ESCOMP / ESCOMP/CTSM

Problems with the 2010_control use-case for BgcCrop

Open
#3,621 3 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub
bug non-b4b priority: low science size: small
Dominant language
Fortran
Stars
352
Forks
361
Avg merge
2d 21h
Merged PRs (30d)
7

Description

### Brief summary of bug

The 2010_control use-case has been needed because CAM does some testing with 2010 compsets. We don't have 2010 surface datasets (and have decided to continue not having them). So the use-case sets

sim_year=2000

to get the closest surface dataset. But, then any namelist logic that depends on sim_year being correct uses 2000 rather than 2010.

So the only way to get around that is to explicitly set the namelist settings in the 2010_control.xml file, rather than rely on sim_year in the namelist_defaults. So the cases that rely on just sim_year in the namelist_defaults file won't function correctly.

### General bug information

**CTSM version you are using:**ctsm5.3.085

**Does this bug cause significantly incorrect results in the model's science?** Yes, inconsistent settings

**Configurations affected:**

2010 compsets with BgcCrop (Sp is tested and fine).

### Details of bug

Some of the crop stream settings are set to 2000 rather than 2010

grepping for 2000 in the CaseDocs namelists we see these problems:

``` fortran
model_year_align_cropcal_cultivar_gdds = 2000
model_year_align_cropcal_swindows = 2000
stream_fldfilename_swindow_end = '/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/cropdata/calendars/processed/swindow_ends_ggcmi_crop_calendar_phase3_v1.01.2000-2000.20231005_145103.tweaked_latlons.nc'
stream_fldfilename_swindow_start = '/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/cropdata/calendars/processed/swindow_starts_ggcmi_crop_calendar_phase3_v1.01.2000-2000.20231005_145103.tweaked_latlons.nc'
stream_year_first_cropcal_cultivar_gdds = 2000
stream_year_first_cropcal_swindows = 2000
stream_year_last_cropcal_cultivar_gdds = 2000
stream_year_last_cropcal_swindows = 2000
```

### Important details of your setup / configuration so we can reproduce the bug

I saw this in other cases I was testing and then figured this reproducer:

``` shell
./create_test SMS_D_Ld1_PS.f19_f19_mt232.2010_DATM%GSWP3v1_CLM60%BGC-CROP_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV.derecho_intel.clm-clm60cam7LndTuningMode -r . --no-build
```

The only 2010 test we have is with Sp on, so it works fine:

SMS_D_Ld1_PS.f19_f19_mg17.I2010Clm50Sp.derecho_intel.clm-clm50cam6LndTuningMode--clm-nofireemis

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

Assessment

This issue has not been assessed yet.

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.