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

Adaptive time step limits model integration time to 3 hours when running WRF-ideal #2036

Open
jhruppert opened this issue Apr 11, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@jhruppert
Copy link
Contributor

jhruppert commented Apr 11, 2024

Describe the bug
When use_adaptive_time_step = .true. for a WRF-ideal run, model will only integrate to a maximum of 3 hours (or shorter). It runs "successfully," just does not continue for runs with longer run times specified in namelist.

Found this bug when running test/em_convrad case. I assume it may hold for all WRF-IDEAL.

I verified the bug on two different computers: CISL/Derecho and the OSCER supercomputer at University of Oklahoma. Quite different compilers. Latest WRF version; haven't tried with older versions.

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Run one of the idealized test cases
  2. Set "use_adaptive_time_step = .true." in namelist and try setting run time beyond 3 hours.
  3. Model will "successfully" complete at 3 hours, despite end time settings in namelist.
@jhruppert jhruppert changed the title Adaptive time step limits model integration time to 3 hours when running ideal Adaptive time step limits model integration time to 3 hours when running WRF-ideal Apr 11, 2024
@weiwangncar
Copy link
Collaborator

@jhruppert Sorry for the late reply. But this should probably reported in the Forum. That said, let us know the version of the model you're using, if you are using 'step_to_output_time' option, and attach a namelist.input file. The other comment would be is adaptive time stepping really a good choice for idealized work? Yes, it probably can run a bit faster, and the change of time step can affect solution too. Just something to consider.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants