Skip to content
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

Update emissivity to 0.985 and set nblyr default to 1 #553

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 25, 2021

Conversation

apcraig
Copy link
Contributor

@apcraig apcraig commented Jan 20, 2021

PR checklist

  • Short (1 sentence) summary of your PR:
    Update emissivity to 0.985 and set nblyr default to 1
  • Developer(s):
    apcraig
  • Suggest PR reviewers from list in the column to the right.
  • Please copy the PR test results link or provide a summary of testing completed below.
    Full test suites run on cheyenne on 3 compilers, most results are NOT bit-for-bit.
    https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/Test-Results/wiki/cice_by_hash_forks#c4b9051c28db9ab818669133a72be687d8846c0e
  • How much do the PR code changes differ from the unmodified code?
    • bit for bit
    • different at roundoff level
    • more substantial
  • Does this PR create or have dependencies on Icepack or any other models?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Does this PR add any new test cases?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Is the documentation being updated? ("Documentation" includes information on the wiki or in the .rst files from doc/source/, which are used to create the online technical docs at https://readthedocs.org/projects/cice-consortium-cice/. A test build of the technical docs will be performed as part of the PR testing.)
    • Yes
    • No, does the documentation need to be updated at a later time?
      • Yes
      • No
  • Please provide any additional information or relevant details below:

See #249

Change emissivity default to 0.985 (from 0.95)
Change nblyr default to 1 (from 7)
Add nblyr=7 to set_nml.zsal
Update Icepack to include emissivity default changes
Update documentation as needed

@apcraig
Copy link
Contributor Author

apcraig commented Jan 20, 2021

Do we need/want to do a QC test? Would we expect it to pass?

@eclare108213
Copy link
Contributor

A QC test would certainly be interesting. I wouldn't expect it to pass in stand-alone mode based on prior sensitivity tests, but it might pass. For completeness, I think it's a good idea to run a QC test.

Change emissivity default to 0.985 (from 0.95)
Change nblyr default to 1 (from 7)
Add nblyr=7 to set_nml.zsal
Update Icepack to include emissivity default changes
Update documentation as needed
@apcraig
Copy link
Contributor Author

apcraig commented Jan 22, 2021

The QC test passed on cheyenne. I'm not sure whether this is a good or bad outcome.

INFO:main:Running QC test on the following directories:
INFO:main: /glade/scratch/tcraig/CICE_RUNS/cheyenne_intel_smoke_gx1_36x1_medium_qc.qc_base
INFO:main: /glade/scratch/tcraig/CICE_RUNS/cheyenne_intel_smoke_gx1_36x1_medium_qc.qc_test
INFO:main:Number of files: 1460
INFO:main:2 Stage Test Passed
INFO:main:Quadratic Skill Test Passed for Northern Hemisphere
INFO:main:Quadratic Skill Test Passed for Southern Hemisphere
INFO:main:Quality Control Test PASSED

@eclare108213
Copy link
Contributor

Was this run with JRA forcing? Then it's good. I'd expect it to fail with the old forcing, which is a lot of the reason for moving to JRA. Sensitivities using the old forcing had the wrong sign!

@apcraig
Copy link
Contributor Author

apcraig commented Jan 22, 2021

Yes, this is with JRA55 forcing.

Copy link
Contributor

@eclare108213 eclare108213 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's fine to merge this, assuming that the issues that @dabail10 is turning up are related to configuration settings specific to his tests rather than these code changes.

@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor

This was a problem related to my setup and not the emissivity value change.

@apcraig apcraig merged commit 792c23a into CICE-Consortium:master Jan 25, 2021
@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor

I just verified that even with emissivity of 0.95, I cannot do a run crossing 1996 to 1997 (starting in 1995) with my JRA forcing. I believe there is a leap year related issue here. I will open a separate issue.

@apcraig apcraig deleted the emis branch August 17, 2022 21:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants