-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
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
Updates for main branch to run RRFS_A real-time deterministic and EnkF DA cycles #513
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@hu5970 Thanks for testing these changes! I had a couple of questions about FV3_HRRR_sas which I think should be RRFS_sas. I was also curious about RUNE and why it was introduced in FV3LAM_wflow.xml.
@hu5970 I merged a @BenjaminBlake-NOAA PR that will create some conflicts when you update your branch - sorry about that. |
NO problem. I will sync with the latest main branch soon. |
RUNE is for "enkfrrfs". The deterministic and EnKF DA cycles have different run name (rrfs versus enkfrrfs). The GSI analysis uses ensemble forecast from "enkfrrfs" and need such run name to figure out the location of the ensembles. |
The FV3_HRRR_sas should come from model definition of physical suite. We do not have flexibility to name it. |
Will confirm that the SDF being used is suite_RRFS_sas.xml now. |
I synced current main branch and there are not conflict during the syncing process. |
The physical suite in configuration file is "CCPP_PHYS_SUITE="RRFS_sas"". So the scripts should also use "RRFS_sas". I have changed the scripts to use "RRFS_sas". Thanks, Ming |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A few fairly small comments - think we can wrap this one up today.
scripts/exrrfs_recenter.sh
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could it be made more consistent in using ${RUN}_forecast rather than rrfs_forecast? Right now is a mix.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here the "${RUN}" is enkfrrfs but we need rrfs. The RUN has different content in deterministic and enkf DA cycle and we need to think about how to define and use RUN. Should we keep this as is and then talk about if we need to define another RUN (RUN_CONTROL).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay - a complexity I'm not very used to (multiple $RUN type definitions). Won't worry about for right now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the updates - given the importance, want to get this one merged.
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
Test the main branch with real-time RRFS deterministic and EnKF DA cycles.
After this PR, real-time NA 3km RRFS deterministic and EnKF DA cycles should run on WCOSS2.
TESTS CONDUCTED:
Machines/Platforms:
Test cases: