Skip to content
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

added model stop for ghg_input with nonsupported radiation options #1949

Closed

Conversation

kkeene44
Copy link
Collaborator

TYPE: bug fix

KEYWORDS: ghg_input, radiation, module_check_a_mundo

SOURCE: internal

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
Problem:
If a user had ghg_input turned on, but wasn't using one of the supported radiation physics options (i.e., not CAM, RRTM, RRTMG, or RRTMG_fast), the model would give an "ERROR" message, but wouldn't stop, nor would it make any changes to the settings. As long as everything else was correct, it would continue and write out the SUCCESS message at the end of the log files.

Solution:
Added a "count_fatal_error = count_fatal_error + 1" to the check for this in module_check_a_mundo.F.

LIST OF MODIFIED FILES:
M share/module_check_a_mundo.F

TESTS CONDUCTED:

Now, if non-supported radiation options are used with ghg_input, the model stops with the following message:
-- ERROR: ghg_input available only for these radiation schemes: CAM, RRTM, RRTMG, RRTMG_fast
And the LW and SW schemes must be reasonably paired together:
OK = CAM LW with CAM SW
OK = RRTM, RRTMG LW or SW, RRTMG_fast LW or SW may be mixed
-------------- FATAL CALLED ---------------
FATAL CALLED FROM FILE: LINE: 2794
NOTE: 1 namelist settings are wrong. Please check and reset these options

Are the Jenkins tests all passing? Waiting for results.

RELEASE NOTE: A bug fix was added to ensure the model stops when using ghg_input and a non-supported radiation physics option (i.e., anything other than CAM, RRTM, RRTMG, or RRTMG_fast).

@kkeene44 kkeene44 requested review from a team as code owners December 15, 2023 21:05
@kkeene44
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This is a duplicate PR to #1936, which fails the regression tests. Just checking to see if there was something funky with that PR and if this one is capable of passing (probably not, but worth a shot).

@kkeene44 kkeene44 closed this Dec 16, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant