Registry allocates surface arrays based on new sfclayer package not PBL choice

[dudhia]

When the LES options are run in real-data cases, the sfclayer physics is used but not the PBL physics.
Many (over 30) 2d arrays were allocated based on PBL packages when their true dependence is on the sfclayer package.
This caused a failure due to using unallocated arrays.
The fix is to create and use instead a sfclayer package in the Registry.
(Note: in development code PBL was on in namelist to enable these arrays but by-passed for LES options,
now we need PBL to be off when LES is chosen which could require a safety check).
This enables real-data LES applications to run.

[mgduda]

@dudhia It seems that we may also need ch and qcg to be associated with the new sfclayer package if we would like to run with the MYNN surface layer scheme but not the MYNN PBL scheme. What do you think?

[dudhia]

@dudhia It seems that we may also need ch and qcg to be associated with the new sfclayer package if we would like to run with the MYNN surface layer scheme but not the MYNN PBL scheme. What do you think?

I agree. Did you see if there more needed with that sfclayer option?

[mgduda]

@dudhia It seems that we may also need ch and qcg to be associated with the new sfclayer package if we would like to run with the MYNN surface layer scheme but not the MYNN PBL scheme. What do you think?

I agree. Did you see if there more needed with that sfclayer option?

Those seemed to be the only two additional variables that needed to be available when using the MYNN surface layer scheme as far as I could tell.

[dudhia]

@dudhia It seems that we may also need ch and qcg to be associated with the new sfclayer package if we would like to run with the MYNN surface layer scheme but not the MYNN PBL scheme. What do you think?

I agree. Did you see if there more needed with that sfclayer option?

Those seemed to be the only two additional variables that needed to be available when using the MYNN surface layer scheme as far as I could tell.

I am not seeing your changes, so should I update my PR?

[mgduda]

@dudhia It seems that we may also need ch and qcg to be associated with the new sfclayer package if we would like to run with the MYNN surface layer scheme but not the MYNN PBL scheme. What do you think?

I agree. Did you see if there more needed with that sfclayer option?

Those seemed to be the only two additional variables that needed to be available when using the MYNN surface layer scheme as far as I could tell.

I am not seeing your changes, so should I update my PR?

Sorry... I wasn't sure if you'd prefer to update the branch or if I should do so. If you don't mind, I can amend this PR branch.

[dudhia]

@dudhia It seems that we may also need ch and qcg to be associated with the new sfclayer package if we would like to run with the MYNN surface layer scheme but not the MYNN PBL scheme. What do you think?

I agree. Did you see if there more needed with that sfclayer option?

Those seemed to be the only two additional variables that needed to be available when using the MYNN surface layer scheme as far as I could tell.

I am not seeing your changes, so should I update my PR?

Sorry... I wasn't sure if you'd prefer to update the branch or if I should do so. If you don't mind, I can amend this PR branch.

Go ahead. I didn't know you could do that.