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

Change buoyancy term in prognostic edmf #2298

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 29, 2023
Merged

Change buoyancy term in prognostic edmf #2298

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 29, 2023

Conversation

szy21
Copy link
Member

@szy21 szy21 commented Oct 26, 2023

Purpose

Tests #2294

Currently, buoyancy of a subdomain j is defined as -(\rho^j - \rho_ref) / \rho^j * g. And the buoyancy difference between updraft and environment is used in detrainment and entrainment closures. This is not ideal as buoyancy of updraft and environment will both be -g if we don't use a reference state (\rho_ref = 0). I changed the updraft buoyancy to be -(\rho^j - \rho_gm) / \rho^j * g. I set environment buoyancy to zero for now to keep the function structure of entrainment and detrainment closures the same. To be consistent, I use grid-mean velocity in the b/w detrainment, i.e. b^j / (w^j - w_gm), where b^j uses the new buoyancy definition.

I also changed the buoyancy in updraft u_3 equation to -(\rho^j - \rho_gm) / \rho^j * \grad \Phi. I'm less sure about this. I prefer this form as it would be easier for me to understand the tendencies of updraft u_3, but this is not as accurate as what we had before. I don't have a strong preference for this.

I hope this change, together with #2304, will make it easier to figure out why edmf is breaking.

To-do

Content


  • I have read and checked the items on the review checklist.

@szy21 szy21 force-pushed the zs/progedmf_buoyancy branch 6 times, most recently from 9bf96d0 to dd8d788 Compare October 28, 2023 20:55
@szy21 szy21 marked this pull request as ready for review October 28, 2023 20:55
@szy21 szy21 requested review from tapios and trontrytel October 28, 2023 21:04
Copy link
Contributor

@tapios tapios left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. But can you please add a docstring documenting what is going on here (rather than just the TODO).

@szy21 szy21 force-pushed the zs/progedmf_buoyancy branch from a4d5753 to df3139f Compare October 29, 2023 04:39
@szy21
Copy link
Member Author

szy21 commented Oct 29, 2023

bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors bot commented Oct 29, 2023

Build succeeded!

The publicly hosted instance of bors-ng is deprecated and will go away soon.

If you want to self-host your own instance, instructions are here.
For more help, visit the forum.

If you want to switch to GitHub's built-in merge queue, visit their help page.

@bors bors bot merged commit 72baf07 into main Oct 29, 2023
6 checks passed
@bors bors bot deleted the zs/progedmf_buoyancy branch October 29, 2023 05:40
@szy21 szy21 linked an issue Oct 29, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
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.

Test buoyancy terms in prognostic edmf
2 participants