Wrong LHFL_S calculation in the case of sublimation – in #9: CCLM

in #9: CCLM

<p> Hi Stefan, </p> <p> sounds, at a first quick glance, reasonable, especially if one realizes that the case of “frozen lakes” had already been <br/> taken into account in slow_tendencies.f90, but not in src_slow_tendencies_rk.f90. </p> <p> Did you already perform calculations with the changed version and check how large the effect on the <br/> results for latent heat fluxes for “frozen” conditions is? <br/> Did you discuss it already with the responsible persons at <span class="caps"> DWD </span> ? </p> <p> Hans-Jürgen </p>

  @hans-jürgenpanitz in #8bb98d1

<p> Hi Stefan, </p> <p> sounds, at a first quick glance, reasonable, especially if one realizes that the case of “frozen lakes” had already been <br/> taken into account in slow_tendencies.f90, but not in src_slow_tendencies_rk.f90. </p> <p> Did you already perform calculations with the changed version and check how large the effect on the <br/> results for latent heat fluxes for “frozen” conditions is? <br/> Did you discuss it already with the responsible persons at <span class="caps"> DWD </span> ? </p> <p> Hans-Jürgen </p>
HP replied

Hi Stefan,

sounds, at a first quick glance, reasonable, especially if one realizes that the case of “frozen lakes” had already been
taken into account in slow_tendencies.f90, but not in src_slow_tendencies_rk.f90.

Did you already perform calculations with the changed version and check how large the effect on the
results for latent heat fluxes for “frozen” conditions is?
Did you discuss it already with the responsible persons at DWD ?

Hans-Jürgen

View in channel