Lowe et al. TODO list

[slayoo]

• 0.1 vs. 0.2 film thickness

[slayoo]

@claresinger any hints regarding the 0.1 vs. 0.2 dilemma based on the FORTRAN code? :)

[claresinger]

Hi @slayoo. I'm still waiting to receive the fortran code actually. The version they sent seems to be the version without the compressed film model implemented unfortunately.

UPDATE: Dan Partridge will send the code on Monday.

[slayoo]

@claresinger any news here? :)

[claresinger]

See my email to you and Dan. Fig 1 seems like it was made without calling the parcel model actually. Or maybe there are just some more post-processing scripts missing. The plot scripts try to open files that are not produced as output from the parcel model directly... WIP!

[slayoo]

thank you Clare

[github-actions]

Stale issue message

[github-actions]

Stale issue message

[claresinger]

• 0.1 vs. 0.2 film thickness

More TODOs post merge https://github.com/atmos-cloud-sim-uj/PySDM-examples/pull/127

• Why does Fig 1c and 1d not match paper? Changing delta_min = 0.1 (vs. 0.2 in paper) helps. Maybe also the temperature is wrong? The temperature is not specified in the paper.

• Parcel simulations in Fig 2 need short timestep, see consider piecewise-linear instead of piecewise constant pressure profile in parcel env #746 about adding piece-wise linear approximation to pressure profile.

• Size distribution in Fig 2c indicates potential reasons for CDNC mismatches. Bulk calculation for NUM aerosol is ~1 um too small at final step.

• Get smoke tests from update Lowe et al 2019 smoke tests #767 to pass

More TODOs with https://github.com/atmos-cloud-sim-uj/PySDM-examples/pull/51

[github-actions]

Stale issue message