Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Temporarily add back a T42 dataset for CAM #2486

Open
7 tasks done
ekluzek opened this issue Apr 23, 2024 · 14 comments · Fixed by #2495
Open
7 tasks done

Temporarily add back a T42 dataset for CAM #2486

ekluzek opened this issue Apr 23, 2024 · 14 comments · Fixed by #2495
Assignees
Labels
bfb bit-for-bit done Issues whose closing PR is done but not yet merged (pending test re-run ok) good first issue simple; good for first-time contributors priority: high High priority to fix/merge soon, e.g., because it is a problem in important configurations
Milestone

Comments

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

ekluzek commented Apr 23, 2024

Brief summary of bug

The CAM test

SMS_D_Ln9_Vnuopc.T42_T42.FSCAM.derecho_intel.cam-scam_mpace_outfrq9

fails in cesm2_3_alpha17d and will also fail for the CAM testlist.

General bug information

**CTSM version you are using:**ctsm5.2.0

Does this bug cause significantly incorrect results in the model's science? No

Configurations affected: SCAM

Details of bug

In ctsm5.2.0 we removed support for T42 surface datasets in align with the "Grids in CESM3 document".

Definition of done:

  • Create a T42 ctsm5.2.0 2000 dataset
  • rimport
  • Add it to namelist_defaults in CTSM (hgrid="64x128", for the file labeled T42) [with that as the only change]
  • Create a PR with the namelist_default change
  • Run a test of SMS_D_Ld1_Mmpi-serial.T42_T42_mg17.I2000Clm50SpRs.derecho_intel.clm-ptsRLA
  • Run (or copy from ctsm5.2.002?) aux_clm on izumi/derecho to complete the tag on master
  • Create a T42 ctsm5.3.0 2000 dataset with the 0908 datestamp to avoid breaking the namelist_defaults
@ekluzek ekluzek added tag: simple bfb priority: Immediate Highest priority, something that was unexpected labels Apr 23, 2024
@ekluzek ekluzek added this to the cesm2_3_beta17 milestone Apr 23, 2024
@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Apr 23, 2024

We should just add a 2000 surface dataset for this. And we should remove the support for it when CAM no longer needs it.

@ekluzek ekluzek added the next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. label Apr 25, 2024
@wwieder wwieder removed the next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. label Apr 25, 2024
@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg moved this from Todo to In Progress in LMWG: Near Term Priorities Apr 25, 2024
@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor

We should just add a 2000 surface dataset for this. And we should remove the support for it when CAM no longer needs it.

@ekluzek for now I will not add this one to the mksurfdata_esmf Makefile because you labeled it "temporary" but maybe the decision depends on when CAM will no longer need it.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Apr 25, 2024

@slevis-lmwg yes I actually had thought CAM had already moved away from this requirement. But, obviously not. So I've linked this to a CAM issue.

This is also a change they have committed to by CESM3, so I think we just keep this temporary file in place. In ctsm5.3.0 we'll update datasets, but leave this one in place since ctsm5.3.0 will be backwards compatible with ctsm5.2.0 datasets.

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor

slevis-lmwg commented Apr 25, 2024

I generated the new file's namelist using these settings:
./gen_mksurfdata_namelist --res T42 --start-year 2000 --end-year 2000

The new file is ready:
/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/surfdata_esmf/ctsm5.2.0/surfdata_T42_hist_2000_78pfts_c240425.nc

@ekluzek if this looks good to you, I can ./rimport the file and close this issue.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Apr 26, 2024

@slevis-lmwg awesome. I did a ncdump -h on the file and it looks great. I Actually neglected to point out other steps that need to be done, as we need a CTSM tag for this that will go into cesm2_3_alpha17f. So I listed those steps at the top.

@ekluzek ekluzek removed the priority: Immediate Highest priority, something that was unexpected label Apr 26, 2024
@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor

I checked off all the TODOs.
For the last one, I would have chosen "copy from ctsm5.2.002" since we're making a 2-line addition to an .xml file that affects nothing. But making a copy doesn't apply anymore. I just need to merge this to b4b-dev next.

@ekluzek I requested a review from you, in order to merge.

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg moved this from In Progress to Done in LMWG: Near Term Priorities Apr 26, 2024
@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Apr 30, 2024

In CSEG we figured this will likely come in with cesm2_3_beta17, but it isn't required until cesm2_3_beta18. Since, this is on the b4b-dev branch it will just come in on Thursday.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented May 3, 2024

This was done in #2495 and cam in with ctsm5.2.003.

@ekluzek ekluzek closed this as completed May 3, 2024
@samsrabin samsrabin added simple bfb bit-for-bit labels Aug 8, 2024
@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg reopened this Sep 27, 2024
@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg added the priority: high High priority to fix/merge soon, e.g., because it is a problem in important configurations label Sep 27, 2024
@ekluzek ekluzek removed this from the cesm3_0_beta02 milestone Sep 27, 2024
@ekluzek ekluzek added this to the ctsm5.3.0 milestone Sep 27, 2024
@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Sep 27, 2024

This showed up again in cesm3_0_beta03 testing as we didn't have it in place for ctsm5.3.0. We will be able to finally removing it in ctsm5.4.0 since SCAM is moving to ne3np4 soon (see #2768).

Here's the test that failed for @fischer-ncar

PEND SMS_D_Ln9.T42_T42.FSCAMMPACE.derecho_intel.cam-outfrq9s RUN
missing input file 'inputdata/lnd/clm2/surfdata_esmf/ctsm5.3.0/surfdata_T42_hist_2000_78pfts_c240908.nc' doesn't exist

@slevis-lmwg is going to make a new file and label it with the filename in namelist defaults, which will get the test to pass.

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor

I generated the mksurfdata_esmf namelist with ./gen_mksurfdata_namelist --start-year 2000 --end-year 2000 --res T42

@fischer-ncar the job is running, so the file should be ready in less than an hour here:
/glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/temp_work/new_rawdata/tools/mksurfdata_esmf/surfdata_T42_hist_2000_78pfts_c240927.nc

@fischer-ncar
Copy link
Contributor

@slevis-lmwg is it okay if I go ahead and copy surfdata_T42_hist_2000_78pfts_c240927.nc to the inputdata directory on derecho?

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, absolutely.

@fischer-ncar
Copy link
Contributor

@slevis-lmwg can you change to file creation date to c240908?

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, I had forgotten that detail.
I copied the file to /inputdata and renamed it.

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg moved this from Todo to Done in LMWG: Near Term Priorities Sep 30, 2024
@samsrabin samsrabin added good first issue simple; good for first-time contributors and removed simple labels Oct 3, 2024
@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg added the done Issues whose closing PR is done but not yet merged (pending test re-run ok) label Oct 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bfb bit-for-bit done Issues whose closing PR is done but not yet merged (pending test re-run ok) good first issue simple; good for first-time contributors priority: high High priority to fix/merge soon, e.g., because it is a problem in important configurations
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants