-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Add water variables #69
Add water variables #69
Conversation
Tagging @danholdaway for information. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me. We noticed in our weekly meeting that this PR was not assigned the correct codeowners for review due to an incorrect setting, so I have added them manually.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have some questions about hail and graupel.
<standard_name name="mass_content_of_graupel_in_atmosphere_layer"> | ||
<type kind="kind_phys" units="kg m-2">real</type> | ||
</standard_name> | ||
<standard_name name="mass_content_of_hail_in_atmosphere_layer"> | ||
<type kind="kind_phys" units="kg m-2">real</type> | ||
</standard_name> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How do these two interact with do_graupel_instead_of_hail
and do_hail_instead_of_graupel
? Does the CCPP consider these either / or or are can you use both? Can you use do_graupel_instead_of_hail
with mass_content_of_hail_in_atmosphere_layer
? How does that work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Graupel and hail are different things, so you can definitely use both hail "mass content" and graupel "mass content", although I kwow schemes which assume that all graupel and hail can be considered as graupel, for simplification.
I didn't know about the do_hail_instead_of_graupel
and do_graupel_instead_of_hail
flags. My guess is that these flags are used in the some part of GFS microphysics scheme do activate similar simplifications.
Maybe @grantfirl (who added these flag names) or @gthompsnJCSDA can give some insight on this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Graupel and hail are different things
Well for sure I'd rather get hit on the head with graupel :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me, but did have one change request and a question.
long_name="ratio of the mass of rain to the mass of dry air at all interfaces excluding surface"> | ||
<type kind="kind_phys" units="kg kg-1">real</type> | ||
</standard_name> | ||
<standard_name name="total_water_mixing_ratio_wrt_moist_air_and_condensed_water" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we add a new rule to StandardNamesRules.rst
stating that the phrase total_water
includes all types of water in all phases? I realize that it is somewhat obvious, but I would rather be overly-pedantic then risk potential confusion/argument later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nusbaume I did not pick up on it before, but now I think I am also confused in the same way you are. In this particular case, "total water" would imply that this ratio is:
(mass water vapor) + (mass liquid water) + (mass water ice)
---------------------------------------------------------
(mass water vapor) + (mass liquid water) + (mass dry air)
@MayeulDestouches am I interpreting that correctly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have added a rule to clarify what total_water
is.
@mkavulich, this ratio is
(mass water vapor) + (mass liquid water) + (mass water ice)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(mass water vapor) + (mass liquid water) + (mass water ice) + (mass dry air)
Co-authored-by: Jesse Nusbaumer <nusbaume@ucar.edu>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the changes @MayeulDestouches! This PR looks ready to me now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for these updates @MayeulDestouches
Is anything missing for this PR to be merged? |
Sorry for the slow response! It looks like we still need an approval from @ss421 before we can merge. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thankyou.
This PR extends a few variables related to atmospheric water:
_at_top_interfaces
vertical stagger. I only updated the mixing ratios wrt dry air and the mixing ratios wrt moist air and condensed water, as I don't need the mixing ratios wrt moist air alone.It also adds a few water-related variables:
water_vapor_mixing_ratio_wrt_moist_air_and_condensed_water_assuming_saturation
for saturated specific humidity.derivative_of_ln_water_vapor_partial_pressure_assuming_saturation_wrt_air_temperature
for the log derivative of saturation vapor pressure wrt temperature._at_top_interaces
variants of the latter two variables.