Add ACCESS-ESM3 #12
Conversation
anton-seaice
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't go through everything, but my main comment is - can we harmonise field names and code style with the rest of CMEPS
| nullify(is_local%wrap) | ||
| call ESMF_GridCompGetInternalState(gcomp, is_local, rc) | ||
|
|
||
| call ESMF_FieldBundleGet(is_local%wrap%FBImp(compice, compatm), fieldName='ia_aicen', field=ice_frac_cat, rc=rc) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Presumable we should be running the ChkErr error, most of the rest of the code does that
| ! to atm: from ocn | ||
| ! --------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| allocate(S_flds(3)) | ||
| S_flds = (/'So_t', 'So_u', 'So_v'/) ! sea_surface_temperature |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| S_flds = (/'So_t', 'So_u', 'So_v'/) ! sea_surface_temperature | |
| S_flds = (/'So_t', 'So_u', 'So_v'/) |
There's lots of comments like this which are wrong or only partially complete
| ! --------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| allocate(S_flds(9)) | ||
| S_flds = (/'Si_t', & | ||
| 'ia_aicen', & |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| 'ia_aicen', & | |
| 'Si_ifrac_n', & |
Should we try and reuse existing names for these ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
from
CMEPS/mediator/esmFldsExchange_cesm_mod.F90
Lines 1753 to 1754 in 63e4c6d
| project(cmeps Fortran) | ||
|
|
||
| set(SRCFILES esmFldsExchange_cesm_mod.F90 med_fraction_mod.F90 | ||
| set(SRCFILES esmFldsExchange_access_mod.F90 esmFldsExchange_cesm_mod.F90 med_fraction_mod.F90 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't use this file, so possibly this is confusing ([esmFldsExchange_hafs_mod.F90](https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/CMEPS/blob/upstream-main/mediator/esmFldsExchange_hafs_mod.F90) isn't included, for example)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It'd be nice to be able to use the same version of CMEPS in CM3 and OM3, but this CMakeList.txt is overridden in access3-share anyway, so I could put the change there. What do you think? Then we have a mediator that can compute both CM3 and OM3 fluxes.
|
|
||
| do j = 1,lsize2 | ||
| do i = 1,lsize1 | ||
| if (ice_frac_cat_ptr(i, j) > 0.0) then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if ice_frac_cat_ptr is very small, won't there be a resulting overflow in ice_flux_cat_ptr ?
|
@anton-seaice this edge case doesn't occur in CM3. CICE zaps small ice fractions and the UM considers ocean fractions <0.01 as land, which limits how small |
|
Changed base to cmeps1.1.35-x, looks like it will merge fine |
anton-seaice
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @kieranricardo
I made it as far through this as I had time for.
There are some features in esmFldsExchange_cesm which are missing here and are quite useful, including the configuration option for rof->ocn mapping files and the detection of which meshes are the same. There's also lots of duplication with the addfld/addmap/addmrg with those in cesm FldsExchange.
Would it work to call esmFldsExchange_cesm first, and then in this file, only add any extra fields needed? All the fields in esmFldsExchange_cesm are wrapped in if (fldchk(...) statements, so it should just pass over any fields which are not needed.
| !===================================================================== | ||
|
|
||
| call addfld_to(compatm, 'So_ofrac') | ||
| call addfld_to(compatm, 'Si_ifrac') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Needs an if comp_present ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not 100% on this, but I think doing the fieldchecks in esmFldsExchange_accessesm_init is sufficient (which I've now added). We can advertise whatever fields we want (which is what this does), as long as we don't try to map between fields that don't exist.
Also I can't see any comp_present checks in esmFldsExchange_cesm, so I think this should work :)
| call addmrg_to(compatm, 'sstfrz', mrg_from=compice, mrg_fld='sstfrz', mrg_type='copy') | ||
|
|
||
| allocate(S_flds(7)) | ||
| S_flds = (/'Si_ifrac_n', & |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should avoid redefining these lists twice and just reuse, them or set them as Parameters.
|
@anton-seaice and @blimlim thanks for you reviews! Re. using the
So I think we're better off just using our own self-contained module. Re. the field names, most of these names were chosen to reuse existing fields in fd.yaml. Aside from rain, there aren’t many fields with the |
| 'Sa_u', & | ||
| 'Sa_v', & |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
'Sa_v', &
Sounds like these two are not needed? But otherwise should be mappatch_uv3d ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, I was able to delete this
anton-seaice
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shall we make an issue/issues for missing features, mostly:
-configurable rof2ocn_ice_rmap and rof2ocn_liq_rmap
I went through the remapping methods and added a few questions
| ! This is a mediator specific routine that determines ALL possible | ||
| ! fields exchanged between components and their associated routing, | ||
| ! mapping and merging | ||
| !--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shall we add a note here on the general approach to remapping, e.g. which method is used for which remapping ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That might be a little complicated to capture here, but we should definitely document this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was just thinking, we use:
- conservative remapping for states and volume fluxes (temp, area fractions, runoff etc)
- patch remapping for stresses and wind
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- conservative remapping for states
Prognostic states (temperature, humidity, etc) don't need to be conservative and would be better off being something smooth, e.g. bilinear for most of them, and patch for wind speed so derivatives are continuous. Only per-area quantities (e.g. fluxes and ice fraction) need to be conservative.
Are we remapping wind stress? I'm not sure what to do with that, as we want it to be smooth (e.g. so the curl is continuous, suggesting we use patch rather than bilinear), but stress is a momentum flux and patch is not conservative. Does it cause problems if the ocean-atm stress is different for the ocean and atmosphere? Or maybe it doesn't matter, as we also don't account for the momentum of the solid earth, so we're not conserving momentum for the whole earth system anyway?
| fldchk(is_local%wrap%FBImp(compocn, compocn), trim(fldname), rc=rc) & | ||
| ) then | ||
| call addmap_from(compocn, trim(fldname), compatm, mapconsf, 'ofrac', 'unset') | ||
| call addmrg_to(compatm, trim(fldname), mrg_from=compocn, mrg_fld=trim(fldname), mrg_type='copy') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess So_u and So_v should be mappatch_uv3d
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should add an issue for these, if mappatch_uv3d works better we should use this for the stresses as well. But I think we should properly evaluate this before implementing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We use patch for tau, so surely this should be tau too ?
the _uv3d part does seem contentious, so how about just mappatch
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed - if by 3d you mean what was discussed here, then I think it's best avoided. ACCESS-NRI/access-om3-configs#1045 (comment)
| 'Sa_u', & | ||
| 'Sa_v', & | ||
| 'Sa_shum', & | ||
| 'Sa_tbot', & |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sa_tbot from atm uses mapbilnr and So_t from ocn to atm uses consf - is that correct ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was able to remove Sa_tbot, so now all our state fields are using conservative remapping. Conservative remapping is useful for ice->atm, bc it gives us a good option of weighting by ice fraction (weight by ice fraction, conservatively remap, divide by ice fraction). Also, because the atmosphere is a lot coarser that the ocean/ice grid it doesn't matter too much which re-mamping we use.
|
@anton-seaice @blimlim I've changed the coupling names around. Some choices still seem ambiguous to me, but at least we're no longer labelling fluxes from the atmosphere with |
blimlim
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @kieranricardo, this is looking good to me! The naming choices seem difficult given the restrictions from the MOM and CICE caps, and so the current decisions seem sensible. I've just added a couple points on some of the comments and arrangement of the fields.
| call addfld_to(compice, 'Faii_taux') | ||
| call addfld_to(compice, 'Faii_tauy') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would Faia be better here as they're being calculated in the atmosphere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be good for clarity to move them out of the ! precipitation section too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nice catch! I'll change this
|
@blimlim and @anton-seaice thanks for your comments! Things are ready for another review |
|
Could you update the access3-share build please ? ACCESS-NRI/access3-share#28 Their were some gcc build failures that might still need addressing ? |
| ! mapping and merging | ||
|
|
||
| ! In general, first order conservative remapping is used for flux fields | ||
| ! and bilinear remapping is used for flux fields. Wind stress is a special case |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
and bilinear remapping is used for flux fields
Should this be for state fields? I guess it's a bit complicated as there's a mix of bilinear, conservative, and patch. Is something like In general, first order conservative remapping is used for flux fields and a mix of bilinear, patch, and conservative remapping are used for state fields depending on the field and mapping direction too vague?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, how about:
! In general, first order conservative remapping is used for flux fields
! while bilinear remapping is applied to state fields.
! Velocity and stress fields are remapped using a higher order patch method.
! Some sea-ice related fields are conservatively remapped with weighting by ice fraction.
!---------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, that reads well to me :)
|
@anton-seaice here's an |
|
@anton-seaice gcc issues are fixed now! |
anton-seaice
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks Kieran
Please write a clear commit description and use a squash commit
blimlim
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @kieranricardo, this is looking good to me
Co-authored-by: Anton Steketee <79179784+anton-seaice@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Anton Steketee <79179784+anton-seaice@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Spencer Wong <88933912+blimlim@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Spencer Wong <88933912+blimlim@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Spencer Wong <88933912+blimlim@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Spencer Wong <88933912+blimlim@users.noreply.github.com>
246796a to
5a222d0
Compare
…c-cmeps1.1.31-x # Conflicts: # mediator/med_field_info_mod.F90 # mediator/med_methods_mod.F90
Description of changes
CM3 related changes to CMEPS. This adds an "access" coupling mode and associate field exchange module. Also adds in a custom access coupling routine to "mep_phases_post_atm_mod.F90".
Specific notes
Contributors other than yourself, if any: @blimlim
Are changes expected to change answers? No, this shouldn't affect OM3.