Scientific documentation for CCPP-SCM v7.0.0

[mzhangw]

final website

[ligiabernardet]

HI Man, Tks for the updates. Pls see some comments. I am not done, but I thought I'd send you some initial thoughts

[mkavulich]

It may be too late for this release, but I think we need to rename this scheme and all references to the "drag suite" to "drag scheme". When I get a chance I will open an issue to make the naming conventions more consistent.

[ligiabernardet]

I see your point. Please work with scheme PoC on this. It is called suite because it internally has various subcomponent. However, I see how that makes it super confusing for CCPP users.

[grantfirl]

Agreed that it is confusing to call this scheme a "suite". Surely there is a term that can be used that signifies that this scheme has subcomponents than calling it the same term that we reserve for a collection of CCPP schemes.

[mdtoyNOAA]

Perhaps change "orographic gravity wave drag scheme" to "orographic drag schemes"? I omitted the word 'wave' because the mountain blocking and form drag components are not 'wave' phenomena.

[ligiabernardet]

Hi Man, please lmk when these items have been addressed and the website refreshed for final review. Tks

• In some places (e.g., RRTMG documentation), there is a section on CCPP Physics Updates for v6.0.0. I suggest incorporating all v6 and previous documentation into the main body of the documentation. Then, possibly call out any v7 updates (as you have for, e.g., Thompson).
• What is the overall strategy for defining acronyms throughout the documentation? I can't figure what should be defined where. Do you want to add a page of acronym definitions? If it is too much to do now, perhaps after the release?
• RRTMGP could use reference(s)
• All schemes overview: Instead of "Others", how about" Lake Models"
• Smoke and Dust should be removed from phys updates since they do not function with SCM
• RUC: There is a list of "physics updates". Are those for v7. If so, please state. If they are older, please incorporate into main documentation.

[mkavulich]

@mzhangw Regarding the GFS_NSST scheme, it seems to me like the v4.0 page has a more detailed history and scientific description of the algorithm used along with a nice scientific visualization, though I don't know if it's out-of-date or anything like that. It's not a big deal, just something I noticed while browsing older drafts.

[grantfirl]

@mzhangw Please review/approve/merge this: mzhangw#10

There were several changes in this branch that caused ccpp_prebuild to fail. One is that there needs to be an empty !! line after the htmlinclude line. Second, you need to keep the 3 line Doxygen markup for DDTs that are needed by the host/physics (the arg_table, htmlinclude, and blank line). My PR into your branch fixes it so that this branch builds.

[grantfirl]

@ligiabernardet @mkavulich Since you requested changes, please re-review to see if your concerns have been addressed. With 8442afa, this now builds OK.

[rhaesung]

CSULFsfc is duplicated in this context.

[dustinswales]

@rhaesung Good catch. Line 63 should be "CSDLFsfc: Downward LW."
@mzhangw Looks like this is true for RRTMG as well,

ccpp-physics/physics/docs/pdftxt/GFS_RRTMG.txt

Line 63 in 8442afa

- CSULFsfc: Upward LW

, and we should change.

[rhaesung]

@dustinswales CSDLFsfc: Downward LW is already explained in line 60.

[hertneky]

While the parameterization for smoke and dust representation is used by RRFS prototype tests and is included in the
HRRR_gf Suite Definition File, it is not active in the CCPP Single Column Model since the smoke and dust tracers are initialized
with new zero values.

[hertneky]

just a couple grammar fixes in italics