM level PR from draft to ready to review.

@yangfanglin
Copy link
Collaborator

@uturuncoglu @barlage @HelinWei-NOAA I assume this is a temporary fix. Otherwise, updating land as a component model cannot happen.

@uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@yangfanglin This is just for fully coupled S2S application and we could make it optional. The main issue is the run sequence. If you have a cold start and all components are running in the same time then you could not provide land fluxes in the first coupling time step. It is very similar to MOM6 case. It is also skipping first coupling time step as I know (except warm start maybe). If you want I could implement similar way in land and we could get rid of this part or we could discuss other possible options (let me know if you have something in your mind). In atm-land only case, I am having one time step delay between components and we have no this issue. BTW, we are trying to finalize the JTTI project soon. So, this will be a last PR from my end.

@barlage
Copy link
Collaborator

barlage commented Dec 9, 2024

Just had a meeting with @uturuncoglu re: this. I think we need something similar to what is being done in sfc_ocean to calculate some initial consistent fluxes that aren't dependent on any specific land model. Then, this could also be used for other land components.

@uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@yangfanglin @barlage Probably, I'll implement and test it in a couple of days.

@uturuncoglu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@barlage I could not find anything related with 2 meter temperature and specific humidity. A this point, I am just setting like,

         t2mmp(i) = tskin(i)
         q2mp(i) = qsurf(i)

Do you think that this is good estimation for the initial coupling time step?

@barlage
Copy link
Collaborator

barlage commented Dec 9, 2024

I think that's fine for the first time step.

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.

5 participants