[Liwg-core] report on new BG/JG: TOPOGRAPHY NOT UPDATED
M.Vizcaino at tudelft.nl
Fri Dec 14 08:58:38 MST 2018
Thanks for the quick reaction. Great to hear there is no problem,
On Dec 14, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Marcus Lofverstrom <lofverstrom at email.arizona.edu<mailto:lofverstrom at email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
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!
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:49 AM Miren Vizcaino <M.Vizcaino at tudelft.nl<mailto:M.Vizcaino at tudelft.nl>> wrote:
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?
Miren & Delft group
Liwg-core mailing list
Liwg-core at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:Liwg-core at cgd.ucar.edu>
Dr. Marcus Lofverstrom
Department of Geosciences
University of Arizona
1040 E 4th St
Tucson, AZ, 85719
lofverstrom at email.arizona.edu<mailto:lofverstrom at email.arizona.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Liwg-core