b.e30_beta04.BLT1850.ne30_t232_wgx3.116

[cecilehannay]

Purpose:
Add the new dust + latest dust tuning, adjust sea-salt and reduce c8

---

Description:
Same as #17 except:

• add to user_nl_cam

seasalt_emis_scale = 1.0D0
clubb_c8=  4.4
dust_emis_method = 'Leung_2023'
dust_emis_fact = 2.3

---

Case directory:

• Locally (if still available):
  /glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/cseg/runs/cesm2_0/b.e30_beta04.BLT1850.ne30_t232_wgx3.116

• On github:
  https://github.com/NCAR/cesm_dev/tree/b.e30_beta04.BLT1850.ne30_t232_wgx3.116

---

Sandbox:

• Locally (if still available): /glade/work/hannay/cesm_tags/cesm3_0_beta04
• On github: https://github.com/ESCOMP/cesm/tree/cesm3_0_beta04

---

Diagnostics:

• Diags (if available):
  https://webext.cgd.ucar.edu/BLT1850/b.e30_beta04.BLT1850.ne30_t232_wgx3.116/

---

Output:

• Raw output on derecho (if still available): /glade/derecho/scratch/hannay/archive/b.e30_beta04.BLT1850.ne30_t232_wgx3.116/
• CAM Climos: /glade/campaign/cgd/amp/amwg/climo/b.e30_beta04.BLT1850.ne30_t232_wgx3.116

---

Contacts:
@cecilehannay @dlawrenncar, @JulioTBacmeister, @adamrher, @PeterHjortLauritzen, @wwieder

---

Extra details:

[wwieder]

I think we want this run to use the new land initial conditions files that are consistent with the updated surface dataset and parameter file that were developed for the beta04 tag. @gustavo-marques can this run be stopped with the following namelist changes for CLM, or are you wanting this simulation to be consistent with #18 and #17, @cecilehannay?

finidat = '/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/initdata_esmf/ctsm5.3/ctsm53n04ctsm52028_ne30pg3t232_BgcCrop_exice_pSASU.clm60.r.0121-01-01.nc'

reseed_dead_plants = .true.

! turn off shifting cultivation
do_grossunrep = .false.

! do this for isotopes
use_c13 = .true.
use_c14 = .true.
use_c13_timeseries = .true.
use_c14_bombspike = .true.

[cecilehannay]

@wwieder: I can do another run if I you want (if you think it is worth it).

[wwieder]

At some point it think it would be helpful to use land initial conditions that are reflective of the parameters and surface dataset we're running with, but maybe it's not that critical since the climate the land is seeing is likely also different in these coupled runs.

[cecilehannay]

@adamrher: This run is still short but from a quick look, it looks like RESTOM is going to be out of balance. Should we bring c8 to where it was in 114? I am not even sure it will be enough. Thoughts?

[adamrher]

I expected RESTOM would be not be in balance -- in particular I am guessing it's positive. That's OK, let's just keep running at least 20 years so we can understand where we are at.

[dlawrenncar]

When we get a sense of what RESTOM is, could we see a map and/or a longitudinal average. The land group would like to think about whether or not albedos could be adjust to help, but it would be good to know if this seems like a tropical problem or a high latitude problem, if it can be established.

…

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 12:44 PM Adam Herrington ***@***.***> wrote: I expected RESTOM would be not be in balance -- in particular I am guessing it's positive. That's OK, let's just keep running at least 20 years so we can understand where we are at. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#19 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFABYVAYROZZLWHMJJKKN6D2AOTYXAVCNFSM6AAAAABRTBAE5CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDINZUGU4TMNBWG4> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[adamrher]

The RESTOM in #116 starts at +2 W/m2, and quickly descends down to +1 W/m2. So it's definitely problematic. However I'd suggest that we continue this run for 60 years or so because we can test the hypothesis that the cool SSTs in #112 degrades ENSO variability

I prefer to evaluate biases in PD, and so I'll plan to have for you Tuesday some bias plots of the radiative fluxes based on an F-case equivalent of 116. Are you separately able to compare the current land albedo to obs?

I'm also going to do another F-case like 116, but cranking up the seasalt_emis_fact=1.5. This degrades the AODVIS skill, but what I've discovered today is our clear-sky net shortwave at the TOA is about +3 W/m2 too high compared to ceres-ed4.1, even though the AOD is "correct". I'd argue it's more important to have the correct radiative fluxes rather than the correct AOD, as how the model uses a given AOD to compute the radiative fluxes is highly uncertain.

[dlawrenncar]

OK. @wwieder Some evaluation of land albedo would be good for the next CESM Project meeting, perhaps looking at run 116 and also comparing it to land-only runs to get a sense of how the albedo bias is affected by the coupled climate.

[olyson]

Land diagnostics are here

[wwieder]

You're amazing. Thanks @olyson

[cecilehannay]

@olyson or @slevis-lmwg: would you mind adding the land diags for

/glade/derecho/scratch/hannay/archive/b.e30_beta04.BLT1850.ne30_t232_wgx3.116
versus
/glade/derecho/scratch/hannay/archive/f.e30_alpha04a.FMTHIST.ne30_L93_tuning.008

We noticed large differences in AODDUST between our B cases and our F cases. That said the setting is very different between B and F cases:

• B case: 1850, low top and CLM%BGC
• F case: 2000-2010, high top top and CLM%SP
  TLAI, FV, and H2OSOI etc will all look different, so differences in AODDUST is expected.

However, Danny would like to look at the land diagnostics to make sure everything looks ok. This is the reason we are requesting this comparison. Thanks a bunch.

@dmleung @adamrher @tilmes

[slevis-lmwg]

I will try to address this request over the weekend.