Last edited Timestamp?

Author : Paolo Oddo

ticket : 850

Branch : dev_r2784_INGV2_bulk


Description

The new set of bulk formulae are:

— Reed 1975 for the Solar Radiation

— Bignami 1995 for the Net long wave radiation

— Kondo 1975 For the Sensible Heat Flux

— Gill 1982 for the Latent Heat Flux

— Hellerman and Rosenstein 1983 for the Drag Coeff. (Cd)

Requested input data are:

— 10m wind velocity (i and j componets) (m/s)

— Dew point Temperature (k)

— Cloud Cover (%)

— 10m Air Temperature (K)

— Mean Sea Level Pressure (hPa)

— Total Precipitation (kg/m2/s)

The routine provides:

— Meridional and Zonal component of the wind stress

— Wind Stress module at T-point

— 10m wind module at t-point

— qns and qsr non-solar and solar heat flux (and all the component of the non solar: Sensible latent and long)

— emp and emps (evaporation - precipitation)

The implementation requires a new routine (the new bulk in the SBC dir) the modification of sbc_oce.F90 to include a new bolean and sbcmod.F90 adding the CALL to the new routine.


Testing

Testing could consider (where appropriate) other configurations in addition to NVTK].

NVTK Tested'''YES/NO'''
Other model configurations'''YES/NO'''
Processor configurations tested[ Enter processor configs tested here ]
If adding new functionality please confirm that the
New code doesn't change results when it is switched off
and ''works'' when switched on
'''YES/NO/NA'''

(Answering UNSURE is likely to generate further questions from reviewers.)

'Please add further summary details here'

  • Processor configurations tested
  • etc——

Bit Comparability

Does this change preserve answers in your tested standard configurations (to the last bit) ?'''YES/NO '''
Does this change bit compare across various processor configurations. (1xM, Nx1 and MxN are recommended)'''YES/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve answers in all possible model configurations?'''YES/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
,,''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. ''
'''YES/NO'''

If you answered '''NO''' to any of the above, please provide further details:

  • Which routine(s) are causing the difference?
  • Why the changes are not protected by a logical switch or new section-version
  • What is needed to achieve regression with the previous model release (e.g. a regression branch, hand-edits etc). If this is not possible, explain why not.
  • What do you expect to see occur in the test harness jobs?
  • Which diagnostics have you altered and why have they changed?Please add details here……..

System Changes

Does your change alter namelists?'''YES '''
Does your change require a change in compiler options?'''NO '''

in the namsbc the following bolean shoul;d be included : ln_blk_ecmwf

a dedicated namelist containing the files specification must be included:

&namsbc_ecmwf ! namsbc_ecmwf MFS bulk formulea

!———————————————————————————————————-

! ! file name ! frequency (hours) ! variable ! time interp. ! clim ! 'yearly'/ ! weights ! rotation !

! ! ! (if <0 months) ! name ! (logical) ! (T/F) ! 'monthly' ! filename ! pairing !

sn_wndi = 'ecmwf' , X , 'u10' , .true. , .false. , 'daily' ,'XX_bicubic.nc' ,

sn_wndj = 'ecmwf' , X , 'v10' , .true. , .false. , 'daily' ,'XX_bicubic.nc' ,

sn_clc = 'ecmwf' , X , 'clc' , .true. , .false. , 'daily' ,'XX_bilinear.nc',

sn_msl = 'ecmwf' , X , 'msl' , .true. , .false. , 'daily' ,'XX_bicubic.nc' ,

sn_tair = 'ecmwf' , X , 't2' , .true. , .false. , 'daily' ,'XX_bicubic.nc' ,

sn_rhm = 'ecmwf' , X , 'rh' , .true. , .false. , 'daily' ,'XX_bilinear.nc',

sn_prec ='precip_cmap', X , 'precip' , .true. , .true. , 'yearly' , ,

cn_dir = '/home/user/NEMO/DATA/ECMWF_nc/' ! root directory for the location of the bulk files

nn_qbw = 4 ! 0/½/¾ type of bulk formula used to compute long wave radiation


Resources

''Please ''summarize'' any changes in runtime or memory use caused by this change……''


IPR issues

Has the code been wholly (100%) produced by NEMO developers staff working exclusively on NEMO?'''YES'''

If No:

  • Identify the collaboration agreement details
  • Ensure the code routine header is in accordance with the agreement, (Copyright/Redistribution? etc).Add further details here if required……….
Last modified 9 years ago Last modified on 2011-07-20T15:24:43+02:00