Change buoyancy term in prognostic edmf #2298
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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