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

Investigate new instability in mid-resolution AMIP benchmark #460

Closed
19 tasks done
LenkaNovak opened this issue Oct 6, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed
19 tasks done

Investigate new instability in mid-resolution AMIP benchmark #460

LenkaNovak opened this issue Oct 6, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@LenkaNovak
Copy link
Collaborator

LenkaNovak commented Oct 6, 2023

Unconverged surface fluxes arise after the last series of upgrades, after ~120 sim days. This needs thorough investigation.

Builds

  • Benchmark longrun fails after 120d with this configuration, though this used to run 140d+

  • August benchmark w/o CO2 with this config

  • Emulating atmos aquaplanet in coupled and not coupled scenario - atmos yml config

    • w CO2 - crash 5d
    • w/o CO2 - crash 10d
    • uncoupled - both w CO2 & without still running
  • long runs with different UFs ... coming up

  • spin up of new_target dominated by tropical convection... this was resolved by using less abrupt initial conditions in the surface.

Findings

  • maxiter may be an issue
  • Better stability may be achievable with other UFs (Businger rn) - use FDScheme if so
  • coarse benchmarks expected to be inaccurate, since dz_1 = 500m
  • LSM - ppt fluxes opposite to convention; possibly an extra E term in melt
  • W and sigma S can become negative : e.g. here the evaporative flux and snow fraction are based on the previous timestep
  • race condition in land albedo read #470
  • may need to dss P_liq and P_snow
  • even when calculating flux at atmos substeps e_tot is not conserved.
  • atmos calls this ts with maxiter 3 and rtol 0.003. Seems overly restrictive and fails with seemingly ok states.
  • current atmos T_init_sfc seems to be quite extreme and crashes most coarse runs
  • using the same T_init as atmos + constant SST in the slab ocean breaks
    • T is set properly - but still crashes (build 275)
    • try update_surface_conditions! from the coupler in the model update
      • prescribing T_sfc etc crashes (still conserving) build
      • update_surface_conditions! without changing the initial ts , but still calculating fluxes outside at dt_cpl build
      • stepping from within atmos build
    • check all other MOST parameters are consistent - z0m,b
    • local runs
      • standalone atmos - nocouple
      • standalone atmos - 400s couple; fluxes during Atmos stepping, no update sim -> identical to the above
      • standalone atmos - 400s couple; fluxes during Atmos stepping, with update sim T -> identical to the above
      • standalone atmos - 400s couple; fluxes during Atmos stepping, with update sim T, alpha -> identical to the above (with alpha = 0.38)
      • coupled atmos - dt_cpl=400s; fluxes during dt_cpl, with update sim T, alpha, constant ocean -> small qualitative differences (e.g. F_turb_energy at 10d spin up):
        Screen Shot
      • coupled atmos - dt_cpl=400s; fluxes during dt_cpl, with update sim T, alpha, sluggish bucket
        Screen Shot
      • increasing the thermal heat capacity of the bucket brings it closer to the aquaplanet
    • initialization stage checked for proper field exchange

Components

Next steps

  • topo runs seem to break at ~130days, thermal structure is not quite correct, also seen in atandalone atmos runs. More physical investigation needed: Phase 2: Stabilizing long runs #485
  • add better diagnostics to CI pipeline
@LenkaNovak LenkaNovak self-assigned this Oct 6, 2023
@LenkaNovak LenkaNovak mentioned this issue Oct 11, 2023
1 task
@akshaysridhar akshaysridhar self-assigned this Oct 12, 2023
@akshaysridhar
Copy link
Member

akshaysridhar commented Oct 12, 2023

See also buildkite #1906

  • Compare Builds 1902 v 1908

@LenkaNovak
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Closes Phase 1 Milestone #389

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants