Some WC14to60E2r3 have updated bathymetry and need bump in revision number

[vanroekel]

The non-spun up WC14to60E2r3 ocean initial condition with the date stamp 210210 updated bathymetry in #4091 and did not bump revision number. This change in non spun up IC then propagated to the ICG files with date stamps 210210 and 210226 the latter date stamp was used in the production NARRM simulations for the v2 DECK.

[vanroekel]

@xylar I confirmed that the production NARRM v2 DECK sims did use the new bathymetry. Here is the summary of what files have changed

The non spun up ICs
ocean.WC14to60E2r3.200714.nc
and
ocean.WC14to60E2r3.210210.nc

use different bathymetry

there are 3 spun up conditions
mpaso.WC14to60E2r3.rstFromG-anvil.201002.nc - pre #4091
mpaso.WC14to60E2r3.rstFromG-anvil.210210.nc -- post #4091
mpaso.WC14to60E2r3.rstFromG-anvil.210226.nc -- post #4127

the second two utilize different bathymetry from the first and the 210226 stamp is used in the NARRM production run.

I think given the use of this new bathymetry in the production run we'll need PRs to maint2 and maint2.1 as well when we create the WC14to60E2r4 directory. Is that right @jonbob?

I will note this change on the NARRM registration page for CMIP6 as well.

[vanroekel]

pinging @milenaveneziani as well

[xylar]

Since we already had a WCAtl12to45E2r4 in https://github.com/MPAS-Dev/compass/pull/60, we will need to use r5 for this updated version of the mesh, I believe.

[xylar]

I can't find any PR anywhere that would account for updating the WC mesh to the new bathymetry so I think this must have been done "off the books".

[xylar]

I will go ahead and make the WC14to60E2r5 directory and populate it so that we can make the corresponding PRs.

[vanroekel]

@xylar I think the compass PR you mention is for a different mesh where we had a RRS like mesh in the Atlantic and not the WC14. I do think this one would be the r4 mesh.

[xylar]

I believe I have all the ocean and sea ice files in place in the following locations: https://web.lcrc.anl.gov/public/e3sm/inputdata/ocn/mpas-o/WC14to60E2r5/ https://web.lcrc.anl.gov/public/e3sm/inputdata/ice/mpas-seaice/WC14to60E2r5/ https://web.lcrc.anl.gov/public/e3sm/diagnostics/maps/ https://web.lcrc.anl.gov/public/e3sm/diagnostics/mpas_analysis/maps/ https://web.lcrc.anl.gov/public/e3sm/diagnostics/mpas_analysis/region_masks/

I believe permissions are also correct. @vanroekel, would you be willing to make a PR to update E3SM itself accordingly? I believe we will also need @jonbob to copy some domain and mapping files.

Notes:

• I have used today's date for the ocean and sea-ice initial conditions and partition files. I think this is appropriate. They are based on the 210210 initial condition but metadata has been added so it doesn't feel appropriate to me to keep that original date. I can rerun with that date if folks disagree.
• The names of the initial conditions start with mpaso and mpassi as produced by files_for_e3sm. If we want these to be ocean. and seaice, we should change these in files_for_e3sm so we don't have to manually rename, but I personally think the more specific names are better.
• The sea-ice initial condition and partition files are in mpas-seaice not mpas-cice (where the WC14to60E2r3 data is found).

[xylar]

@xylar I think the compass PR you mention is for a different mesh where we had a RRS like mesh in the Atlantic and not the WC14. I do think this one would be the r4 mesh.

@vanroekel, my understanding of our naming conventions is that different meshes with the same prefix (WC in this case) get different revision numbers regardless of differences like refinement in the Atlantic. Thus, WCAtl was considered another WC mesh and was given revision 4 already. I feel pretty strongly that WC...r4 is taken already and that this would need to be r5.

[vanroekel]

I did not think of it that way. I also had wondered why the WCAtl was an r4 and this explains why. It does make a ton of sense to have WC be the whole family of meshes that were related to water cycle. I did not at all feel strongly about the r4, just wanted to make sure we were consistent. So I completely agree with the r5 label.

[vanroekel]

And to above, I will make the PRs

[proteanplanet]

@vanroekel Please can you ping me when the PR is created. I would like to take a look at this mesh.

[vanroekel]

@proteanplanet If you just want to look at the mesh, you can do so now as @xylar already took care of this, the mesh is here https://web.lcrc.anl.gov/public/e3sm/inputdata/ocn/mpas-o/WC14to60E2r5/