add pario for sfc #1
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Note: the parallel write (paranc) appears slower than the non-paranc, especially for write_atm in the "writeincrements_panc" subroutine. Tested for C96E48 and C384E192. |
ClaraDraper-NOAA
requested changes
Jan 25, 2024
unindent new indentations
unindent new indentation
remove commented par code
fix indentations
remove commented out lines
fix indentation
fix indentation
|
ClaraDraper-NOAA
approved these changes
Feb 22, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great! Please prepare a PR with your changes for EMC's GSI code base.
I think it'll be cleanest for you to merge your changes into the latest develop, rather than for me to merge your branch into mine (since I made some changes when mine was reviewed, which will now be merge conflicts).
ClaraDraper-NOAA
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 2024
**DUE DATE for merger of this PR into `develop` is 2/19/2024 (six weeks after PR creation).** **DUE DATE for this PR is extended to 3/19/2024 because @XuLu-NOAA is on leave.** **Description** Xu Lu (xu.lu@noaa.gov) and Biju Thomas (biju.thomas@noaa.gov) fixed bugs regarding HAFS GSI debug build and run issues. This is in corresponding to issue NOAA-EMC#661 Fixes NOAA-EMC#661 1. In read_radar.f90, uninitialized toff is making all the ground-based radar observations be placed at -3h instead of 0h, which creates wrong increments for FGAT and 4DEnVar. 2. In read_radar.f90, uninitialized zsges will crash the debug mode. 3. In read_radar.f90, t4dvo should be used instead of t4dv in the read_radar_l2rw_novadqc subroutine. 4. In radinfo.90, maxscan should be increased to at least 252 to allow more scans, or it will crash the debug mode. 5. In read_fl_hdob.f90, dlnpsob is replaced with 1000. since the SFMR does not sample surface pressure, and the uninitialized dlnpsob creates issues later in setupspd.f90 in the debug mode. 6. In mod_fv3_lola.f90, (i,j+1) should be used instead of (i+1,j) in searching for V edges. 7. In stpcalc.f90, when tried to find the best stepsize from outpen around L838-864, the minimum outstp(i) is stored in stp(ii), but the istp_use is asigned with i instead of ii. Create inconsistency when assigning stp(istp_use) to stpinout at L872. Should use istp_use=ii instead. **Type of change** - [Yes] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) **How Has This Been Tested?** Regression test on Orion: ``` Test project /work/noaa/hwrf/save/xulu/mergeversions/GSI/build CMake Warning (dev) at CTestTestfile.cmake:9 (subdirs): Syntax Warning in cmake code at /work/noaa/hwrf/save/xulu/mergeversions/GSI/build/regression/CTestTestfile.cmake:7:10 1/7 Test NOAA-EMC#4: [=[netcdf_fv3_regional]=] ........ Passed 365.11 sec 2/7 Test NOAA-EMC#7: [=[global_enkf]=] ................ Passed 430.29 sec 3/7 Test NOAA-EMC#3: [=[rrfs_3denvar_glbens]=] ........ Passed 605.35 sec 4/7 Test NOAA-EMC#2: [=[rtma]=] ....................... Passed 969.78 sec 5/7 Test NOAA-EMC#6: [=[hafs_3denvar_hybens]=] ........***Failed 1455.47 sec 6/7 Test #1: [=[global_4denvar]=] ............. Passed 1682.40 sec 7/7 Test NOAA-EMC#5: [=[hafs_4denvar_glbens]=] ........***Failed 1758.90 sec ``` The failed hafs_3denvar and 4denvar are within expectation due to the fix for toff. As demonstrated in the single observation tests in the following figure, the uninitialized toff can result in increment degradations due to wrongly assigned observation times: 
ClaraDraper-NOAA
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 2024
…ed 3DRTMA (NOAA-EMC#730) <!-- PLEASE READ --> <!-- Before opening a PR, please note these guidelines: - Each PR should only address ONE topic and have an associated issue - No hardcoded or paths to personal directories should be present - No temporary or backup files should be committed - Any code that was disabled by being commented out should be removed --> **Description** <!-- Please include relevant motivation and context. --> <!-- Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. --> <!-- List any dependencies that are required for this change. --> To improve the analysis of the near-surface wind gust in 3DRTMA, the observations of near-surface wind gust would be analyzed directly in GSI (3DVar and Hybrid 3DEnVar), instead of being a derived product from the near-surface wind analysis. Since the core subroutines for direct variational assimilation of wind gust (e.g., setupgust.f90, intgust.f90, stpgust.f90, etc.) had already been implemented in GSI for 2DRTMA, so in the work the development in GSI mainly focus on adding I/O of 2-D wind gust firstguess and analysis fields for RRFS-based 3DRTMA, and some minor modifications in observation and background error for wind gust, options to control the analysis of wind gust, etc. <!-- Please provide reference to the issue this pull request is addressing. --> <!-- For e.g. Fixes #IssueNumber --> This PR is to address the issue NOAA-EMC#726 : Adding I/O for direct analysis of near-surface wind gust for RRFS-based 3DRTMA Fixes NOAA-EMC#726 **Type of change** Please delete options that are not relevant. - [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality) **How Has This Been Tested?** <!-- Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes and on the platforms these tests were conducted. --> <!-- Provide instructions so we can reproduce. --> <!-- Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration --> **Checklist** - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [x] New and existing tests pass with my changes tested with a real case - 2024-02-20_12:00Z, 1. dry-run (using my updated GSI code with wind gust analysis, but actually no wind gust obs is analyzed, so-called dryrun) is compared to control-run (original GSI code running without wind gust obs): the results are identical. This indicates that if without analyzing wind-gust obs, then the updated code generates the analysis identical to the analysis of original/control code. Or say, the added code does not have influence on the other part of code. 2. real case run with updated GSI code to analyze the obs of wind gust: The following figure shows the used observations of near-surface wind gust:  the following figure shows the analysis increments:  - [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published - [x] Regression tests on WCOSS2 (Cactus) and Hera (Rocky-8) : my updated GSI commit [#f91f247d](GangZhao-NOAA@f91f247)) vs control/original GSI code (commit [#6d9ebbb7](NOAA-EMC@6d9ebbb)) Here is the reports of the regression tests on WCOSS2 (Cactus): ~~~ [gang.zhao@clogin02:build] (feature/windgust_in_3dvar_for_3drtma)$ ctest -j 7 Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/save/gang.zhao/WorkDir/ProdGSI_Dev/gsi_dev/build Start 1: global_4denvar Start 2: rtma Start 3: rrfs_3denvar_glbens Start 4: netcdf_fv3_regional Start 5: hafs_4denvar_glbens Start 6: hafs_3denvar_hybens Start 7: global_enkf 1/7 Test NOAA-EMC#4: netcdf_fv3_regional .............. Passed 483.15 sec 2/7 Test NOAA-EMC#3: rrfs_3denvar_glbens .............. Passed 486.74 sec 3/7 Test NOAA-EMC#7: global_enkf ...................... Passed 850.98 sec 4/7 Test NOAA-EMC#2: rtma ............................. Passed 970.28 sec 5/7 Test NOAA-EMC#6: hafs_3denvar_hybens .............. Passed 1152.82 sec 6/7 Test NOAA-EMC#5: hafs_4denvar_glbens .............. Passed 1213.93 sec 7/7 Test #1: global_4denvar ................... Passed 1683.16 sec 100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 7 Total Test time (real) = 1683.19 sec ~~~ Here is the reports of the regression tests on Hera (Rocky8): ~~~ (base) [Gang.Zhao@hfe11:build] (feature/windgust_in_3dvar_for_3drtma)$ ctest -j 7 Test project /scratch1/NCEPDEV/da/Gang.Zhao/ProdGSI_dev/gsi_dev/build Start 1: global_4denvar Start 2: rtma Start 3: rrfs_3denvar_glbens Start 4: netcdf_fv3_regional Start 5: hafs_4denvar_glbens Start 6: hafs_3denvar_hybens Start 7: global_enkf 1/7 Test NOAA-EMC#4: netcdf_fv3_regional .............. Passed 491.53 sec 2/7 Test NOAA-EMC#3: rrfs_3denvar_glbens ..............***Failed 495.27 sec 3/7 Test NOAA-EMC#2: rtma ............................. Passed 982.45 sec 4/7 Test NOAA-EMC#6: hafs_3denvar_hybens .............. Passed 1168.99 sec 5/7 Test NOAA-EMC#7: global_enkf ...................... Passed 1239.77 sec 6/7 Test NOAA-EMC#5: hafs_4denvar_glbens ..............***Failed 1347.87 sec 7/7 Test #1: global_4denvar ................... Passed 1974.45 sec 71% tests passed, 2 tests failed out of 7 Total Test time (real) = 1974.91 sec The following tests FAILED: 3 - rrfs_3denvar_glbens (Failed) 5 - hafs_4denvar_glbens (Failed) Errors while running CTest Output from these tests are in: /scratch1/NCEPDEV/da/Gang.Zhao/ProdGSI_dev/gsi_dev/build/Testing/Temporary/LastTest.log Use "--rerun-failed --output-on-failure" to re-run the failed cases verbosely. (base) [Gang.Zhao@hfe11:build] (feature/windgust_in_3dvar_for_3drtma)$ ctest -R rrfs_3denvar_glbens Test project /scratch1/NCEPDEV/da/Gang.Zhao/ProdGSI_dev/gsi_dev/build Start 3: rrfs_3denvar_glbens 1/1 Test NOAA-EMC#3: rrfs_3denvar_glbens .............. Passed 430.52 sec 100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1 Total Test time (real) = 430.55 sec (base) [Gang.Zhao@hfe11:build] (feature/windgust_in_3dvar_for_3drtma)$ ctest -R hafs_4denvar_glbens Test project /scratch1/NCEPDEV/da/Gang.Zhao/ProdGSI_dev/gsi_dev/build Start 5: hafs_4denvar_glbens 1/1 Test NOAA-EMC#5: hafs_4denvar_glbens .............. Passed 1225.37 sec 100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 1 Total Test time (real) = 1225.39 sec ~~~ **Note**: _When I was running the regression tests, GSI code was just updated to the latest commit [#b53740a7](GangZhao-NOAA@f91f247). Considering the frequent update in EMC GSI code recently and saving the time, after this PR has been reviewed and approved by peer-reviewers, I will update the code to latest EMC GSI commit, then re-run the regression tests for final approval.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Description
Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
How Has This Been Tested?
Checklist