-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
Not using mesh areas #240
Comments
Its possible this impacts the run-off conserving issues #231 also |
Hi @anton-seaice, Not clear of full implications of this for the coupling fluxes, but there is clearly an anomaly in the Arctic at i=180, also at i=80 and i=260 which are from across the Tripole, do you know the causes. I guess closest to the tripole the gridboxes would be smallest would this effect the different measurements the internal and mediator area calculations have given? |
I believe its minimal. Each component cap has a correction between the component and the mediator area.
Im not too concerned about at i=180 - this is all land masked. It might be something about these cells have two identical corner points as its one of the tripoles. The other two locations are the real geographic poles, and my guess is its related to ESMF using a different method to calculate areas at these points compared to the method used in our current (i.e. the om2) grid. We are moving to using --rotate-poly for the new grid and this might be the difference.
Possibly/probably yes |
@MartinDix may be correct about the Radius of the earth being inconsistent: We seem to be using the MOM6 default, e.g:
But CICE6 & Mediator use the radius from CESM share:
I can test tomorrow to see if that is impacting the MOM to mediator area corrections |
Comparison of rain flux from the mediator and mom, shows rain flux is slightly smaller in MOM: And setting
Again : this is accounted for in the coupling by the med2mod term, however it is also confusing |
MOM's 6.378e6 is the equatorial radius which seems an odd choice to me. The UM uses 6.371229e6, so slightly larger than CICE & CESM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius suggests this is the average distance from the center to the surface. |
Should we use the UM radius in all components then ? |
The relative difference between 6.371229e6 and 6.37122e6 is 1e-6 which is small enough that I don't think it matters. I think MOM and CICE should match though. |
Yes MOM looks like the one furthest out. |
Good catch - sounds like Earth's radius is another thing to add to our list of inter-model parameter consistency checks. It would be nice to automate this, e.g. via payu - see #109 - but are these set at compile time in CICE6 and mediator? |
@MartinDix 1e-6 is indeed a small factor, but if we're adjusting these, why not make them exactly identical? It may save some head-scratching down the road. |
In our ESMF mesh files for the mediator, we include a grid cell area field (elementArea) calculated from the MOM6 supergrid.
We are not using this area, and instead NUOPC is calculating the grid cell areas internally. (see ESMF_MeshCreate in the model caps cice6 mom6 cdeps where it would need an additional argument addUserArea)
The caps compare the model areas and the mediator areas and creates the mod2med and med2mod variables to correct the areas for fluxes (per CMEPS docs)
The internally calculated areas are not bad, for example the
ocn.log
file shows this:The areas which are different are those along the midline of x (which is landmasked) and the areas adjacent close to the true poles (probably related to how the areas are calculated e.g. the rotate-poly option in FreNCTools)
It's not clear that we need to do anything - although when calculating global mediator fluxes, we do need to be aware that the areas are different. (ping @kieranricardo @MartinDix)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: