Feature/refconv

[ericaligo-NOAA]

PR Author Checklist:

• I have linked PR's from all sub-components involved in section below.
• I am confirming reviews are completed in ALL sub-component PR's.
• I have run the full RT suite on either Hera/Cheyenne AND have attached the log to this PR below this line:
  • LOG: RegressionTests_hera.log
    RegressionTests_hera_newbaseline.log
• I have added the list of all failed regression tests to "Anticipated changes" section.
• I have filled out all sections of the template.

Description

@RuiyuSun and I compute convective reflectivity for Thompson or NSSL microphysics and with GF deep, shallow or SAS deep convection. I removed the calculation that was in cu_gf_driver_post.F90 and cu_gf_driver_post.meta, and associated parameters, and added the code to GFS_MP_generic_post.F90. The 3D refl_10cm array will be changed only for configurations running with deep and/or shallow convection. In the process of creating a new baseline. I had to modify regional.nml.IN and change imfhalcnv and imfdeepconv from 2 to -1 otherwise the code would try to calculate convective reflectivity despite no calls for deep/shallow convection.

ufs-community/ccpp-physics#129
NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#720
#1968
NOAA-EMC/fv3atm#716
ufs-community/ccpp-physics#123

Subcomponents involved:

• AQM
• CDEPS
• CICE
• CMEPS
• CMakeModules
• FV3
• GOCART
• HYCOM
• MOM6
• NOAHMP
• WW3
• stochastic_physics
• none

Anticipated Changes

Input data

• No changes are expected to input data.
• Changes are expected to input data:
  • New input data.
  • Updated input data.

Regression Tests:

• No changes are expected to any regression test.
• Changes are expected to the following tests:
  FAILED TESTS:
  132 hafs_regional_atm_thompson_gfdlsf_intel failed in check_result
  hafs_regional_atm_thompson_gfdlsf_intel 132 failed in run_test

The above configuration failed because lradar = .true. and both imfshalcnv and imfdeepcnv=.true. The failure was due to differences in all reflectivity fields as to be expected. Other configurations that set lradar =.true. did not fail because imfshalcnv and imfdeepcnv=.false. If there's no shallow or deep convection being used, the reflectivity fields will not be modified.
below -->

Tests effected by changes in this PR:

Libraries

• Not Needed
• Needed
  • Create separate issue in JCSDA/spack-stack asking for update to library. Include library name, library version.
  • Add issue link from JCSDA/spack-stack following this item

Code Managers Log

• This PR is up-to-date with the top of all sub-component repositories except for those sub-components which are the subject of this PR.
• Move new/updated input data on RDHPCS Hera and propagate input data changes to all supported systems.
  • N/A

Testing Log:

• RDHPCS
  • Hera
  • Orion
  • Hercules
  • Jet
  • Gaea
  • Cheyenne
• WCOSS2
  • Dogwood/Cactus
  • Acorn
• CI
  • Completed
• opnReqTest
  • N/A
  • Log attached to comment

[grantfirl]

@ericaligo-NOAA Please remember to attach your RegressionTest_hera.log in the description that shows the expected failures (which RTs should require new baselines).

[grantfirl]

@ericaligo-NOAA Please remember to attach your RegressionTest_hera.log in the description that shows the expected failures (which RTs should require new baselines).

I think that an RT log from orion should suffice too, if you already have that.

[jkbk2004]

@ericaligo-NOAA can you sync up your branch to prepare to commit the pr?

[DeniseWorthen]

@ericaligo-NOAA Could you please clarify which test baselines will change? You say "Any RT that outputs refl_10cm", but CMs don't know which tests that might be.

In your first attached log (not the one with "new baseline") only these tests show as failed:

FAILED TESTS: 
132 hafs_regional_atm_thompson_gfdlsf_intel failed in check_result
hafs_regional_atm_thompson_gfdlsf_intel 132 failed in run_test

Is that correct?

[ericaligo-NOAA]

Thanks for pointing that out! My statement is not correct, and you're right that the only failure was the one you noted. Looking at the results it was related only to the reflectivity, which was to be expected. For this particular configuration that failed it was because lradar = .true. and it was running with deep and shallow convection. The other configurations that had lradar = .true., which are all/mostly regional applications, were not running with convection (imfshalcnv = imfdeepcnv = false). If there's no convection being run, then the reflectivity fields will not be different. Hope this makes sense. Eric

…

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 7:05 AM Denise Worthen ***@***.***> wrote: @ericaligo-NOAA <https://github.com/ericaligo-NOAA> Could you please clarify which test baselines will change? You say "Any RT that outputs refl_10cm", but CMs don't know which tests that might be. In your first attached log (not the one with "new baseline") only these tests show as failed: FAILED TESTS: 132 hafs_regional_atm_thompson_gfdlsf_intel failed in check_result hafs_regional_atm_thompson_gfdlsf_intel 132 failed in run_test Is that correct? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1996 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MMW4C36QYB5IAZTU2DYHBZATAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7LJQMJCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMZTGYZTQNBRGQ> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[ericaligo-NOAA]

Done.

…

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:43 PM JONG KIM ***@***.***> wrote: @ericaligo-NOAA <https://github.com/ericaligo-NOAA> can you sync up your branch to prepare to commit the pr? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1996 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MPTTIWHIQBNOADNGHLYG7QDJAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7LJQMJCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMZSHE3TAOBUGM> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[DeniseWorthen]

@ericaligo-NOAA Thanks, that does make sense. Would you please edit the PR to clarify that only this test is impacted because of the combination of lradar=.true. + deep and shallow convection "on".

[ericaligo-NOAA]

Done!

…

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 7:48 AM Denise Worthen ***@***.***> wrote: @ericaligo-NOAA <https://github.com/ericaligo-NOAA> Thanks, that does make sense. Would you please edit the PR to clarify that only these two tests are impacted because of the combination of lradar=.true. + deep and shallow convection "on". — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1996 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALQ75MJN7VINZ7ODBUZJ6FDYHB6C5AVCNFSM6AAAAAA7LJQMJCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMZTG4ZDENJRGE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[zach1221]

The jenkins-ci ORTs did complete and pass however it failed at the end during the process that generates the push notification I think, so it never notified. Attached are the logs.

Jenkins-ci 1996 ORTs.pdf

[zach1221]

Testing complete, we can start the merging process.

[zach1221]

@jkbk2004 if you don't mind. Can you revert the fv3atm .gitmodule url and update the hash: NOAA-EMC/fv3atm@1f7af4b

[BrianCurtis-NOAA]

@jkbk2004 if you don't mind. Can you revert the fv3atm .gitmodule url and update the hash: NOAA-EMC/fv3atm@1f7af4b

The .gitmodules edit was not in what was committed to fv3atm develop branch, just need to update to the develop fv3atm hash.