f.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.FWscHIST.ne30_L58.26c_non-orogw_on.001

[cecilehannay]

Description: FWscHIST with the same tuning as 26c with

Second run of a pair L58 F-case runs using the 26c configuration: a) without non-orographic GWs b) with non-orographic GWs. The intent here is simply to see whether L58 with SE-dycore produces anything at all in terms of a "vacillation" in the equatorial lower stratosphere and to provide a baseline for aerosols before implementing MAM5.

Relevant GW namelist settings are :

use_gw_convect_dp = .true.
use_gw_front = .true.
tau_0_ubc = .false.

Case directory: Locally (if still available): /glade/p/cesmdata/cseg/runs/cesm2_0/f.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.FWscHIST.ne30_L58.26c_non-orogw_on.001

On github: https://github.com/NCAR/amwg_dev/tree/f.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.FWscHIST.ne30_L58.26c_non-orogw_on.001

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/FWscHIST/f.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.FWscHIST.ne30_L58.26c_non-orogw_on.001/atm/

Contacts: @JulioTBacmeister, @adamrher, @dan800, @tilmes

[justin-richling]

ADF vs f.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.FWscHIST.ne30_L58.26c_non-orogw_off.001 are here

[tilmes]

@justin-richling could you add some more diagnostics to chemistry and aerosol comparisons (Tables etc), including dust AOD?

[cecilehannay]

Hi Justin Could you also add the snow diags. Thanks

[cecilehannay]

Qbo diags not snow diags. Silly corrector.

[justin-richling]

@tilmes sure thing, I'll get those now. @cecilehannay the QBO should be in the diags, check under the Special plot type

[cecilehannay]

Thank you so much.

Could you also do the qbo plot for: https://github.com/NCAR/amwg_dev/issues/190

[tilmes]

@cecilehannay where are the climatologies located on cheyenne, and also have you saved both the regular grid output and the original irregular grid output in monthly means, and created climatologies for both? If not, for future runs this is needed so I can run some budget analysis for aerosols, those have to be done with the original output, since bilinar interpolation will change the results.

[cecilehannay]

justin-richling will be able to point to the climos.

[tilmes]

@islasimpson @JulioTBacmeister We now have 2 runs, one with the orogw true and one off. We wanted to first compare CAM run. Could you help look at those runs to decide on what is the better setup, before running this with full chemistry? I am working with Justin to add more aerosol diagnostics.

[tilmes]

@adamrher I am not sure what is currently included in cam_dev, regarding reordering physics steps. Is there a place to see what is included?

[adamrher]

@adamrher I am not sure what is currently included in cam_dev, regarding reordering physics steps. Is there a place to see what is included?

cam_dev moves clubb and everything after it in tphysbc, into the top of tphysac. It preserves the process ordering of cam6 ... it just moves where we send/receive fields to/from the CPL. It also turns on ZM2. No documentation, yet.

[tilmes]

@cecilehannay @JulioTBacmeister Justin redid the AMWG tables and now we have actually numbers for AODDUT and AODVIS.

As you can see AODDUST is too large, it should be around 0.033, also AODVIS is too large. We should apply some dust tuning asap and maybe some seasalt tuning as well. However, since MAM5 will change everything, the question is if we should just move to MAM5. The large AOD is impacting the climate and all the coupled runs may be affected by it. You can also see that SWCF is way stronger than what we had before.

[cecilehannay]

If we are moving to CLUBB externals, MAM5 and PUMAS, I wonder if we should wait for any tuning.

[tilmes]

We could wait with the tuning, as long as we are not doing any further coupled runs.

[islasimpson]

I'm happy to take a look at these runs but have plots already been made in the ADF comparing the two? I'm struggling to find it in the above thread. Otherwise, could someone point me to the directories of the two runs?

[tilmes]

https://webext.cgd.ucar.edu/FWscHIST/f.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.FWscHIST.ne30_L58.26c_non-orogw_on.001/atm/f.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.FWscHIST.ne30_L58.26c_non-orogw_on.001_1979_1990_vs_f.cesm3_cam058_mom_e.FWscHIST.ne30_L58.26c_non-orogw_off.001_1979_1990/html_table/amwg_table_Case%20Comparison.html

[justin-richling]

The AOD variables lat lon plots might have been wrong, it is now updated