[Liwg-core] report on new BG/JG: TOPOGRAPHY NOT UPDATED

Marcus Lofverstrom lofverstrom at email.arizona.edu
Fri Dec 14 08:55:35 MST 2018


Hi Miren,

No need to worry about the topography. We decided to only update the atm
topo at the beginning of each BG segment instead of each year. Our
reasoning is that there are only very modest changes in the ice sheet over
35 years with a synchronous coupling, so updating each year adds
unnecessary complexity to the setup with very little gain.

Thanks for the heads up!
Marcus

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:49 AM Miren Vizcaino <M.Vizcaino at tudelft.nl>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> as promised, we have analyzed BG1, and found a major show-stopper. I’ll
> report in a separate email about the checks on things that ARE working.
>
> We found that ATM-TOPO in CLM is not being updated with CISM input.
> (TOPO_COL is evolving as expected though).
>
> We found that this was also the case in the previous BG/JG, but we missed
> it … probably because ATM-TOPO was added only as output in BG2
>
> Laura run recently a BG and ATM-TOP was evolving normally. There she used
> CLM%BGC, while the current and previous BG/JG use CLM%BGC-CROP.
>
> @ Bill S, Kate: do we need to run with -CROP?
> @ Bill S, Jeremy, Marcus: does it seem plausible that the code from -CROP
> somehow does not work to produce topographic update from CLM to CAM?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Miren & Delft group
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/liwg-core/attachments/20181214/4e14afe2/attachment.html>


More information about the Liwg-core mailing list