b.e23_alpha16g.BLT1850.ne30_t232.070

[cecilehannay]

Purpose: The purpose of the simulation is to create a new baseline with all the mods that we expect will go on the trunk.

---

Description: Same as 54 (https://github.com/NCAR/amwg_dev/issues/420) except:

• revert mods to the ice cloud fraction as in 61 (https://github.com/NCAR/amwg_dev/issues/434)

• add gustiness as in 64 (https://github.com/NCAR/amwg_dev/issues/440)

• Limiter for new vapor deposition on snow in PUMAS as in 68 (https://github.com/NCAR/amwg_dev/issues/445)

  ---

  Case directory:

• Locally (if still available): /glade/p/cesmdata/cseg/runs/cesm2_0/b.e23_alpha16g.BLT1850.ne30_t232.070

• On github: https://github.com/NCAR/amwg_dev/tree/b.e23_alpha16g.BLT1850.ne30_t232.070

  ---

  Sandbox:

• Locally (if still available): /glade/work/hannay/cesm_tags/cesm2_3_alpha16g

• On github: https://github.com/ESCOMP/cesm/tree/cesm2_3_alpha16g

  ---

  Diagnostics:

• Diags (if available): https://webext.cgd.ucar.edu/BLT1850/b.e23_alpha16g.BLT1850.ne30_t232.070/

  ---

  Output:

• Raw output on derecho (if still available): /glade/derecho/scratch/hannay/archive/b.e23_alpha16g.BLT1850.ne30_t232.070/

• CAM Climos: /glade/campaign/cgd/amp/amwg/climo/b.e23_alpha16g.BLT1850.ne30_t232.070

  ---

  Contacts: @cecilehannay

  ---

  Extra details: @adamrher @JulioTBacmeister @PeterHjortLauritzen @megandevlan @swrneale

[megandevlan]

Just for sanity, we should ensure that the shr_flux_mod file is updated (I'll send a path in a second). There was an update back in October that I missed and just found with the CMEPS PR, wherein the neutral drag coefficient at 10 m (cdn) has a new limiter placed on it when U10 > 33 m/s. I don't think it has a big impact, but we should be using the most up to date version.

Edit to add: The updated path is here - /glade/work/mdfowler/gust_cam7/cesm2_3_alpha16g/components/cmeps/cesm/flux_atmocn/shr_flux_mod.F90

[cecilehannay]

Thanks, megandevlan. I was your run request but the run 70 has already completed 10 years. (I started that run after the CESM meeting on Tuesday).

If you want I could base the new run you requested in #450 on 70 instead of 64. What do you think? Would it make sense?

[megandevlan]

Thanks @cecilehannay! Nevermind on 70. I think let's base #450 on #64 still; at least that'll be consistent. Ideally, there will be a good difference between the two and it'll be attributable only to the gust strength.

[swrneale]

Definitely agree with basing it off 64 still, yes.

[cecilehannay]

I ran the diags for 70. It is still shorter but it might need a bit of balancing with RESTOM=-0.6 W/m2 for the first 11 years.