[Liwg-core] starting the new BG/JG on Monday

Marcus Lofverstrom lofverstrom at email.arizona.edu
Sun Dec 9 13:53:16 MST 2018


Hi Kate, liwg-folks,

Thanks a lot for putting this together so quickly! I found a few small
issues with the current setup:

runscript_BG_1.sh:

* Variable "Outputroot" is pointing at output directory from September

* Variable "CCSMRoot" is pointing at model version that doesn't exist
(perhaps legacy from Sept script?)


runscript_JG_2.sh:

* Variable "Outputroot" is pointing at output directory from September


user_nls/user_nl_clm

* Variable "glacier_region_rain_to_snow_behavior": second
"converted_to_snow" appears to span multiple lines. Not sure if this is a
problem or not, but might be worth fixing.


user_nls/user_nl_cism

URL to CISM2 boundary condition appears to have a cut in the middle of the
word "glissade". This will probably cause a problem at startup.

Best,
Marcus

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:27 PM Katherine Thayer-Calder <katec at ucar.edu>
wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> The source code for the simulations is put together and on Cheyenne.
> Please take a look at the sandbox and let me know what you think by Sunday
> evening or Monday morning.
> Source code:
>
>
> /gpfs/u/cesm-scripts/liwg/Coupled_BG_JG_Spinup_CESM2.1.0_Dec2018/Model_Version/cesm2.1.0+cism2_1_66
> User_nls:
>
> /gpfs/u/cesm-scripts/liwg/Coupled_BG_JG_Spinup_CESM2.1.0_Dec2018/user_nls
> And there are two source mods still floating around here:
>
>
> /gpfs/u/cesm-scripts/liwg/Coupled_BG_JG_Spinup_CESM2.1.0_Dec2018/SourceMods/src.drv
> One sets the height of the highest glacier elevation class to 1m above the
> one below it, and the other is a smoothing parameter between real and
> virtual elevation classes.
>
> Please check that all the code you hope to see is in all the right places!
> Thanks for all the help!
> Kate
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 10:50 AM Katherine Thayer-Calder <katec at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that makes sense. I will include Bill L's block inception changes
>> with the other commits and make a new cism-wrapper tag pointing to the head
>> of CISM master + block inception. I just wanted to be clear that there is
>> additional code going into that tag that was not included in what Bill L
>> sent out previously. If that's fine with everybody then it's great with me.
>> This is what I was planning on, too. Just wanted to have clear validation.
>> :)
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Kate
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 10:11 AM Sarah Bradley - CITG <
>> S.L.Bradley-1 at tudelft.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kate
>>>
>>> I noticed that Erik had fixed the wrapper problem: great!
>>> I think the earlier things that you mention (modified basal melting etc)
>>> were all for with shelves: we are not going to run with shelves so that
>>> should be okay to not have tested with the final combined code. But we will
>>> (for other runs) want to have these in the main master, Can they not just
>>> all be combined?
>>> I tested the ‘block inception code’  but  you mention that does not
>>> include the July/August commits (above) should be fine as these revisions
>>> are not active in the code that I used to test. Does this make sense?
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 Dec 2018, at 17:53, Katherine Thayer-Calder <katec at ucar.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sarah, so we've added a few small things in the background for CESM
>>> support. Erik fixed the problem with not being able to restart past year
>>> 9999 and that is in the cism-wrapper tag cism2_1_64, and then I added in
>>> the ability to automatically generate the io files for each build (so would
>>> fix your problem in the previous email chain with trying to generate and
>>> copy the files over separately). That is tested and added in cism2_1_65.
>>> Today I am going to make the final cism-wrapper tag to be used in the JG-BG
>>> simulations, and include the source_cism code to block inception (and
>>> probably the new CLM branch tag, though I'm going to double check with Bill
>>> S about that).
>>>
>>> Also, just to be clear, Bill L added his block-inception code over the
>>> July 8 hash that was used in the cism wrapper tag cism2_1_63, and
>>> previously used (with source mods) in the JG-BG run. So the testing that
>>> has been done with Bill L's code doesn't include some commits to master
>>> from last summer, like "Modified the basal melting GLP" and "zero out
>>> bmlt_float in ice-free ocean for basal melting GLP". The commits that are
>>> not included in Sarah's testing can be seen on this webpage:
>>> https://github.com/ESCOMP/cism/commits/master and are the changes from
>>> July 21 (not included hash 88073c5) through Aug 27 (not included hash
>>> a8b1538). I was under the impression that we do want to include these
>>> changes in the JG-BG (ie, work from the head of CISM master this time), but
>>> that is not specifically what Sarah was testing.
>>>
>>> So, let's try to make this clear, do we want to add Bill L's changes to
>>> the head of Master (and include the July-Aug commits listed above)? Or do
>>> we want to use Bill L's changes as he has them now, and as they have been
>>> tested in the last week (not include July-Aug commits)?
>>>
>>> Thanks so much,
>>> Kate
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:32 AM Sarah Bradley - CITG <
>>> S.L.Bradley-1 at tudelft.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Kate
>>>>
>>>> Thats great news.
>>>> Raymond has ran a quick I  run (repeating  the earlier L2+P1)
>>>> simulation and nothing glaring different stands out. The T-run with the two
>>>> new source mods (L2+P1 source mod, and the block inception code) is
>>>> approximately the same as the earlier version (with source mods version),
>>>> so that seems all good to progress.
>>>>
>>>> I assume for the new tags you meaning the new CLM P1 version and the
>>>> new block inception code for CISM? Was there an extra revision that I have
>>>> missed?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Sarah
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7 Dec 2018, at 00:51, Katherine Thayer-Calder <katec at ucar.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all, quick update. In order to set up the sandbox with the most
>>>> recent CISM, it would be good to do an update to the CESM CISM-Wrapper
>>>> code. We are working on adding and testing 2 new tags to get this all
>>>> together. So, I should have the sandbox tomorrow afternoon, not today as I
>>>> thought.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Kate
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:37 PM Marcus Lofverstrom <
>>>> lofverstrom at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good to me too. Let me know if I can help in any way. Great job
>>>>> putting all new code changes in place so fast!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:20 AM Sarah Bradley - CITG <
>>>>> S.L.Bradley-1 at tudelft.nl> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Kate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a good plan: if you can send out the link to the
>>>>>> directories for us to look at when they are set up, that would be great.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6 Dec 2018, at 17:17, Katherine Thayer-Calder <katec at ucar.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Miren, Sounds good to me. I'll set up the sandbox and the scripts
>>>>>> today. Then everybody will have the weekend to check the code base and make
>>>>>> sure we are running what they want and expect. I'll aim to start the first
>>>>>> BG again Monday morning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Kate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:51 AM Miren Vizcaino <M.Vizcaino at tudelft.nl>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Kate, all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many thanks to Bill L. and Bill S. for the code for
>>>>>>> no-GIC’s-inception and P1 (cold rain routed into run-off), respectively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sarah successfully tested the no-GIC’s-inception code (thumbs up).
>>>>>>> It is only missing to have the code “formally” integrated into CESM-CISM,
>>>>>>> just a small task, I suppose Kate/NCAR can do this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Raymond and Sarah are setting a 10-year I run & subsequent T run
>>>>>>> with P1 code from Bill S to test it works fine. They will have the results
>>>>>>> later this week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Kate, now that we have all the new code, can you please set the
>>>>>>> BG/JG to start it on Monday? If you have any questions, Delft is happy to
>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best and thank you everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Miren & Delft team
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Liwg-core mailing list
>>>>>> Liwg-core at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/liwg-core
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Liwg-core mailing list
>>>>>> Liwg-core at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/liwg-core
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dr. Marcus Lofverstrom
>>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>>> Department of Geosciences
>>>>> University of Arizona
>>>>> 1040 E 4th St
>>>>> Tucson, AZ, 85719
>>>>> lofverstrom at email.arizona.edu
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

-- 
Dr. Marcus Lofverstrom
Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences
University of Arizona
1040 E 4th St
Tucson, AZ, 85719
lofverstrom at email.arizona.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/liwg-core/attachments/20181209/4bdafee2/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Liwg-core mailing list