large differences in version INT2LM_2.00_clm4 und INT2LM_2.05_clm2 – in #10: INT2LM

in #10: INT2LM

<p> Dear Susanne, </p> <p> My first idea when I saw your diffs was the following from 2.03 (short version): </p> <p> <pre><code class="text"><br/> - New option for vertical adaptation of boundary layer profiles (T, u, v, w, rel. hum., hydrometeors) from the input orography to the <span class="caps">COSMO</span> orography in case of non-hydrostatic input models (<span class="caps">COSMO</span>, <span class="caps">ICON</span>, UM, CM). The new option can be selected by setting the new namelist parameter</code></pre> </p> itype_profiles_vert_interp = 2 (“1” is the previous method, default is 2!) <p> </p> <p> But this change is only for non-hydrostatic models. So if the description is correct and there is no bug in the implentation, these changes should not cause your diff (you could still test, as this is the most disruptive change that I can remember in this context). </p> <p> Could it be the following change? </p> <pre>&lt;code class="text"&gt; New option to ensure consistency of hydrostatic balanced pressure with the COSMO RK-core if one has chosen "lbalance_pp = .TRUE.". Uses hydrostatic pressure integration routines from COSMO src_artifdata.f90, which correctly take into account the type of the dynamical core. &lt;/code&gt;</pre> <p> Best regards <br/> Daniel </p>

  @danielrieger in #b348e5b

<p> Dear Susanne, </p> <p> My first idea when I saw your diffs was the following from 2.03 (short version): </p> <p> <pre><code class="text"><br/> - New option for vertical adaptation of boundary layer profiles (T, u, v, w, rel. hum., hydrometeors) from the input orography to the <span class="caps">COSMO</span> orography in case of non-hydrostatic input models (<span class="caps">COSMO</span>, <span class="caps">ICON</span>, UM, CM). The new option can be selected by setting the new namelist parameter</code></pre> </p> itype_profiles_vert_interp = 2 (“1” is the previous method, default is 2!) <p> </p> <p> But this change is only for non-hydrostatic models. So if the description is correct and there is no bug in the implentation, these changes should not cause your diff (you could still test, as this is the most disruptive change that I can remember in this context). </p> <p> Could it be the following change? </p> <pre>&lt;code class="text"&gt; New option to ensure consistency of hydrostatic balanced pressure with the COSMO RK-core if one has chosen "lbalance_pp = .TRUE.". Uses hydrostatic pressure integration routines from COSMO src_artifdata.f90, which correctly take into account the type of the dynamical core. &lt;/code&gt;</pre> <p> Best regards <br/> Daniel </p>
DR replied

Dear Susanne,

My first idea when I saw your diffs was the following from 2.03 (short version): 



-  New option for vertical adaptation of boundary layer profiles (T, u, v, w, rel. hum., hydrometeors)
   from the input orography to the COSMO orography in case of non-hydrostatic input models
   (COSMO, ICON, UM, CM).
   The new option can be selected by setting the new namelist parameter

itype_profiles_vert_interp = 2 (“1” is the previous method, default is 2!)

But this change is only for non-hydrostatic models. So if the description is correct and there is no bug in the implentation, these changes should not cause your diff (you could still test, as this is the most disruptive change that I can remember in this context).

Could it be the following change? 

<code class="text">
New option to ensure consistency of hydrostatic balanced pressure with the
    COSMO RK-core if one has chosen "lbalance_pp = .TRUE.". Uses hydrostatic pressure integration
    routines from COSMO src_artifdata.f90, which correctly take
    into account the type of the dynamical core.
</code>

Best regards
Daniel

View in channel