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

Remove ERA5 forcing option as it isn't functional #3010

Open
ekluzek opened this issue Mar 12, 2025 · 8 comments
Open

Remove ERA5 forcing option as it isn't functional #3010

ekluzek opened this issue Mar 12, 2025 · 8 comments
Assignees
Labels
bfb bit-for-bit code health improving internal code structure to make easier to maintain (sustainability) priority: low Background task that doesn't need to be done right away. size: small usability Improve or clarify user-facing options

Comments

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

ekluzek commented Mar 12, 2025

In our XML files we list ERA5 as an option, because it's an option in DATM, but that forcing option isn't valid for CTSM. There was some work at getting it to work for land and ocean, but that didn't pan out so far. Maybe it will be an option in the future, but the current version as non-functional should be removed.

@ekluzek ekluzek added this to the ctsm6.0.0 (code freeze) milestone Mar 12, 2025
@ekluzek ekluzek added code health improving internal code structure to make easier to maintain (sustainability) bfb bit-for-bit usability Improve or clarify user-facing options size: small labels Mar 12, 2025
@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Mar 12, 2025

@slevis-lmwg I'd like to assign this to you, and I'm thinking this should be part of your CRUJRA PR, because it helps compensate for the complexity that CRUJRA is adding. This might make more sense, after I finish the review there.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Mar 12, 2025

There aren't very many references so easy to do:

cime_config/buildnml:        "clm4_5_ERA5": "clm4_5_CRUv7",
cime_config/buildnml:        "clm5_0_ERA5": "clm5_0_GSWP3v1",
cime_config/buildnml:        "clm6_0_ERA5": "clm6_0_GSWP3v1",
cime_config/config_component.xml:               ERA5   (not tuned)
cime_config/config_component.xml:    <!-- 10 forcing options for each CLM physics option: CRUv7, GSWP3, cam7.0, cam6.0, cam5.0, cam4.0, QIAN, 1PT, NLDAS2, ERA5 -->
cime_config/config_component.xml:    <valid_values>clm5_0_cam6.0,clm5_0_cam7.0,clm5_0_cam5.0,clm5_0_cam4.0,clm5_0_GSWP3v1,clm5_0_CRUv7,clm5_0_QIAN,clm5_0_1PT,clm5_0_NLDAS2,clm5_0_ERA5,clm4_5_CRUv7,clm4_5_GSWP3v1,clm4_5_QIAN,clm4_5_cam6.0,clm4_5_cam7.0,clm4_5_cam5.0,clm4_5_cam4.0,clm4_5_1PT,clm4_5_NLDAS2,clm4_5_ERA5,clm6_0_CRUv7,clm6_0_GSWP3v1,clm6_0_cam6.0,clm6_0_cam7.0,clm6_0_cam5.0,clm6_0_cam4.0,clm6_0_QIAN,clm6_0_1PT,clm6_0_NLDAS2,clm6_0_ERA5</valid_values>
cime_config/config_component.xml:      <!-- Options for atm forcing are: CRU, CRUv7, GSWP3, cam6.0 (also used for DATM%CPLHIST), cam5.0, cam4.0, QIAN, WISOQIA, 1PT, NLDAS2, and ERA5) -->
cime_config/config_component.xml:      <value compset="DATM%ERA5_CLM45"   >clm4_5_ERA5</value>
cime_config/config_component.xml:      <value compset="DATM%ERA5_CLM50"   >clm5_0_ERA5</value>
cime_config/config_component.xml:      <value compset="DATM%ERA5_CLM60"   >clm6_0_ERA5</value>

@wwieder
Copy link
Contributor

wwieder commented Mar 13, 2025

I think I'd prefer to not lump this issue in with the CRUJRA pr to prevent scope creep and to keep prs manageable and focused.

I also wonder if removing ERA5 is prudent at this point, given ESPAT interest in the capability? We can discuss.

@wwieder wwieder added the next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. label Mar 13, 2025
@wwieder
Copy link
Contributor

wwieder commented Mar 13, 2025

@swensosc have you run with ERA data before?

@swensosc
Copy link
Contributor

swensosc commented Mar 13, 2025 via email

@ekluzek ekluzek removed the next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. label Mar 13, 2025
@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Mar 13, 2025

ERA5 is desired, so we want to keep it around, but will update based on Sean's work so it works correctly.

@ekluzek ekluzek added the priority: low Background task that doesn't need to be done right away. label Mar 13, 2025
@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Mar 15, 2025

@swensosc could you point us to a case you have working with ERA5?

@swensosc
Copy link
Contributor

swensosc commented Mar 17, 2025 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bfb bit-for-bit code health improving internal code structure to make easier to maintain (sustainability) priority: low Background task that doesn't need to be done right away. size: small usability Improve or clarify user-facing options
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants