Skip to content

Change specification for CO2 concentration-driven compsets - option 2#1584

Draft
billsacks wants to merge 2 commits into
ESCOMP:cam_developmentfrom
billsacks:conc_driven_compsets_opt2
Draft

Change specification for CO2 concentration-driven compsets - option 2#1584
billsacks wants to merge 2 commits into
ESCOMP:cam_developmentfrom
billsacks:conc_driven_compsets_opt2

Conversation

@billsacks

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

We have decided to use the CESM2 mechanism for CO2 – _BGC%BDRD, _BGC%BPRP or no _BGC specifier rather than a C or E at the end of the time period. This PR makes changes towards that.

I'm not sure what the intention was for the compsets that currently had a C at the end of the time period. This PR assumes that the intention was that these operate the same as having no BGC specifier (since my understanding is that concentration-driven is implicit, with no BGC specifier).

Should be coordinated with ESCOMP/CESM#407.

Note that @gold2718 's changes in #1581 and some additional changes (which may be folded into that PR or may come in separately) are needed for co2_cycle to work correctly.

We have decided to use the CESM2 scheme for this - with _BGC%BDRD or
_BGC%BPRP. In this scheme, concentration-driven is implicit, without any
_BGC specifier.

See ESCOMP/CMEPS#658 for some relevant
discussion.
@billsacks

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Either this OR #1583 should come in; not both! @klindsay28 or @fvitt do you know which is correct?

@billsacks

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Also, we may want to change the aliases for these changed compsets; I'll leave that step up to the CAM group.

@billsacks

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I'm coming to think that this is the right option (not #1583), but I want confirmation from others (like @klindsay28 or @fvitt ). See also discussion in ESCOMP/CESM#407.

I think this PR should be bit-for-bit, which is good because it would be good to verify that the removals of [CE]? don't change answers for anything.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant