Cloud chemistry clean-up #10
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good! I like what you've done. It helps me understand the code better. I have a few suggestions and questions, hopefully the changes I'm suggesting aren't too time-consuming to make.
I'll check which comments in the #5 review thread are being addressed by your PR and leave comments there tomorrow.
|
I’ve left comments on the review comments (#5) that seem to be resolved by this PR. If people agree, we can click |
Oh, I went ahead and did that. I trust your judgement |
| endif | ||
|
|
||
| if ( .not. cloud_borne) then ! this seems to be specific to aerosols that are not cloud borne | ||
| xh2o2(i,k) = xh2o2(i,k) + r2h2o2*dtime ! updated h2o2 by het production | ||
| xh2o2(i,k) = xh2o2(i,k) + r2h2o2*time_step ! updated h2o2 by het production |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mattldawson I am just curious, sometimes you use r2XXX (which is what the original code does) like this one and sometimes you use dXXX_dt like dso4_dt in line 731. Say, do you want r2XXX for gases and dXXX_dt for aerosols? Not asking for code changes, just curious if there is any rationale for the distinction. Thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, this was probably just an oversight - I'll update the variable name.
| ccc = pso4*dtime | ||
| ccc = max(ccc, 1.e-30_r8) | ||
| delta_concentration = dso4_dt*time_step | ||
| delta_concentration = max(delta_concentration, 1.e-30_r8) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mattldawson Hmm, I wonder if you want to define a variable for this 1.e-30. But this is very optional
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was struggling with this, and forgot to add a comment here. I would have called this something like SMALL_NUMBER but then there are other "small numbers" with different values, like here. Maybe these could all be the same small number, but I wasn't sure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea, I don't know why they are different - I think those small values are a little bit arbitrarily added, not sure. Perhaps those people tested the code and found out different numbers worked better in different situations. Maybe we can try to assign the same small value here for all concentrations (1e-30). I think if we test the new code and the results look similar to the original code, then we can use one single small number for all concentrations, no matter gas phase or aerosol concentrations.
mattldawson
merged commit c58c42e
into
develop-1-review-cloud-chemistry
Updates the common code for calculating cloud aqueous chemistry.
cloud_species_tclass for shared index lookup logicpartially satisfies #7
@dmleung @K20shores @boulderdaze - could you check if these changes address any of your open comments on #5? If so, we can close them when this gets merged into the cloud review branch.