{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/558","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/558/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/558/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/558/events","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/558","id":330449007,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzMzA0NDkwMDc=","number":558,"title":"SILHS RICO case does not converge as of 26 Mar 2013 (Trac #558)","user":{"login":"StrikeNP","id":2577059,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjI1NzcwNTk=","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/2577059?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"id":958019852,"node_id":"MDU6TGFiZWw5NTgwMTk4NTI=","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/labels/Migrated%20from%20Trac","name":"Migrated from Trac","color":"FFFFFF","default":false},{"id":958042830,"node_id":"MDU6TGFiZWw5NTgwNDI4MzA=","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/labels/clubb_src","name":"clubb_src","color":"FFFFFF","default":false},{"id":958019855,"node_id":"MDU6TGFiZWw5NTgwMTk4NTU=","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/labels/defect","name":"defect","color":"FFFFFF","default":false},{"id":958114258,"node_id":"MDU6TGFiZWw5NTgxMTQyNTg=","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/labels/raut@uwm.edu","name":"raut@uwm.edu","color":"FFFFFF","default":false}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/milestones/8","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP/trac_test/milestone/8","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/milestones/8/labels","id":3408876,"node_id":"MDk6TWlsZXN0b25lMzQwODg3Ng==","number":8,"title":"Improve SILHS","description":null,"creator":{"login":"StrikeNP","id":2577059,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjI1NzcwNTk=","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/2577059?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"open_issues":43,"closed_issues":38,"state":"open","created_at":"2018-06-07T19:59:06Z","updated_at":"2018-06-09T10:35:38Z","due_on":null,"closed_at":null},"comments":44,"created_at":"2018-06-07T21:52:18Z","updated_at":"2018-06-09T11:58:27Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"OWNER","body":"\nKenny Chowdhary at Sandia would like to compare SILHS vs. their Gaussian-Legendre integration method.\n\nSILHS no longer converges to KK for the RICO case. It converged as of 3 Jul 2012 (ticket:506), but it no longer converges.  Partly this is probably just an issue of configuration.  E.g., in the nightly tests, rico and rico_lh have different timesteps, different PDFs for Nc, and sedimentation of the mean vs. sedimentation variability.  \n\nBrian, could you please note on this ticket, in order to achieve an apples-to-apples comparison, what lines of code need to be commented out and what flag needs to be set for a lognormal Nc.\n\nOnce we restore convergence, we should devise a nightly test that will make it obvious if convergence breaks in the future.  We already plot both rico and rico_LH in the nightly tests.  Perhaps we could simply overplot the two cases?  Or perhaps we could develop text-based output that checks whether the profiles agree to within some tolerance?\n\nAttachments:\n\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/rico_before.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/rico_after.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/rico_adjusted.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/rico_and_LH_difference.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/rico_noninteractive.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6217_conv.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6219.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6219_newfields_conv.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6219_conv.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/rico_r6187.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/rico_r5867.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r4895.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/rico_r5867.2.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r5867_4.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6187_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6187_2.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6353_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6353_2.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6353_3.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6353_4.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6353_3.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6194_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6195_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6357_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6357_3.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6357_3.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/rrainm_src_adj.png\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/rrainm_cond_adj.png\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6364_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6364_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6366_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6369_2.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6369_2.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6382_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6366_6.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6388_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6404_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6404_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6404_2.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6404_2.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6411_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6411_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6422_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6422_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6423_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6432_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6437_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6437_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6437_2.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6437_2.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/rico_noninter_256_1024_10240.case\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/mod_comp_orig.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/mod_comp_mod.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6440.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/mod_comp_orig2.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/mod_comp_mod2.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6441_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6441_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/LH_KK_conv_r6444_256_1024.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/mod_comp_orig3.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/mod_comp_mod3.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/LH_KK_conv_r6455_256_1024.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6457_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6457_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6470_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6474_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6474_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6474_2.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6474_2.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6476_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6476_2.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6476_2.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6541_3.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6541_3.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6541_4.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6541_4.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6541_5_3.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6541_5_3.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6542_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6542_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6543_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6543_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6544_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6544_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6580_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6580_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6589_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6589_1.maff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6594_1.diff\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/558/r6594_1.maff\n\nMigrated from http://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/ticket/558\n```json\n{\n    \"status\": \"closed\", \n    \"changetime\": \"2014-07-10T22:03:35\", \n    \"description\": \"\\nKenny Chowdhary at Sandia would like to compare SILHS vs. their Gaussian-Legendre integration method.\\n\\nSILHS no longer converges to KK for the RICO case. It converged as of 3 Jul 2012 (ticket:506), but it no longer converges.  Partly this is probably just an issue of configuration.  E.g., in the nightly tests, rico and rico_lh have different timesteps, different PDFs for Nc, and sedimentation of the mean vs. sedimentation variability.  \\n\\nBrian, could you please note on this ticket, in order to achieve an apples-to-apples comparison, what lines of code need to be commented out and what flag needs to be set for a lognormal Nc.\\n\\nOnce we restore convergence, we should devise a nightly test that will make it obvious if convergence breaks in the future.  We already plot both rico and rico_LH in the nightly tests.  Perhaps we could simply overplot the two cases?  Or perhaps we could develop text-based output that checks whether the profiles agree to within some tolerance?\", \n    \"reporter\": \"vlarson@uwm.edu\", \n    \"cc\": \"vlarson@uwm.edu, dschanen@uwm.edu, charlass@uwm.edu, katec@ucar.edu, janhft@uwm.edu\", \n    \"resolution\": \"worksforme\", \n    \"_ts\": \"1405029815654410\", \n    \"component\": \"clubb_src\", \n    \"summary\": \"SILHS RICO case does not converge as of 26 Mar 2013\", \n    \"priority\": \"major\", \n    \"keywords\": \"\", \n    \"time\": \"2013-03-26T20:35:57\", \n    \"milestone\": \"Improve SILHS\", \n    \"owner\": \"raut@uwm.edu\", \n    \"type\": \"defect\"\n}\n```\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/comments/395963602","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/558#issuecomment-395963602","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/558","id":395963602,"node_id":"MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM5NTk2MzYwMg==","user":{"login":"StrikeNP","id":2577059,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjI1NzcwNTk=","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/2577059?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-06-09T11:58:27Z","updated_at":"2018-06-09T11:58:27Z","author_association":"OWNER","body":"Trac update at 2013/07/02 at 22:17\n\n\n* vlarson@uwm.edu changed _comment0 from:\n\n> Dave, Brian, Eric, and I discussed the refactoring left to make SILHS converge to the analytic code.\n> \n> ''Next steps:''\n> \n> 1.  Debug l_fix_s_t_corrs = .true..  With this setting, we know that r5867 doesn't converge.  Dave suggested finding the revision where we introduced l_fix_s_t_corrs into the analytic code, and seeing if we had convergence at the time we introduced that code.  In addition, we'll probably have to stare at the code and seek differences in SILHS vs. analytic.\n> \n> 2.  Eric has found that r5999 is broken.  In r5999, Eric reduced Skw_denom_coef.  It is hard to see how this code change could have introduced a discrepancy between SILHS and analytic.  Perhaps instead the large values of Skw_denom_coef were masking an underlying discrepancy.  Perhaps we could see if r5867 still converges when Skw_denom_coef = 0.\n> \n> 3.  The analytic code chooses the within-cloud or below-cloud correlations separately for each component.  SILHS chooses only one value for the grid box, and bases the choice on rcm.    Dave, could you please generalize SILHS to act component-wise?\n> \n> ''Longer term goals:''\n> \n> 1.  Get SILHS to converge when we diagnose the Cholesky matrix at each time step.  We can feed the Cholesky matrix into SILHS and use it directly.  The analytic code, however, is based on the correlation matrix.  So we'd have to multiply the Cholesky matrix by its transpose in order to produce the correlation matrix.  Then we could proceed as usual.\n> \n> 2.  Get SILHS to converge when we prescribe the correlations within and below cloud.  In principle, this is close to working, if we make SILHS component wise, and if we set l_precip_frac = .false., l_const_Nc_in_cloud = .false., and l_interp_prescribed_params = .false.  \n> \n> ''Challenges and desired refactorings:''\n> \n> 1.  Add code to SILHS so that it works if l_precip_frac = .false..\n> \n> 2.  Add code to SILHS so that it works if l_const_Nc_in_cloud = .true.\n> \n> 3.  Share code that sets up the elements of the correlation matrix.  This might involve working with a generalized matrix of correlations, as in SILHS, instead of working with individual elements of the matrix, as in the analytic code.\n\nto:\n\n> 1373056415068040\n\n\n* vlarson@uwm.edu commented:\n\nDave, Brian, Eric, and I discussed the refactoring left to make SILHS converge to the analytic code.\n\n''Next steps:''\n\n1.  Debug l_fix_s_t_corrs = .true..  With this setting, we know that r5867 doesn't converge.  Dave suggested finding the revision where we introduced l_fix_s_t_corrs into the analytic code, and seeing if we had convergence at the time we introduced that code.  In addition, we'll probably have to stare at the code and seek differences in SILHS vs. analytic.\n\n2.  Eric has found that r5999 is broken.  In r5999, Eric reduced Skw_denom_coef.  It is hard to see how this code change could have introduced a discrepancy between SILHS and analytic.  Perhaps instead the large values of Skw_denom_coef were masking an underlying discrepancy.  Perhaps we could see if r5867 still converges when Skw_denom_coef = 0.\n\n3.  The analytic code chooses the within-cloud or below-cloud correlations separately for each component.  SILHS chooses only one value for the grid box, and bases the choice on rcm.    Dave, could you please generalize SILHS to act component-wise?\n\n''Longer term goals:''\n\n1.  Get SILHS to converge when we diagnose the Cholesky matrix at each time step.  We can feed the Cholesky matrix into SILHS and use it directly.  The analytic code, however, is based on the correlation matrix.  So we'd have to multiply the Cholesky matrix by its transpose in order to produce the correlation matrix.  Then we could proceed as usual.\n\n2.  Get SILHS to converge when we prescribe the correlations within and below cloud.  In principle, this is close to working, if we make SILHS component wise, and if we set l_precip_frac = .false., l_const_Nc_in_cloud = .false., and l_interp_prescribed_params = .false.  \n\n''Challenges and desired refactorings:''\n\n1.  Add code to SILHS so that it works if l_precip_frac = .true..\n\n2.  Add code to SILHS so that it works if l_const_Nc_in_cloud = .true.\n\n3.  Share code that sets up the elements of the correlation matrix between analytic and SILHS.  This might involve working with a generalized matrix of correlations, as in SILHS, instead of working with individual elements of the matrix, as in the analytic code.\n\n"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"StrikeNP"}}