b.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.B1850MOM.ne30_L32_t061.cam6_cice5.017

[cecilehannay]

Description:
Same as #144 but with the se_dycore

We are using the same clubb tuning parameters as in 016 (#144).

clubb_gamma_coef   =  0.298
clubb_c14 = 2.2D0
clubb_l_trapezoidal_rule_zm          =  .true.  
clubb_l_trapezoidal_rule_zt          =  .true.

The dycore se parameters are set the same way as 009 (#136)

interpolate_output = .true.,.true.
interpolate_nlat = 192,192
interpolate_nlon = 288,288
se_rsplit            = 3
se_nsplit           = 2
se_hypervis_subcycle =  4

ncdata and topo are set to:

ncdata = '/glade/p/cesm/amwg_dev/juliob/cam_ic_files/se_dycore/FWsc_ne30pg3_32L_CAM_32L_grid_Top_42km.nc'
bnd_topo =              '/glade/p/cgd/amp/pel/topo/cesm3/ne30pg3_gmted2010_bedmachine_nc3000_Co060_20220427.nc' 

Case directory:
Locally (if still available):
/glade/p/cesmdata/cseg/runs/cesm2_0/b.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.B1850MOM.ne30_L32_t061.cam6_cice5.017

On github:
https://github.com/NCAR/amwg_dev/tree/b.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.B1850MOM.ne30_L32_t061.cam6_cice5.017

Sandbox:
Locally (if still available):
/glade/work/hannay/cesm_tags/cesm3_cam6_3_058_MOM_e

On github:
hash: 8f70c08

Diagnostics:
AMWG diags (if available)
https://webext.cgd.ucar.edu/B1850MOM/b.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.B1850MOM.ne30_L32_t061.cam6_cice5.017/atm/

Contacts:
@JulioTBacmeister, @cecilehannay

[adamrher]

Can you explain where clubb_gamma_coef = 0.298 comes from? There is no namelist_default for that value:

<clubb_gamma_coef                                 > 0.308               </clubb_gamma_coef>
<clubb_gamma_coef hgrid="1.9x2.5"                 > 0.280               </clubb_gamma_coef>
<clubb_gamma_coef dyn="se"                        > 0.270               </clubb_gamma_coef>

[cecilehannay]

@JulioTBacmeister or @PeterHjortLauritzen:

Which topo do you want to use in that run?

Out of the box I am getting:

bnd_topo  = '/glade/p/cesmdata/cseg/inputdata/atm/cam/topo/se/ne30pg3_nc3000_Co060_Fi001_PF_nullRR_Nsw042_20171014.nc'

It seems a bit archaic.

We decided we don't want to use the no-leaky topo in this run. But do we want to use a more recent version of the topo just before introducing the no-leaky topo. For instance:

bnd_topo  = '/glade/p/cgd/amp/pel/topo/cesm3/ne30pg3_gmted2010_bedmachine_nc3000_Co060_20220427.nc'

[cecilehannay]

@adamrher:
This comes from the tuning Gustavo did for cam6+mom6+cice5

Can you explain where clubb_gamma_coef = 0.298 comes from? There is no namelist_default for that value:

<clubb_gamma_coef                                 > 0.308               </clubb_gamma_coef>
<clubb_gamma_coef hgrid="1.9x2.5"                 > 0.280               </clubb_gamma_coef>
<clubb_gamma_coef dyn="se"                        > 0.270               </clubb_gamma_coef>

[justin-richling]

Most recent Time series:

[cecilehannay]

Thanks @justin-richling. It is great.
I think that in the next plots, we can drop 014 and just keep Gustavo's control, 009, 016, 017.

[justin-richling]

ADF diags for 0017 (as of 7:00 MDT) vs:
Gustavo's bmom.e23.f09_t061_zstar_N65.nuopc.GM_tuning.002

016

This case is finishing up shortly
009

[justin-richling]

Thanks @justin-richling. It is great. I think that in the next plots, we can drop 014 and just keep Gustavo's control, 009, 016, 017.

Sounds good, I'll take note!

[cecilehannay]

I am trying to determine the values we want to use for the 018. Basically, 018 = 017 + some tuning to make the cloud thicker and get RESTOM closer to balance. 017 is still short and it is hard to determine where RESTOM will end up. But it is clear it is too large.
In 018, we are not trying to get RESTOM to zero but at least closer.

I think we are going to need to modify both gamma_coef and c_14.
Based on the value of these parameters in 011 and 012, I suggest we use the values below for 018.

---

< 011: RESTOM = 1.08 W/m2 (yr 20-40)
> 012: RESTOM = 0.126 W/m2 (yr 1-18) 
 
<  clubb_c14            =  2.2D0  
>  clubb_c14            = 1.6D0

<  clubb_gamma_coef             =  0.308  
>  clubb_gamma_coef             = 0.270

---

< 017   RESTOM = 2.24 W/m2 (yr 1-7) but dropping. 
> 018  = RESTOM closer to zero
 
<  clubb_c14            =  2.2D0  
>  clubb_c14            = 1.6D0

< clubb_gamma_coef               = 0.298
> clubb_gamma_coef               = 0.270

---

@JulioTBacmeister and @adamrher: thoughts?

[adamrher]

@cecilehannay Are there any other differences between 11 and 12, besides clubb_gamma and clubb_c14? Both have the same CICE version?

[adamrher]

I think it's a good plan, if the only difference between 11 and 12 is those two clubb parameters.

we could alternatively leave those alone, and switch off the trapezoidal rule. Or is that what the last simulation was --and it's too hard a kick to the cloud forcing?

[cecilehannay]

I thought about this but I was concerned it would get us too far.

In 016 versus 014, the change in RESTOM from the ADF table is -2.2 W/m2, although I am not sure on which years the climos were computed in that table. (@justin-richling ?)

I would rather have RESTOM a bit positive than a bit negative. It is why I am suggesting adjusting gamma_coef and c14.

[adamrher]

OK. I'm wondering if we should maybe leave gamma alone, and instead increase C8. If you recall all the way back Jiang Zhu's talk on the Eocene simulations in April (here), C8 is an alternative way to impact the skewness. clubb_gamma hits it really hard because it controls a PDF parameter - the width of the w' distribution. But C8 does it through a more natural way, in that it is the damping coefficient on the prognostic w'^3 equation. Increasing C8 will reduce skewness, which will increase cloud thickness.

Vince seems more comfortable with this approach versus clubb gamma. Jiang increase C8=4.2->5.2. Maybe we should do a separate experiment ... run 17 but with C8=5.2?

[JulioTBacmeister]

Trying out a couple of different clubb parameters sounds like a good idea to me

…

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 4:32 PM Adam Herrington ***@***.***> wrote: OK. I'm wondering if we should maybe leave gamma alone, and instead increase C8. If you recall all the way back Jiang Zhu's talk on the Eocene simulations in April (here <https://drive.google.com/file/d/11bCewR7HdpQeLPlUGPY512CC314H_wEz/view>), C8 is an alternative way to impact the w' field. clubb_gamma hits it really hard because it controls a PDF parameter - the width of the w' distribution. But C8 does it through a more natural way, in that it is the damping coefficient on the prognostic w' equation. C8 controls the damping on coefficeint in the w' equation, and so you can reduce the skewness by cranking it up, which will increase cloud thickness. Vince seems more comfortable with this approach versus clubb gamma. Jiang increase C8=4.2->5.2. Maybe we should do a separate experiment ... run 17 plus C8=5.2? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#145 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACGLMTQEVCZMQMNX4AMUT43VWRLWPANCNFSM543DUVAA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[cecilehannay]

I can set 018 with

> clubb_c14            = 1.6D0
> clubb_gamma_coef               = 0.270

and 019 with

 clubb_c8               =  5.2 

Then we would look during the week end how the RESTOM look in these.

[adamrher]

sounds like a plan. And for 19, gamma/c14 are using their run 17 values.

[justin-richling]

I thought about this but I was concerned it would get us too far.

In 016 versus 014, the change in RESTOM from the ADF table is -2.2 W/m2, although I am not sure on which years the climos were computed in that table. (@justin-richling ?)

I would rather have RESTOM a bit positive than a bit negative. It is why I am suggesting adjusting gamma_coef and c14.

@cecilehannay It looks like for 014 the years were 0001-0014 and 016 were 0001-0040