F_RIMEF vs q_rimef #645

ericaligo-NOAA · 2021-04-30T19:52:30Z

ericaligo-NOAA
Apr 30, 2021
Collaborator

In the Ferrier-Aligo mp scheme, F_RIMEF is initialized in the physics to a value of 1. It ranges from 1 to 45. In the output/diag_table, q_rimef is defined as the ice mixing ratio * F_RIMEF. In fv_regional_bc.F90, if a tracer is in the field_table, but not in the INPUT file (as in our case with F_RIMEF), it is set to 0. I made the change in red below such that q_rimef is defined as 1 near the boundaries, but I'm wondering if q_rimef in this routine is really F_RIMEF or F_RIMEFice mixing ratio. If it's F_RIMEFice mixing ratio, then a 0 value is okay because the ice mixing ratio can be 0.

!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
!*** Fill this task's subset of boundary data for this 3-D
!*** or 4-D variable. This includes the data in the domain's
!*** halo region as well as the blending region that overlaps
!*** the outer nhalo_blend rows of the integration domain.
!*** If the variable is a tracer then check if it is present
!*** in the input data. If it is not then print a warning
!*** and set it to zero.
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
!
if(call_get_var)then
if (present(array_4d)) then !<-- 4-D variable
status=nf90_inq_varid(ncid,trim(var_name),var_id) !<-- Get this variable's ID.
if (required_local) then
call check(status)
endif
if (status /= nf90_noerr) then
if (east_bc.and.is_master()) write(0,*)' WARNING: Tracer ',trim(var_name),' not in input file'

          array_4d(:,:,:,tlev)=0.                                        !<-- Tracer not in input so set to zero in boundary.
          if (tlev.eq.5)then
             array_4d(:,:,:,tlev)=1.
          endif

!
blend_this_tracer(tlev)=.false. !<-- Tracer not in input so do not apply blending

mzhangw · 2021-05-03T15:59:26Z

mzhangw
May 3, 2021
Collaborator

Based on FA field_table, q_rimef is the dyn tracer and f_rimef is a FA phys diagnostics in diag_table. I think that Zero q_rimef ( ice mixing ratio * F_RIMEF) is OK here.

However, in the same code, we may need to revisit the code associated with "nwat == 6" (default GFDL mp) and its tracer treatment. Shall we consider having its counterpart for the "nwat ==4"?

0 replies

ericaligo-NOAA · 2021-05-03T16:26:34Z

ericaligo-NOAA
May 3, 2021
Collaborator Author

Hi, q_rimef is in the daig_table. f_rimef is defined in the physics. nwat is set to 4 for the FA scheme. Should that be changed?

…

On 5/3/2021 11:59 AM, mzhangw wrote: Based in FA field_table, q_rimef is the dyn tracer and f_rimef is a FA phys diagnostics in diag_table. I think that Zero q_rimef ( ice mixing ratio * F_RIMEF) is OK here. However, in the same code, we may need to revisit the code associated with "nwat == 6" (default GFDL mp) and its tracer treatment. Shall we consider having its counterpart for the "nwat ==4"? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#645 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MJZKSAQSVDUGMUMLG3TL3B7HANCNFSM435LBNWQ>.

4 replies

mzhangw May 3, 2021
Collaborator

FA scheme has nwat=4, which are liq_wat, ice_wat, rainwat and qrimf, while GFDL mp has nwat=6, including liq_wat, ice_wat,rainwat,snowwat, graupel and cld_amt.

In fv_regional_bc.F90, moist tracer treatment is well designed for nwat=6, for example:
sphum_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'sphum')
liq_water_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'liq_wat')
ice_water_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'ice_wat')
rain_water_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'rainwat')
snow_water_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'snowwat')
graupel_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'graupel')
cld_amt_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'cld_amt')
o3mr_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'o3mr')
do k=1,npz
do j=js,je
do i=is,ie
wt = BC_side%delp_BC(i,j,k)
if ( nwat == 6 ) then
qt = wt*(1. + BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,liq_wat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,ice_wat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,rainwat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,snowwat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,graupel))
else ! all other values of nwat
qt = wt*(1. + sum(BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,2:nwat)))
endif
m_fac = wt / qt
do iq=1,ntracers
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,iq) = m_fac * BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,iq)
enddo
BC_side%delp_BC(i,j,k) = qt
enddo
enddo
enddo
!

In this case, q_rimef is not implemented explicitly, which may imply some issues for FA.I guess

ericaligo-NOAA May 4, 2021
Collaborator Author

Thanks. Does the increment below that I highlighted, 2 to 4, mean nwat=2=liq_wat, nwat=3=ice_wat and nwat=4=rainwat, as they are listed in the field_table with nwat = 1 = sphum? If so, then the increment from 2 to 4 below is okay.
if ( nwat == 6 ) then
qt = wt*(1. + BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,liq_wat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,ice_wat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,rainwat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,snowwat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,graupel))
else ! all other values of nwat
qt = wt*(1. + sum(BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,2:nwat)))
endif

mzhangw May 4, 2021
Collaborator

One of my concern is that q_rimef has never been defined in this code as other GFDL tracers:
liq_wat = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'liq_wat')
ice_wat = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'ice_wat')
rainwat = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'rainwat')
snowwat = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'snowwat')
graupel = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'graupel')
cld_amt = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'cld_amt')

ChunxiZhang-NOAA May 5, 2021
Collaborator

FA scheme has nwat=4, which are liq_wat, ice_wat, rainwat and qrimf, while GFDL mp has nwat=6, including liq_wat, ice_wat,rainwat,snowwat, graupel and cld_amt.

In fv_regional_bc.F90, moist tracer treatment is well designed for nwat=6, for example:
sphum_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'sphum')
liq_water_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'liq_wat')
ice_water_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'ice_wat')
rain_water_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'rainwat')
snow_water_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'snowwat')
graupel_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'graupel')
cld_amt_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'cld_amt')
o3mr_index = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'o3mr')
do k=1,npz
do j=js,je
do i=is,ie
wt = BC_side%delp_BC(i,j,k)
if ( nwat == 6 ) then
qt = wt*(1. + BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,liq_wat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,ice_wat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,rainwat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,snowwat) + &
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,graupel))
else ! all other values of nwat
qt = wt*(1. + sum(BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,2:nwat)))
endif
m_fac = wt / qt
do iq=1,ntracers
BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,iq) = m_fac * BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,iq)
enddo
BC_side%delp_BC(i,j,k) = qt
enddo
enddo
enddo
!

In this case, q_rimef is not implemented explicitly, which may imply some issues for FA.I guess

nwat=4 includes sphum, liq_wat, ice_wat, and rainwat. The mass-weighted-rime-factor (qrimef) is treated as a tracer and should be free to use in the dynamics. (2:nwat) includes liq_wat, ice_wat and rainwat when nwat=4.

ericaligo-NOAA · 2021-05-04T21:29:59Z

ericaligo-NOAA
May 4, 2021
Collaborator Author

Thanks. With the Thompson scheme, there are at least two additional tracers. Ice and rain number concentrations + aerosol tracers. Are they defined here? Can't we treat q_rimef in the same way that those Thompson tracers are treated?

…

On 5/4/2021 4:02 PM, mzhangw wrote: One of my concern is that q_rimef has never been defined in this code as: liq_wat = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'liq_wat') ice_wat = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'ice_wat') rainwat = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'rainwat') snowwat = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'snowwat') graupel = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'graupel') cld_amt = get_tracer_index(MODEL_ATMOS, 'cld_amt') — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#645 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MK6ZL5A66YXIUMVBJ3TMBHGVANCNFSM435LBNWQ>.

0 replies

ericaligo-NOAA · 2021-05-05T15:57:24Z

ericaligo-NOAA
May 5, 2021
Collaborator Author

Thanks. This suggests to me there should be no problem with q_rimef because it is the fifth field if sphm is nwat = 1. Eric

…

On 5/5/2021 11:39 AM, ChunxiZhang-NOAA wrote: nwat=4 includes sphum, liq_wat, ice_wat, and rainwat. The mass-weighted-rime-factor (qrimef) is treated as a tracer and should be free to use in the dynamics. (2:nwat) includes liq_wat, ice_wat and rainwat when nwat=4.

2 replies

ChunxiZhang-NOAA May 5, 2021
Collaborator

sphum is always 1

mzhangw May 5, 2021
Collaborator

I think that @ChunxiZhang-NOAA is correct, sphum is 1. We still need to get the index of q_rimef and consider the mass conservation of FA scheme.

ericaligo-NOAA · 2021-05-05T17:14:38Z

ericaligo-NOAA
May 5, 2021
Collaborator Author

If sphum = 1, as I also suspected, then we're looping through nwat from 2 to 4, where nwat = 2 = liq_wat, nwat = 3 = ice_wat and nwat = 4 = rainwat. We should treat q_rimef as we treat the number concetrations in Thompson, right? Therefore, no changes are needed for FA. That's how I understand it. else ! all other values of nwat qt = wt*(1. + sum(BC_side%q_BC(i,j,k,*2:nwat*))) endif

…

On 5/5/2021 1:11 PM, mzhangw wrote: I think that @ChunxiZhang-NOAA <https://github.com/ChunxiZhang-NOAA> is correct, sphum is 1. We still need to get the index of q_rimef and consider the mass conservation of FA scheme. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#645 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MPOG3SJ5NS2LJKOH6DTMF34DANCNFSM435LBNWQ>.

1 reply

ChunxiZhang-NOAA May 5, 2021
Collaborator

@ericaligo-NOAA Yes, q_rimef is treated as the number concentrations in Thompson scheme in dynamics.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

F_RIMEF vs q_rimef #645

{{title}}

Replies: 5 comments 7 replies

{{title}}

{{editor}}'s edit

{{editor}}'s edit

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{editor}}'s edit

{{editor}}'s edit

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

Select a reply

F_RIMEF vs q_rimef #645

ericaligo-NOAA Apr 30, 2021 Collaborator

Replies: 5 comments · 7 replies

mzhangw May 3, 2021 Collaborator

ericaligo-NOAA May 3, 2021 Collaborator Author

mzhangw May 3, 2021 Collaborator

ericaligo-NOAA May 4, 2021 Collaborator Author

mzhangw May 4, 2021 Collaborator

ChunxiZhang-NOAA May 5, 2021 Collaborator

ericaligo-NOAA May 4, 2021 Collaborator Author

ericaligo-NOAA May 5, 2021 Collaborator Author

ChunxiZhang-NOAA May 5, 2021 Collaborator

mzhangw May 5, 2021 Collaborator

ericaligo-NOAA May 5, 2021 Collaborator Author

ChunxiZhang-NOAA May 5, 2021 Collaborator

ericaligo-NOAA
Apr 30, 2021
Collaborator

Replies: 5 comments 7 replies

mzhangw
May 3, 2021
Collaborator

ericaligo-NOAA
May 3, 2021
Collaborator Author

mzhangw May 3, 2021
Collaborator

ericaligo-NOAA May 4, 2021
Collaborator Author

mzhangw May 4, 2021
Collaborator

ChunxiZhang-NOAA May 5, 2021
Collaborator

ericaligo-NOAA
May 4, 2021
Collaborator Author

ericaligo-NOAA
May 5, 2021
Collaborator Author

ChunxiZhang-NOAA May 5, 2021
Collaborator

mzhangw May 5, 2021
Collaborator

ericaligo-NOAA
May 5, 2021
Collaborator Author

ChunxiZhang-NOAA May 5, 2021
Collaborator