CARVIEW |
Navigation Menu
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 334
Investigating CTSM5.2 surface datasets #1868
Replies: 24 comments · 50 replies
-
ALTMAX is only output for BGC simulations. So we'll have to use the BGC transient simulations Sam is running. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
I have encountered a problem with the new transient bgc crop simulation; suggestions welcome:
The new datasets seem like the logical culprit, except for the fact that 1920 completed fine as a one-year restart in the cycling part of the simulation (1850-1920), while it triggers the methane balance error as a hybrid or startup for the next part (1920-2014). That's all the info I have for now. I will be troubleshooting. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
The transient case with the new datasets still gives me a methane balance error as follows:
I will continue troubleshooting. Suggestions are welcome. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
During the initial development of dynamic urban we encountered a methane error. See more details in doc/design/dynamic_urban.rst. But this occurred the first time PCT_URBAN changed. PCT_URBAN shouldn't change until year 2001 and we had fixed that error anyway. So I don't think this is relevant, just wanted to make you aware of it. I guess you could check to see what column type(s) are contributing to that gridcell error. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
#43 describes a ch4 balance error with transient lakes. My ch4 balance error may be the same, although:
#43 suggests this workaround: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
I plan to troubleshoot and address the ch4 balance check issue in #1873
So it seems likely that the error will go away if I add a comparable flag for the first timestep of hybrid/startup simulations. I will try that next. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Hybrid and Startup cases that were giving the ch4 balance error are now working. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Awesome, great work on this @slevisconsulting ! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Thanks @billsacks and also thank you and @ekluzek for making suggestions at last wk's Standup. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Diagnostics posted here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
In "line plots" the TOTRUNOFF difference plot may suggest some kind of problem a little before 1950. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
I think we've noticed this before, it follows the GSWP3V1 precip trend. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
π 1
-
ILAMB diagnostics here: https://webext.cgd.ucar.edu/I20TR/ihist_bgccrop/lnd/_build_fsurdat/ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
@slevisconsulting Thanks for running and posting all of this. I found a pretty crazy spike in Landuse Flux in the diagnostics which I will look into. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Thank you @lawrencepj1 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
From our meeting I think we identified this as an issue with the lakes dataset. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
I've added a new soil moisture storage plot to set3. The SP and BGC diagnostics pages have been updated with ALTMAX and soil moisture storage. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
π 1
-
@lawrencepj1 have you been able to make plots comparing soil datasets for CTSM5.1 and 5.2 simulations? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Sorry Will totally spaced on this. Will get on it today.
--
Dr Peter Lawrence
Terrestrial Science Section
National Center for Atmospheric Research
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder Colorado 80305
Work: 1-303-497-1727
Cell: 1-303-956-6932
β¦On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 10:22 AM will wieder ***@***.***> wrote:
@lawrencepj1 <https://github.com/lawrencepj1> have you been able to make
plots comparing soil datasets for CTSM5.1 and 5.2 simulations?
β
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1868 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC3OJOJRUM5YA6GS5QLLDFTWFKT4FANCNFSM6AAAAAAQ733474>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Not to worry Peter. I know you were involved with the workshop this week too, hope it went well. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
@lawrencepj1 have you been able to make plots from the first item in this discussion, or should someone else dive into this? Especially related to differences in tree and grass cover with the new surface dataset? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Hi Will I just checked and while some of these changes in trees are due to the new lake dataset much of the changes shown in this plot are coming from updates to the raw pft/cft data from redoing the crop and pasture data. I have put in a PCT_TREE plot for the CTSM52 raw data vs the CLM5 data for the year 2015. For turn around time the plot is from ncview with the legend running over similar ranges as the ncl diagnostic difference plot. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
@wwieder realized I didn't tag you on this update |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
excellent. Thanks Peter. Changes in China are really big! Maybe we can post differences in soil properties here too for completeness? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Hello, I wanted to follow up on a few points from our conversation on this a few weeks ago:
Are there other topics to follow up on? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Hi Will Yes we talked about the timelines for the first two component being the end of next week for 1. and by the end of the week after for 2. The remaining tasks will be over the next month to two months. We will be having a follow up meeting next week to discuss post CTSM5.2 issues. This will include the FATES / LUH2(3) developments required to include primary and secondary forests and non-forests as well as pasture and rangeland. It will also include the ability to represent some data currently on the surface and landuse timeseries files on streams. This may involve updating the current climatology LAI/SAI/Canopy height data along with harvest and fertilizer data. PeterΒ components 1 and 2: @lawrencepj1 will generate the new 850-2100 pft data plus lai and soilcolor data this month. He needs a new mesh file to complete this work; @lawrencepj1 will reach out to @ekluzek (or @slevisconsulting ) in the next week or so to generate the new mesh file. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Thanks for these additional details. I see from @slevisconsulting's notes above that @ekluzek is also supposed to organize a post CTSM5.2 discussion. Is this something we should do at our weekly CLM meeting on Thursday, or does the conversation need a smaller, more focused group? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
@wwieder |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Update of TODOs in this discussion:
DONE out to 2300
PEND
DONE for 850-2300
TODO after testing as part of PR #1946
PEND
@slevisconsulting will update #309 to main and perform testing; @ekluzek will merge when ready I generated the 1.9x2.5 transient surface data using the new raw pft data as requested by @samsrabin. SamR is testing. I posted a bit more detail in #1946. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Thanks for the update on the pending and completed tasks @slevisconsulting |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
I think the permafrost simulation is fine. There are some changes, but
nothing so big that it would be a big concern.
β¦On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 6:16 PM Samuel Levis ***@***.***> wrote:
- *Lake dataset* @slevisconsulting
<https://github.com/slevisconsulting> were you going to investigate
the lake area issues around 1940?
I was in touch with @Ivanderkelen <https://github.com/Ivanderkelen>
roughly 10 days ago, and she agreed to send updated raw files for 1940 and
1941 soon.
Are there other topics to follow up on?
- For completeness, I am expecting more new raw datasets from
@lawrencepj1 <https://github.com/lawrencepj1>
i.e. for 850-1849 and for the SSP/RCPs.
- Also from @lawrencepj1 <https://github.com/lawrencepj1> I'm
expecting new hi-res raw datasets, some for the old hi-res resolution and
all for the new hi-res resolution. Then I'm supposed to test the hi-res
option.
- @ekluzek <https://github.com/ekluzek> is looking at #309
<#309> and then we are supposed to
merge to the ctsm5.2 branch.
β
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1868 (reply in thread)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFABYVHTLJIKH3JYDWB7GFTWGRIUBANCNFSM6AAAAAAQ733474>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
New minus old ORGANIC [kg m-3]. The video starts with layer 1 and loops through the 10 soil layers multiple times. org_matt_dens_by_soil_lev_-200to200_kg_m-3_surfdata_0.9x1.25_hist_78pfts_CMIP6_simyr1850_c221003_minus_c190214.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
New ORGANIC [kg m-3]. The video starts with layer 1 and loops through the 10 soil layers multiple times. org_new_by_soil_lev_0to300_kg_m-3_surfdata_0.9x1.25_hist_78pfts_CMIP6_simyr1850_c221003_minus_c190214.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Old ORGANIC [kg m-3]. Same colorbar as the new (directly above). org_old_by_soil_lev_0to300_kg_m-3_surfdata_0.9x1.25_hist_78pfts_CMIP6_simyr1850_c221003_minus_c190214.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
New minus old SAND [-50% to 50%]. The video starts with layer 1 and loops through the 10 soil layers multiple times. sand_by_soil_lev_-50to50._surfdata_0.9x1.25_hist_78pfts_CMIP6_simyr1850_c221003_minus_c190214.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
New SAND [0 to 100%]. The video starts with layer 1 and loops through the 10 soil layers multiple times. sand_new_by_soil_lev_0to100._surfdata_0.9x1.25_hist_78pfts_CMIP6_simyr1850_c221003_minus_c190214.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Old SAND [0 to 100%]. Same colorbar as the new (directly above). The video starts with layer 1 and loops through the 10 soil layers multiple times. sand_old_by_soil_lev_0to100._surfdata_0.9x1.25_hist_78pfts_CMIP6_simyr1850_c221003_minus_c190214.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
New minus old CLAY [-50% to 50%]. The video starts with layer 1 and loops through the 10 soil layers multiple times. clay_by_soil_lev_-50to50_surfdata_0.9x1.25_hist_78pfts_CMIP6_simyr1850_c221003_minus_c190214.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
New CLAY [0 to 100%]. The video starts with layer 1 and loops through the 10 soil layers multiple times. clay_new_by_soil_lev_0to100_surfdata_0.9x1.25_hist_78pfts_CMIP6_simyr1850_c221003_minus_c190214.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Old CLAY [0 to 100%]. Same colorbar as the new (directly above). The video starts with layer 1 and loops through the 10 soil layers multiple times. clay_old_by_soil_lev_0to100_surfdata_0.9x1.25_hist_78pfts_CMIP6_simyr1850_c221003_minus_c190214.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
New minus old HKSAT [-0.27 to 0.27 mm s-1]. Same colorbar colorscheme as prev. variables. The video starts with layer 1 and loops through the 25 ground levels a few times. hksat_by_grnd_lev_-027to027_mm_s-1_ihist_bgccrop_jan1983_minus_ihist_bgccrop_old_fsurdat_jan2010.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
New HKSAT [0 to 0.2744 mm s-1]. Same colorbar colorscheme as prev. variables. The video starts with layer 1 and loops through the 25 ground levels a few times. hksat_new_0to0.2744_mm_s-1_ihist_bgccrop.clm2.h0.1983-01.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Old HKSAT [0 to 0.2744 mm s-1]. Same colorbar colorscheme as prev. variables. The video starts with layer 1 and loops through the 25 ground levels a few times. hksat_old_0to02744_mm_s-1_ihist_bgccrop_old_fsurdat.clm2.h0.2010-01.mp4 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
At the Feb 28th co-chairs meeting we're discussing developments in component models with an eye to the next round of coupled model testing that's scheduled to start in March. Can we consider using a 5.2 surface dataset on this timeframe (just for a single model resolution), or would this be too soon to be ready? My guess is too soon, as we also need to provide initial conditions for coupled model runs, but I thought I'd ask. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Depending on when the revised 5.2 datasets become available at "2-degree" resolution, I may rerun the experiments for my crop calendar paper with them. This will include a "CLM Default" run starting with the 1850 surface dataset, then time-varying land use. That said, I'm not set up to do analysis of anything other than crop-related outputs. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Hi @slevisconsulting and @samsrabin Yes the timeframe for the datasets should be fine. The issues on crop distribution we found with Sam Rabin have been resolved so the raw data will be updated in the next week for the February 28th meeting. Thanks Peter |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
π 1
-
A missing piece still is #309 which is close but not done. Assuming today's test-suite passes, I have two more updates before we merge to main, update the ctsm5.2 branch, and test again. Other than waiting for test-suites, the slowest part of the process is debugging conflicts that don't get caught by git. Having said all that, I think it makes sense to generate the needed fsurdat now, and then again when #309 is in. I could do that if you let me know what resolution we need for the coupled testing. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Thanks @slevisconsulting I'll start an email thread with those involved in the coupled model tests to ask about resolution. I like the idea of providing a beta version of a 5.2 surface dataset to testing. How time consuming is it going to be to generate initial conditions to run in the coupled model, @olyson? Is it worth this effort for testing coupled configurations? (I'm pretty naive regarding how to proceed with these coupled model tests). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
As you suggested, we should have a science discussion on this. I think there were some discussions about spinning up CLM using forcing from a CAM-CLM F-case simulation in which CAM and CLM are as close to the fully coupled configuration being used for CESM development simulations. We used to do this type of spinup using coupler history files but I thought I saw somewhere that nuopc didn't support that kind of configuration? So there may be a bit of time involved in understanding how to do this. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
I believe this will be possible once we integrate #1929 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Actually, I think my last comment may have been wrong. @adrifoster reminded me of #1844 , and I think that may be the remaining problem. If so, I'm not sure that #1929 is strictly needed for that. (I'm having deja vu: I know we've gone around a few times about what #1929 is and isn't actually needed for.) On the other hand, I think that ESCOMP/CAM#735 is needed: Once CAM always passes NDEP, we can generate new cplhist files from nuopc/cmeps, then use those new cplhist files to force datm using CDEPS. At that point, it would probably make sense to also change CTSM to actually listen to the NDEP sent from ATM. (The need for the CAM update is because DATM expects NDEP on its forcing files, even though CTSM doesn't actually use NDEP from ATM yet.) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
See #1951 (comment) for more details. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
I thought that was already happening. Is it not done by the following block in the NUOPC cap? CTSM/src/cpl/nuopc/lnd_import_export.F90 Lines 668 to 677 in 05fb17b
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Ok, sorry for mis-stating this, I was thinking of this discussion: in which Adam and Mariana were debugging the cpl history output option in nuopc. I'm not sure if this is associated with an issue/pull request that has been implemented already. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
@klindsay28 and @olyson - sorry, I feel like my comments have been more misleading / wrong than helpful: they were based on my recollections of conversations from a few months ago rather than any first-hand knowledge of the current state. I think you both have a better sense of the current state of affairs than I do. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
@olyson completed a historical using the datasets @slevisconsulting created. Diagnostics compared to a CLM5 run are here: I don't see anything unexpected. For example, the spike in the landuse flux that @lawrencepj1 noted previously (due to a lake dataset problem) isn't there. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Hi @slevisconsulting @wwieder @ekluzek @samsrabin Just making a quick note that the distributions of individual CFTs has been updated following suggestions from Sam Rabin and as presented at the 2023 LMWG meeting. The updated files are now available on /glade/p/cesmdata/cseg/inputdata/lnd/clm2/rawdata/ pftcftdynharv.0.25x0.25.LUH2.histsimyr0850-1850.c20230226 pftcftdynharv.0.25x0.25.SSP1-1.9.simyr2015-2100.c20230226 pftcftdynharv.0.25x0.25.SSP1-2.6.simyr2100-2300.c20230226 Note the directories and file names now for 2023 02 26. These updated raw files should be considered the CTSM 5.2 land cover and land use data rather than the previous version. We should remove the 2023 01 16 version once we have this finalized. Thanks |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
π 2
-
Thank you @lawrencepj1 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Closing as this is now old, we've moved to ctsm5.3 datasets with ctsm5.4 being close as well. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
New surface datasets have a number of changes that we can start discussing. I've created this slide deck to start illustrating changes between cases that we're running. So far, these are i2000 CTSMsp simulations with 5.2 vs. 5.1 using GSWP3 forcing. Both from a common CTSM5.1_dev090 tag. Diagnostics from the SP case are posted here with associated raw data here
/glade/u/home/slevis/cases_sp
@lawrencepj1 do you have a script that can quickly compare differences in surface dataset fields? If not, maybe @slevisconsulting can help? These include:
Land over fractions, especially for forests / grasses, see the PFT fractions (e.g., forests in China ). @lawrencepj1 can you check these changes are as intended?
Lake, urban, and land ice datasets have changed for this 2000 case. The biggest thing that stands out here is the distribution of lakes , evident by the upper plots, but nothing big really stands out here.
Soil properties have changed quite a bit, which changed soil thermal and hydraulic properties, especially in the Arctic. This makes summer soil conditions in the new simulations warmer and wetter, with less ice across the Arctic.
@slevisconsulting will run parallel BGC cases and post additional diagnostics and ILAMB plots
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions