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

Create FATES BCI user_mods on Derecho so we can run it for tests and FATES applications #2159

Open
4 tasks
adrifoster opened this issue Sep 14, 2023 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement new capability or improved behavior of existing capability science Enhancement to or bug impacting science

Comments

@adrifoster
Copy link
Collaborator

adrifoster commented Sep 14, 2023

We'd like to have a Barro Colorado Island (BCI) config for FATES - and call it "scientifically supported" so that we'd have an out-of-the-box configuration for FATES that CTSM folks can use.

For this, we just need relevant input files for BCI - from @rgknox or @ckoven or @glemieux ?

Thanks!

Definition of done:

@adrifoster
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@glemieux has files for this already on Cheyenne so I will use those for now

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

ekluzek commented Sep 14, 2023

@adrifoster in the ccs_config issue I propose the name be...

1x1_barro_co_islandPC

That follows the convention used for other sites, but we can modify it it would be better...

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

ekluzek commented Sep 14, 2023

Note, that doing this also provides us at least one site without a cold start so resolves this issue:

#1277

@ekluzek ekluzek changed the title Create FATES BCI user_mods on Cheyenne and Izumi so we can run it for tests and FATES applications Create FATES BCI user_mods on Derecho so we can run it for tests and FATES applications Feb 9, 2024
@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

ekluzek commented Feb 9, 2024

This relates to #2356

@ekluzek ekluzek added next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. and removed next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. labels Feb 9, 2024
@wwieder
Copy link
Contributor

wwieder commented Feb 15, 2024

In the FATES call today Charlie mentioned that BCI runs are forced with observed, high frequency meterology. This makes me wonder if a test that uses global (or subset) DATM data is warranted as a system test for running a 'generic single point' using subset_data? In the SE meeting @slevis-lmwg also suggested that the smallville tests should accomplish this?

@ekluzek and @slevis-lmwg I'll let you evaluate if we have sufficient testing for the CTSM5.2 PR.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

ekluzek commented Feb 15, 2024

@wwieder this is a post ctsm5.2.0 activity. It's in the CTSM5.2 board as post CTSM5.2 work.

But, I am excited that we have MET data for BCI, that is really awesome. So that takes care of having a case that has tower site data that's not part of PLUMBER2 or NEON. I'd really like to see this case functional to make running a calibrated FATES site easy for the CTSM community.

I'm going to look into the other idea of having a test for subset_data with datm data and open an issue if that's missing. I need to check into the existing smallville tests to make sure it would be useful. I agree if we have that case covered there is no need for it...

@ekluzek ekluzek added the next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. label Mar 27, 2024
@samsrabin samsrabin removed the next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. label Mar 28, 2024
@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

ekluzek commented May 16, 2024

We talked about this as something we would still like to do and have available. It would be nice to have it available in the CESM3 release for example as a calibrated FATES site that users can use. But, it isn't the highest priority and we don't have resources to do it right now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement new capability or improved behavior of existing capability science Enhancement to or bug impacting science
Projects
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants