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

Scientific check for MatrixCN vs. AD spinup (ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850SASU vs. AD) #45

Closed
wwieder opened this issue Jan 3, 2024 · 12 comments
Assignees

Comments

@wwieder
Copy link
Collaborator

wwieder commented Jan 3, 2024

Description:
Test to ensure results from MatrixCN initialization match those from an AD spinup. This was done in Liao et al. 2023 with GSWP3 (2005-2014) for a site in Brazil (55°W, 7°S) and using the sparse grid. Lu et al. 2020 also ran a full transient case on the 4x5 grid, illustrating that differences between SASU and AD simulations where nearly identical (relative differences < 1% for nearly all grids). We want to make sure we're getting similar results with the Matrix code that's been merged up to main now. Let's make a clean test with the modern code base to make sure this is still true (and also to evaluating time savings?)


Case directory:
Locally:
/glade/u/home/slevis/cases_LMWG_dev/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850AD
/glade/u/home/slevis/cases_LMWG_dev/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850pAD
/glade/u/home/slevis/cases_LMWG_dev/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850SASU
/glade/u/home/slevis/cases_LMWG_dev/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850pSASU

Rerun of AD and pAD cases with initial soil temperature set to 272K for vegetated grid cells (and reverted back to 274K for impervious/pervious road). Also, rerun of SASU and pSASU simulations since the SASU was initialized from the end of the AD simulation (year 200). Cloned from the original cases above.

/glade/work/oleson/cn-matrix_v3_cases/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_tsoiini_1850AD
/glade/work/oleson/cn-matrix_v3_cases/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_tsoiini_1850pAD
/glade/work/oleson/cn-matrix_v3_cases/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_tsoiini_1850SASU
/glade/work/oleson/cn-matrix_v3_cases/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_tsoiini_1850pSASU


Sandbox:
Locally:
/glade/work/slevis/git/cn-matrix_v3
commit 2ea1cecedd3a00cd98d962f9de1eaac2159ace05 (HEAD -> cn-matrix_v3, chrislxj/cn-matrix_v3)


user_nl_ changes:
N.B.(1): matrixcn defaults to .true. in this sandbox
N.B.(2): I didn't think to change snow_thermal_cond_method to Sturm1997 for these runs

SASU user_nl_clm (SASU starts with finidat from AD and pSASU starts with finidat from SASU)

use_c13 = .true.
use_c14 = .true.
use_c13_timeseries = .true.
use_c14_bombspike = .true.

AD same with two additional settings (pAD starts with finidat from AD)

use_matrixcn = .false.
use_soil_matrixcn = .false.

Differencing the two lnd_in files shows the following (< SASU, > AD):

27d26
<  iloop_avg = -999
30d28
<  isspinup = .true.
36,37d33
<  nyr_forcing = 20
<  nyr_sasu = 20
51c47
<  spinup_state = 0
---
>  spinup_state = 2
77c73
<  use_matrixcn = .true.
---
>  use_matrixcn = .false.
81c77
<  use_soil_matrixcn = .true.
---
>  use_soil_matrixcn = .false.
299c295
<  reseed_dead_plants = .false.
---
>  reseed_dead_plants = .true.

Should I worry about the difference in reseed_dead_plants?


SourceMods:
NONE


Diagnostics:
Diags (if available)

https://webext.cgd.ucar.edu/I1850/$CASE/lnd/


Output:
Output (if still available):
/glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850AD
/glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850pAD
/glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850SASU
/glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850pSASU

Rerun of cases with initial soil temperature change:
/glade/derecho/scratch/oleson/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_tsoilini_1850AD
/glade/derecho/scratch/oleson/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_tsoilini_1850pAD
/glade/derecho/scratch/oleson/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_tsoilini_1850SASU
/glade/derecho/scratch/oleson/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_tsoilini_1850pSASU


Contacts:
@slevis-lmwg @olyson


Extra details:
I created the cases with the 1850_DATM%GSWP3v1_CLM51%BGC-CROP_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV compset.
I included isotopes, as in #31, in case these simulations become baselines for follow-up simulations.
The plan, based on this post below, is:
AD 200 yrs (done) --> SASU 160 (done) --> pSASU 40 (done)
AD 200 yrs (done) --> pAD 400+ (done)

Reruns:
AD 280 yrs (2.91%) --> SASU 240 yrs (12.67%) --> pSASU 60 yrs (2.51%)
AD 280 yrs (2.91%) --> pAD 580 yrs (5.22%)

@wwieder wwieder added Compset: I1850 Feature: BGC Topic: MatrixCN Evaluating Matrix initialization labels Jan 3, 2024
@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg self-assigned this Jan 4, 2024
@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg changed the title Scientific check for MatrixCN vs. AD spinup Scientific check for MatrixCN vs. AD spinup (ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850SASU vs. AD) Jan 4, 2024
@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Collaborator

@wwieder @olyson
The simulations have started.
Let me know if I misunderstood anything about the setup based on the details that I posted above.

@olyson
Copy link
Collaborator

olyson commented Jan 5, 2024

Maybe it would be good to follow the comparison done by Cuijuan in her paper. For the default CLM spinup (AD/pAD) she did 200 years of AD followed by at least 400 years of pAD. For matrixcn, she did 200 years of AD mode, then 160 years of SASU, then 40 years of pAD. In the end, she ended up with 3000 years of pAD in the standard spinup case to meet our equilibrium criteria and so demonstrated the speed of matrixcn. She then compared the steady-state total ecosystem carbon and total soil carbon. However, she did this on the sparse grid (400 grid cells). And also something similar for a Brazil site. So much faster than full global. But maybe we can do this pretty fast at f45? Also, both of the initial AD simulations were cold starts.

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks, Keith. For starters then, I will stop the SASU case and start it up when AD generates a finidat at 200 yrs.

@olyson
Copy link
Collaborator

olyson commented Jan 5, 2024

That sounds reasonable. Is the AD case a cold start?

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Collaborator

slevis-lmwg commented Jan 5, 2024

Yes.

Update (I also posted this in the details at the top):
pAD and SASU will start from AD and
pSASU will start from SASU.

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Collaborator

@wwieder the simulations are done, so feel free to run your script(s) on the output.

@wwieder
Copy link
Collaborator Author

wwieder commented Jan 11, 2024

just to clarify, I should be comparing

/glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850pAD
vs.

/glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_1850pSASU

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Collaborator

Correct.

@olyson
Copy link
Collaborator

olyson commented Jan 30, 2024

I've updated the description above to reference the new simulations where initial soil temperature is changed to 272K. I think we'll also have to rerun the SASU/pSASU simulations since the SASU was initialized from the end of the AD?

@wwieder
Copy link
Collaborator Author

wwieder commented Jan 30, 2024

I guess that would be a cleaner comparison, although it seems like SASU isn't as strongly influenced by the initial pool sizes (unlike AD). If it's not hard to do, maybe this makes sense.

Thanks Keith

@olyson
Copy link
Collaborator

olyson commented Feb 5, 2024

@wwieder , @slevis-lmwg , the reruns were close to equilibrium before Derecho went down, so you could compare these two simulations:

/glade/derecho/scratch/oleson/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_tsoiini_1850pSASU/lnd/hist
/glade/derecho/scratch/oleson/archive/ctsm51d159_f45_GSWP3_bgccrop_tsoiini_1850pAD/lnd/hist

@wwieder
Copy link
Collaborator Author

wwieder commented Feb 5, 2024

Thanks for posting Keith. I'll put some new plots on the discussion thread

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants