-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 140
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
cam6_3_132: Changes to capture changes made in run 51 #900
cam6_3_132: Changes to capture changes made in run 51 #900
Conversation
cloud ice fraction changes for cam_dev
…ct latest tunings
added namelists for wsub_min_asf, modified namelist defaults to refle…
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have one concern about using cam_dev as the logical for the new ice fraction mods.
Agreed (the initial implementation of do_hb_above_clubb used cam_physpkg_is("cam_dev") as a specifier but I changed it to namelist for the PR). |
OK, I am going to make a namelist called |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just one minor namelist comment.
Thanks @adamrher and @cacraigucar
@@ -2065,9 +2065,11 @@ | |||
<clubb_do_energyfix > .true. </clubb_do_energyfix> | |||
<clubb_do_liqsupersat > .false. </clubb_do_liqsupersat> | |||
<clubb_gamma_coef > 0.308 </clubb_gamma_coef> | |||
<clubb_gamma_coef phys="cam_dev" > 0.3 </clubb_gamma_coef> | |||
<clubb_gamma_coef hgrid="1.9x2.5" phys="cam6" > 0.280 </clubb_gamma_coef> | |||
<clubb_gamma_coef dyn="se" > 0.270 </clubb_gamma_coef> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we remove
<clubb_gamma_coef dyn="se" > 0.270 </clubb_gamma_coef>
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a good catch actually because it results in a tie if you run w/ cam_dev and se. We can either do away with it entirely, or specify it further to refer to how se is configured for cam6 in the CESM2.2 JAMES paper:
<clubb_gamma_coef dyn="se" phys="cam6" > 0.270 </clubb_gamma_coef>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd seen that and confirmed that the first one appeared to beat out the later one. Can we just delete the <clubb_gamma_coef dyn="se" phys="cam6" > 0.270 </clubb_gamma_coef>
as it is captured in the CESM2.2 branch for archival purposes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point. Yes, I concur with deleting it entirely from cam_development.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is resolved in PR pending to this branch. Note that removing this line will cause a lot of baseline failures.
swap cam_dev conditional for a new namelist, remove se gamma namelist…
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, just have some minor variable comment/description cleanup.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Everything looks good to me now, thanks!
Looks good to me @cacraigucar. I might just add a comment explaining that wsub_min_asf is:
|
Answer change mystery solved (by @fischer-ncar). There is a CMEPS update which is answer changing. It is because of ESCOMP/CMEPS#394. This change was signed off on by @PeterHjortLauritzen a little over a month ago. The upcoming CESM tag will defintely have this. Is it okay to have the CAM tag have this answer change as well at this time? If so, my plan is to proceed with making cam6_3_131 with the updated externals and then rereunning the regression tests for this PR. The answer changes should be limited to cam_dev at this point. Thoughts? |
@cacraigucar that sounds like a good plan. Fingers crossed that most non-cam_dev baselines don't fail when you do the new regression tests for the 51 changes. |
Based on @adamrher approval of my workflow and @PeterHjortLauritzen's previous approval, I am proceeding to make cam6_3_131 with the updated externals. I will then startup regression testing on this PR. |
It sounds good. We also talked at the CESM meeting about creating a new CESM tag using this new cam tag + any changes to MOM the oceanographers want. (@gustavo-marques, @jedwards4b) |
Sounds good to include the CMEPS change! Approved ... |
Merge pull request ESCOMP#900 from cacraigucar/cam_match_run_51 cam6_3_132: Changes to capture changes made in run 51 ESCOMP commit: 5ddccd8
Closes #895