-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
O2.3.11 Add land/sea mask to ClimaCore domain #488
Comments
@charleskawczynski |
@juliasloan25 has found that this also affects any run (including coupled runs) using the Bucket model, because the land albedo is not defined in the Artic. |
My first thought was to bite the bullet and develop a special ClimaCore MaskedField, but the more that I think of it, the more I’m thinking that it’s easier to handle tendency case-by-case. @. field_tendency = ifelse(mask==0, field_tendency, foo(Y.c)) We might be able to write a macro to write this more compactly, but I think this pretty effectively reuses our existing infrastructure. Also, this should still work with I’m happy to chat more about this if I’ve missed something or if you think there may be more to the story. |
Hi Charlie, thanks for thinking about this! My concern with masking the tendency is that then we also have to mask the initial conditions or set IC over the ocean (ditto with all of our spatial parameter fields), and possibly use the mask in plotting (Im not sure the value of zero for parameters and the state will produce non-NaN tendencies, so we may not be able to set ocean-area values to zero and have it just work). it ends up getting kind of hacky. we can discuss more! I can also show you our code and we can look at how complex it would be to implement the above^^ Our tendency functions have field vector arguments, so it didnt seem like they would broadcast as we want. |
I think that would be really helpful |
@simonbyrne, Tapio also suggested asking your opinion on this. He had the impression from you that restricting the grid to only include continents, while maintaining information about connectivity (to support tendencies in the horizontal, and, eventually, non-periodic boundary conditions), was not that difficult. If that is the case, it seems like the load-balancing problem would not arise, nor would the land model need to worry about about only evaluating tendencies over land, because our fields would not be defined over the ocean. thank you! |
Hi @kmdeck. In Oceananigans we have a structured mesh, so we maintain the structure but launch an unstructured kernel, i.e. we (1) map out the active cells in a linear map with In distributed computations, to load balance it is enough to calculate the total number of active cells in the global grid and divide them by processor. We do keep the memory associated with immersed cells though. In your case, it is probably better to go fully unstructured since you are using climacore that gives you this ability |
@dennisYatunin, if we had NaNs as our field values over the ocean, and then tried to step Y.soil.variable implicitly, would we always use the max number of iterations over the ocean, since NaN < tolerance is always false? |
Depends on how you have things set up. If you're using the convergence checker specified here, then yes. You can also pass a custom You can also just hardcode the number of Newton iterations, and avoid using a convergence checker altogether. That's what we do in ClimaAtmos. |
It would be good if we could also skip the evaluation of external forcings (ie, read from file) on masked values too. This is not as critical because it probably won't affect performance that much and it not causing issues NaNs. |
Purpose
For global runs, we currently set up a spherical shell domain (extruded FD) and create fields that are defined everywhere on the domain. The issues arise in three areas:
A related issue is that ultimately we would like to support lateral flow in the soil. This requires boundary conditions in the horizontal.
The benefits to what we are doing now is that (I think) regridding in the coupler is easy because land and atmos have the exact same space at the surface
Priorities
In the short term (i.e. done by this fall, for our paper), treating the land as a collection of independent columns is fine. We would not evaluate the model over ocean and not have to worry about setting values of parameters/IC over the ocean. That is, it would be nice to have a custom ClimaCore domain which is a set of independent columns which does not span the entire globe. Then we alleviate basically all of the issues above.
In the long term (end of next year?) supporting boundary conditions and lateral flow is a goal, but this is not essential and requires a lot more work. Note that there are two levels to this:
Proposed Work Summer 2024
ClimaLand:
ClimaCore:
Proposed Work 2025
Notes from a while ago - need to revisit
When we have lateral flow we want to make use of the current topology/connectivity of points and how this is set up in ClimaCore. This is because it is easier to use a mask in boundary condition setting in the horizontal than to create a totally unstructured mesh.
I checked with Andre and he confirmed that this is what the ocean model does. there are prognostic variables over land but the tendencies are never evaluated. Only indices which are in the mask = 1 region are loaded onto the GPU.
on the ClimaLand side:
This solution means that we need to use the mask on the land side because we will still have fields defined over the ocean.
We will need to:
@sriharshakandala @juliasloan25 @Sbozzolo
Tasks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: