Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make "Bytnerowicz" the default nfix_method for clm6 #2972

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor

Description of changes

Same as PR's title, plus update paramfile and finidat accordingly.

Definition of DONE checklist in the issue.

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any:

CTSM Issues Fixed (include github issue #):
Fixes #1339

Are answers expected to change (and if so in what way)?
Yes, greater than roundoff, same climate.

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)?
See Description of changes above.

Does this create a need to change or add documentation? Did you do so?
Likely, but not done.

Testing performed, if any:
None, yet.

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg self-assigned this Feb 21, 2025
@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg added the non-bfb Changes answers (incl. adding tests) label Feb 21, 2025
<paramfile phys="clm4_5" >lnd/clm2/paramdata/clm45_params.c241119.nc</paramfile>
<paramfile phys="clm6_0" >lnd/clm2/paramdata/ctsm60_params_nfix.c241119.nc</paramfile>
<paramfile phys="clm5_0" >lnd/clm2/paramdata/clm50_params_nfix.c241119.nc</paramfile>
<paramfile phys="clm4_5" >lnd/clm2/paramdata/clm45_params_nfix.c241119.nc</paramfile>
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@wwieder please review this change.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we want to add nfix to the title of the parameter file? This seems unusual to me? Also, do we typically have the same default parameter list for each physics version? This is naive on my part.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with @wwieder I'd nix nfix in the name of the file. We make so many changes to paramfiles you can't keep adding the list of new things to the filenames.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, do we typically have the same default parameter list for each physics version? This is naive on my part.

The values of the parameters are different for each physics version. Hence, we need to have a different parameter file for each physics version. In CESM3.0 we are likely to have two parameter files for clm6_0, one for coupled and one for CRUJRA.

Does that answer your question?

@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
paramfile = '$DIN_LOC_ROOT/lnd/clm2/paramdata/ctsm60_ciso_cwd_hr_params.c241119.nc'
paramfile = '$DIN_LOC_ROOT/lnd/clm2/paramdata/ctsm60_ciso_cwd_hr_params_nfix.c241119.nc'
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@wwieder pls review this change, also. For this one I had to generate the new file, so could you check my work given past snafus that we've had with paramfiles?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sorry, what am I checking for with this file?

@@ -1409,7 +1409,7 @@ attributes from the config_cache.xml file (with keys converted to upper-case).
ic_ymd="20000101" sim_year="2000" use_excess_ice=".true."
ic_tod="0" glc_nec="10" use_crop=".true." irrigate=".true."
phys="clm6_0" use_init_interp=".true."
>lnd/clm2/initdata_esmf/ctsm5.3/ctsm53n04ctsm52028_f09_g17_BgcCrop_exice_hist.clm60.r.2000-01-01.nc
>lnd/clm2/initdata_esmf/ctsm5.3/ctsm53019_f09_BNF_hist.clm2.r.2000-01-01-00000.nc
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Questions regarding the finidat updates:

  1. I updated 1850 and 2000 for f09 only. Should I update ne30 and f19 with the same f09 file or wait until we have spun up ne30 and f19 simulations?
  2. For ic_ymd="19790101" should I go back and generate a 1979 file or not worry about it for now (e.g. because we will generate finidat files again before all is said and done)? Right now the closest restart file we have is 1978 from the new simulation.
  3. Anything I've forgotten?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure we'll end up creating ne30 and f19 initial conditions with this file, as Linnia is going to have new suggestions from the PPE soon. Instead, maybe we point to the f09 initial conditions and set init_interp = true for other resolutions?

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

derecho testing

PASS make black and lint (not necessary)
PASS python (not necessary)
PASS ./build-namelist_test.pl
IN PROG ./run_sys_tests -s aux_clm -c ctsm5.3.025 --skip-generate

In aux_clm, expect DIFF for clm6 only, I think.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
non-bfb Changes answers (incl. adding tests)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Alternative cost functions in FUN
3 participants