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

Investigate AMIP paperplots change #303

Closed
Tracked by #359
juliasloan25 opened this issue May 10, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed
Tracked by #359

Investigate AMIP paperplots change #303

juliasloan25 opened this issue May 10, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@juliasloan25
Copy link
Member

juliasloan25 commented May 10, 2023

After the update to ClimaAtmos v0.11.0 in PR #293, the amip_paperplots.png plots generated by AMIP and AMIP modular look slightly different (see before and after).

The ncep_paperplots.png for the same runs look identical despite the ClimaAtmos change (see before and after). All other moist_mpi_earth, seabreeze, and slabplanet tests also produce the same output as was previously seen.

It's possible that the change in the AMIP paper plots is due to incorrect radiative fluxes. We need to investigate this further and correct the physics to match the original results.

Paperplots before and after (the above links appear to be broken)
Screen Shot 2023-05-27 at 11 58 36 AM

@valeriabarra
Copy link
Member

After running some investigation, here are the shortwave and longwave (respectively) face radiation flux plots:

face_sw_flux

face_lw_flux

@valeriabarra
Copy link
Member

valeriabarra commented May 26, 2023

We also checked that the regridding before and after the PR is unchanged:
image

And that the tot energy is conserved before and after the PR:
Screen Shot 2023-05-25 at 9 59 04 AM

So the issue seems to be stemming not from the Coupler, but from some internal ClimaAtmos changes that made some configurations unstable. We need to find a new set of parameters in the Coupler to make them stable (probably changing dt or try clearsky radiation).

@LenkaNovak
Copy link
Collaborator

this was resolved here

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants