Skip to content

Conversation

@joeolson42
Copy link
Contributor

The purpose of this PR is to update the MYNN-EDMF code in WRF to be consistent with the updated NOAA Tech Note. This same version of the MYNN-EDMF submodule will be implemented into MPAS and CCPP.

TYPE: enhancement/new features

KEYWORDS: MYNN-EDMF, turbulence, clouds, downdrafts, closure levels

SOURCE: Joseph Olson (NOAA-GSL)

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
Problem(s):

  1. Excessive low-level clouds, especially over water
  2. prototype version of downdrafts was not well tested,
  3. excessive near-surface mixing in very stable conditions.
  4. Checks in module_check_a_mundo.F needed updates associated with the incoming changes. Also there was a redundant check that needed to be removed.

Solution(s):

  1. revised subgrid clouds option (bl_mynn_cloudpdf = 2) improved excessive low-level clouds.
  2. More testing of the downdrafts has been performed and several changes were made to improve the scale-awareness as well as the underlying physical representation of downdrafts. Still requires more testing with significantly different vertical resolution. Not active by default but considered more reliable.
  3. A handful of related revisions/tunings was made to improve low level jet structures in stable conditions. This touched the LBC for TKE , Prandtl number regulation, and mixing length revision. All have been documented in the updated Tech Note (will add doi when established)
  4. module_check_a_mundo.F has been modified to work with the updated MYNN-EDMF options.

LIST OF MODIFIED FILES: list of changed files (use git diff --name-status develop to get formatted list)
M Registry/Registry.EM_COMMON
M dyn_em/module_first_rk_step_part1.F
M phys/MYNN-EDMF
M phys/module_pbl_driver.F
M share/module_check_a_mundo.F

TESTS CONDUCTED:

  1. WFIP3 case studies show robust improvement. Realtime testing (mostly in MPAS) show improvements relative to HRRR. Some of this was previewed in the last WRF/MPAS workshop but some more modifications have been made since.
  2. Are the Jenkins tests all passing? - We'll see

RELEASE NOTE: Include a stand-alone message suitable for the inclusion in the minor and annual releases. A publication citation is appropriate.

@joeolson42 joeolson42 requested review from a team as code owners January 4, 2026 16:15
@weiwangncar
Copy link
Collaborator

The regression test results:

Test Type              | Expected  | Received |  Failed
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = =
Number of Tests        : 23           24
Number of Builds       : 60           57
Number of Simulations  : 158           150        0
Number of Comparisons  : 95           86        0

Failed Simulations are: 
None
Which comparisons are not bit-for-bit: 
None

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.

2 participants