CCPPize prescribed_volcanic_aerosol (prescribed_volcaero); update tracer_data_test snapshot

[jimmielin]

Companion PR: ESCOMP/atmospheric_physics#372

Tag name (required for release branches):
Originator(s):

Description (include the issue title, and the keyword ['closes', 'fixes', 'resolves'] followed by the issue number):

• Update snapshot for prescribed_volcanic_aerosol to be tested along with the rest of BAM prescribed code.
• Registry entries for prescribed volcanic aerosol.
• Fixes Fix physconst units #283

Describe any changes made to build system: N/A

Describe any changes made to the namelist: N/A

List any changes to the defaults for the input datasets (e.g. boundary datasets):

• Updated snapshot for the BAM tracer_data test.

List all files eliminated and why: N/A

List all files added and what they do: N/A

List all existing files that have been modified, and describe the changes:
(Helpful git command: git diff --name-status development...<your_branch_name>)

M       cime_config/testdefs/testmods_dirs/cam/outfrq_trcdata_bam_derecho/user_nl_cam
- Updated snapshot for the BAM tracer_data test.

M       src/data/registry.xml
- Registry entries for prescribed volcanic aerosol and derived radius

M       src/data/physconst.meta
- Fix physconst units for avogad, boltz

If there are new failures (compared to the test/existing-test-failures.txt file),
have them OK'd by the gatekeeper, note them here, and add them to the file.
If there are baseline differences, include the test and the reason for the
diff. What is the nature of the change? Roundoff?

derecho/intel/aux_sima:

derecho/gnu/aux_sima:

derecho/nvhpc/aux_sima:

If this changes climate describe any run(s) done to evaluate the new
climate in enough detail that it(they) could be reproduced:

CAM-SIMA date used for the baseline comparison tests if different than latest:

[mkavulich]

@jimmielin NCAR/ccpp-framework#727 has been merged, can you ensure this fixes the issues you have been seeing?

[jimmielin]

Thank you @mkavulich, yes, just tested with latest develop in ccpp-framework and it is working!

[nusbaume]

Thanks @jimmielin! I had one question, but nothing that should prevent this PR from getting merged.

[nusbaume]

Just double-checking if it is okay that many of these aerosol fields are zero times pbuf_sulf? It totally might be, I am just trying to understand the reasoning behind it. Thanks!

[jimmielin]

Thanks for the question. Yes, it is intended! It is just to zero out these fields in the "before" snapshot, so that ncdata_check can verify that the zeros in the model state indeed were populated by the tracer_data schemes.

The reason I used <something>=0.0*pbuf_sulf is because nco with <something>=0.0 will set the 2-D array into a scalar, and thus losing the dimensions; so I just borrowed the pbuf_sulf*0.0 to get a 2-D array of zeros to put into that variable. Hope this explains it!