Use constant Charnock parameter in Moon formulation for z0#1
Use constant Charnock parameter in Moon formulation for z0#1wlanghans wants to merge 2 commits intowolfgang/rebase_sofar-071124_on_mainfrom
Conversation
wlanghans
changed the base branch from
main
to
wolfgang/rebase_sofar-071124_on_main
…y uses the constant default value
wlanghans
force-pushed
the
wolfgang/use_constant_charnock_in_moon_z0
branch
from
12bbb5e to
7763af4
Compare
StevePny
left a comment
StevePny
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My interpretation of this change is that the moon parameterization should not take a geographically varying charnock parameter, by design, and that changing this does not fit within the scope of the paper.
Is the change from z0 to z0M for the input parameter correct or a typo?
The main from GFDL does not have this:
https://github.com/NOAA-GFDL/SHiELD_physics/blob/d323480c8107be9d7daa15f8782c1bdd75dfb768/gsmphys/sfc_diff_gfdl.f#L417
Good catch! Thanks. |
miguelsolanocordoba
left a comment
miguelsolanocordoba
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is ok as a reference to check the skill of different SL paramterizations, but we may want to revisit the constants used.
| real(kind=kind_phys) :: ustar_th, z0_adj | ||
|
|
||
| real(kind=kind_phys), parameter :: | ||
| ! & charnock=.014 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@wlanghans in the Moon et al. (2007) paper the constants used are charnock=0.0185 (eq. 1 + 8a) and wind_th_moon=12.5 (eq 3-5 + 8a-b). I think this would be good to run by Kun Gao, since he likely changed these from the original formulation based on his own findings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@miguelsolanocordoba Sure, but can we do this in a separate PR? Here, I'm just trying to make sure that the Charnock number is constant. We can ask Kun in the next meeting; sounds good?
3 participants
Description
The Moon paper develops a wind-speed based empirical formulation of roughness length for atmosphere-only simulations. The formulation uses a constant value of the Charnock parameter.
That empirical formulation is already mimicking results from wave-atmosphere coupled simulations, and is a fit using that constant value. Using a deviation from Charnock (as a result from our coupling) would alter the results and create a fit different to the Moon paper.
Note:
This branch is a feature on top of this branch, which is our current dev branch rebased onto main
How Has This Been Tested?
Not yet.
Checklist:
Please check all whether they apply or not