You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am submitting this as a bug report, although it is to some extend a necessaary cleanup and not a bug.
Convective transportable tracers are assembled in a clw array (standard name convective_transportable_tracers) in scheme GFS_suite_interstitial_3_run. Depending on the microphysics scheme, either one or two tracers are used in the clw array. If only one is used, the other entry gets set to -999 (which tells the convection schemes to do something different than if there are two tracers).
The corresponding logic to update the second, missing tracer from -999 to zero is currently at the end of GFS_SCNV_generic_post_run. This is not the correctt place, it belongs at the beginning of GFS_suite_interstitial_4_run so that when a user decides to skip deep and shallow convection, the following code will still work:
Description
I am submitting this as a bug report, although it is to some extend a necessaary cleanup and not a bug.
Convective transportable tracers are assembled in a
clw
array (standard nameconvective_transportable_tracers
) in schemeGFS_suite_interstitial_3_run
. Depending on the microphysics scheme, either one or two tracers are used in theclw
array. If only one is used, the other entry gets set to-999
(which tells the convection schemes to do something different than if there are two tracers).The corresponding logic to update the second, missing tracer from
-999
to zero is currently at the end ofGFS_SCNV_generic_post_run
. This is not the correctt place, it belongs at the beginning ofGFS_suite_interstitial_4_run
so that when a user decides to skip deep and shallow convection, the following code will still work:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: