-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 157
cam6_4_028: Dust emissions #1104
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
Changes from 13 commits
610e7a9
5311341
0322253
92b6bac
bfb1886
9cb0551
f7b9e5d
b01294f
37fae81
e393c66
712dead
ba285ec
e6d302c
eb6518a
62b248c
95c159b
caa1bd3
01c9a7a
28e02f1
1ea1baa
a950fae
c424825
e7627ac
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -2532,6 +2532,11 @@ | |
<dust_emis_fact hgrid="0.47x0.63" offline_dyn="1" phys="cam6" ver="chem">0.9D0</dust_emis_fact> | ||
<dust_emis_fact hgrid="0.47x0.63" offline_dyn="1" phys="cam7" ver="chem">0.9D0</dust_emis_fact> | ||
|
||
<!-- dust emissions method --> | ||
<dust_emis_method>Zender_2003</dust_emis_method> | ||
<dust_emis_method phys='cam7'>Leung_2023</dust_emis_method> | ||
<zender_soil_erod_source>atm</zender_soil_erod_source> | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Could these lines get spread out a little more for readability? Also, just a reminder that cam7 is going to default to the old setting for now. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Default is now There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @cacraigucar I assume that means there will be a follow on CAM tag where Leung is turned on for CAM7? Or will we just be in experimental mode for awhile and then change the default much later? Just curious how this is going to go... There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @ekluzek - When(if) the scientists tell us that they want to change the default setting, we will do so. This will be part of the tunings that will be happening and I suspect that we'll be adjusting quite a few settings/defaults, not just this one. |
||
|
||
<!-- seasalt emission tuning factor --> | ||
<!-- Note that ver="strat" when modal_accum_coarse_exch=.true. --> | ||
<seasalt_emis_scale >1.35D0</seasalt_emis_scale> | ||
|
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 a reminder (more for me than you) to update this to the official CTSM tag when it is ready
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 can now be replaced with ctsm5.2.027
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.
Thanks @ekluzek
Updating to from ctsm5.2.009 to ctsm5.2.027 changes answers for the F compsets, even when Zender scheme is used. Is this expected? I see several namelist changes in lnd_in.
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.
Yes, this is expected. There's several rounds of answer changes between 009 and 027. I can map out what they are if you like and that would help.
Is it OK for your CAM tag to have CLM answer changes in it?
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.
We typically update answer changing externals for CAM runs in their own tag, so I'd like to pull it in separate. @fvitt - would you be willing to do this, or do we need to do this on the AMP side?
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.
The exception to this is if @fvitt has independently already run the regression tests with his changes and they are BFB except for the test(s) which use the dust. If this has been done, he can document in the ChangeLog that he has independently tested that "the code changes were independently tested and were non-answer changing for all but the dust configurations. All answer changes to non-dust runs are due to updating CLM". If these tests haven't been run, then it probably makes sense to just split it into two CAM tags.
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.
@cacraigucar Yes I can do the update of CTSM in a separate CAM tag.
@ekluzek Can you provide a summary of the ctsm changes that affect F compsets?
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.
Here's the list of things I expected to affect CAM F compsets in a substantial way:
There's a few others that still might affect CAM F compsets, but I expect them to be much smaller. Go to the bottom of this wiki page to see a full description of CTSM answer changing tags:
https://github.com/ESCOMP/CTSM/wiki/Answer-changing-tags