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

add three parameters to input.nml for NSSL MP #45

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 15, 2023

Conversation

Jili-Dong
Copy link

To support RRFS multiphysics ensemble, three parameters in NSSL MP are being added to input.nml, including rain shape parameter (nssl_alphar), graupel-droplet collection efficiency (nssl_ehw0_in) and hail-droplet collection efficiency (nssl_ehlw0_in)

PR to ccpp/data/GFS_typedefs.F90/meta will be submitted to fv3atm shortly

Related to issue
#44

physics/mp_nssl.meta Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
physics/mp_nssl.meta Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Collaborator

@dustinswales dustinswales left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Everything looks good to me.
Thanks @grantfirl @ChunxiZhang-NOAA for the standard_name suggestions.

@grantfirl grantfirl mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2023
grantfirl added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 15, 2023
@grantfirl grantfirl merged commit eb9f64a into ufs-community:ufs/dev Mar 15, 2023
@Jili-Dong Jili-Dong deleted the rrfs_dev branch March 29, 2023 17:58
grantfirl pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 26, 2023
Updated Flake physics and modified related files
@MicroTed
Copy link
Collaborator

It is fine with me to add these. I would suggest dropping the "_in" part of the names, though, since the loose convention is to use "nssl_[name of parameter in the scheme]"

The alternative way to access these parameters is through a local namelist (nssl_mp_params) that can be read by the init routine. But I don't know if there is a policy/guideline about doing that within CCPP? For a "research" version, it might be good to document this option.

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.

6 participants