source_id registration of E3SM-1-1-ELM

[climate-dude]

label = E3SM 1.1 Land Model label_extended = E3SM 1.1 (Energy Exascale Earth System Model) ELM (E3SM Land Model) Offline source_id = E3SM-1-1-ELM institution_id = RUBISCO release_year = 2019 activity_participation = [LS3MIP]

aerosol: description = none nominal_resolution = none atmos: description = none nominal_resolution = none atmosChem: description = none nominal_resolution = none land: description = ELM (v1.1, 0.5 degree latitude/longitude grid, active biogeochemistry mode where p1=CTC (Converging Trophic Cascade) and p2=ECA (Equilibrium Chemical Approximation)) nominal_resolution = 50 km
landIce: description = none nominal_resolution = none ocean: description = none nominal_resolution = none ocnBgchem: description = none nominal_resolution = none seaIce: description = none nominal_resolution = none

[durack1]

Awaiting info from #761

[durack1]

@climate-dude I'm a little confused how this relates to E3SM-1-0 which includes the description:

ELM (v1.0, cubed sphere spectral-element grid; 5400 elements with p=3;
1 deg average grid spacing; 90 x 90 x 6 longitude/latitude/cubeface;
satellite phenology mode), MOSART (v1.0, 0.5 degree latitude/longitude grid)

Surely v1.1 of the same code is also on a cubed sphere grid? And what is the river routing scheme? Also how does RUBISCO relate to E3SM-Project

@mccoy20 @taylor13 pinging you both here

[climate-dude]

@durack1 @mccoy20 @taylor13 The proposed source_id (E3SM-1-1-ELM) is for a model configuration using ELM from E3SM v1.1 in offline mode for LS3MIP simulations that are performed on a regular 0.5 degree lat/lon grid, not in satellite phenology mode but with active biogeochemistry.

We presently have CTC biogeochemistry, but may in the future have ECA biogeochemistry simulations; hence the note about these two "physics" options (which should be "biology" options).

I am working to confirm if we used MOSART for those simulations or not. If we did, we should add the MOSART description as well.

We did not use the cubed sphere spectral-element grid for these simulations and there are no other active component models, which are described in the E3SM-1-0 source_id.

[taylor13]

@climate-dude This is a wrinkle that wasn't anticipated in that output from a component model that is not yet being used in a coupled simulation is submitted to CMIP6. Normally, the offline component model should have a source_id that is the same as the coupled host. (That way users can check whether some behavior in coupled mode can be traced to an isolated component.) The specifications for source_id are given in note 13 following Table 1 of https://goo.gl/v1drZl .

If ELM is indeed the land model used in the coupled model E3SM v1.1, and if it is not expected that a different v1.1 of E3SM will be released, then I think the source_id should simply be E3SM-1-1 (without the ELM suffix). The fact that a simulation was produced only by the land surface model run offline would be indicated in the output files with the global attribute source_type = "LAND".

If multiple variants on E3SM v1.1 are anticipated, they could be distinguished by different values being assigned to the global attribute physics_index.

Please also note that multiple institutions can run the same model (source_id). As an example, see HadGEM3-GC31-HM. So if RUBISCO performs the land-only simulations, and later E3SM-Project submits coupled runs, that's o.k.

If you think there is a better way to handle this, please let us know.

[climate-dude]

@taylor13 Thank you for the guidance. It makes sense that the source_id should not change when some model components are inactive as described in note 13 following Table 1 of https://goo.gl/v1drZl. This suggests that we might want to register a source_id of E3SM-1-1 and fully describe the typical coupled model configuration therein.

Since source_ids appear to include grid information in component model descriptions, it's not clear to me how to correctly identify different native grids that may be used for various sets of experiments in different model configurations. Does this information belong somewhere else? Table 1 of https://goo.gl/v1drZl does not appear to allow for having gn1, gn2, ..., as native grid specifiers, but implies there is only one native grid and that other options are regridded results. Do we specify all potential native grids and nominal_resolutions in the source_id record?

For these land model simulations, we are turning on biogeochemistry, so it is different physics from the land model described in E3SM-1-0, besides being a later version of the modeling system. So I take it that if we propose E3SM-1-1, its default configuration would have land biogeochemistry on (instead of using satellite phenology). Then, since there are two major terrestrial biogeochemical schemes that each can be run in three different modes, we would denote this:

physics_index = 1 for CTC with C, N, P physics_index = 2 for CTC with C, N physics_index = 3 for CTC with C physics_index = 4 for ECA with C, N, P physics_index = 5 for ECA with C, N physics_index = 6 for ECA with C

Does that seem reasonable? Then if another institution uses this same model, they should also use the same physics specifications, adding any others they wish to define?

Thanks for your time and consideration!

[mccoy20]

Hi @taylor13 , @climate-dude, @durack1, I will be registering Coupled E3SM-1-1 (model with CTC as default E3SM 1.1 model), and E3SM-1-1-ECA ( model with ECA). I need to check for the final decision on the exact naming scheme, make sure everyone agrees. Then Forrest can register the ELM component as part of the appropriate Coupled model. I will finalize the names next week and then proceed with the registration. Cheers, Renata

[durack1]

@mccoy20 @climate-dude just circling around on this, is there any progress on the E3SM-1-1 registration? @climate-dude I assume the registration in limbo is not holding you up in submitting simulations?

[mccoy20]

@climate-dude @durack1 - two E3SM-1-1 issues for registration are now open, see
E3SM-1-1 (as default model with CTC) #775 E3SM-1-1-ECA (model with experimental ECA ) #776

[durack1]

@climate-dude now that we have the registrations for the E3SM-1-1 #775 in place, what amendments are required to the above to get this finalized so I can process the registration?

[durack1]

@climate-dude I assume this is no longer needed, and if so, I'll close at the end of the week. If the registration is still required, please let us know

[climate-dude]

@durack1 Yes, I think this one can go away. I do have some comments/suggestions about the other registrations (#775 and #776) for E3SM-1-1 that I will add comments for on those issues.