Skip to Main Content U.S. Department of Energy
Research at PNNL

CAM5 Runs

1. CAM5 : standalone simulations

Comparison-ID
(click to view)
Casename Description Comments Climo Files
C01 Prescribed Aerosol Run comparing prescribed aerosols using log-normal random sampling ten year run of prescribed aerosol vs. predicted aerosol runs
C02 Prescribed Aerosol Run comparing prescribed aerosols using conditionally sampled aerosols (OLD) ten year run of prescribed aerosol vs. predicted aerosol runs
C14 Y22_AMIP0 comparing 56 layer version of CAM5.1 AMIP to 30 Layer version (case cam5.1_amip_2d_001 from Cecile)
C15 Y22_AMIP0 comparing 56 layer version of CAM5.1 AMIP to obs (old NCL scripts)
C16 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default-obs Default case convect branch r35162 (~cam5.1.16). AMIP climo Y2K SST runs. Compared to observations (5 years simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C17 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-ncfix1-obs Set ncfix=1 causes droplet activation to be updated BEFORE microphysics. This is "Hugh's fix". Compared to observations (5 years simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C18 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-ncfix1-convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default Set ncfix=1, which causes droplet activation to be updated BEFORE microphysics. This is "Hugh's fix". Compared to default (5 years simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C19 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-pdf_macro-obs Set pdf_macro=true, which uses Caldwell's Gaussian-PDF based macrophysics. Compared to observations (5 years simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C20 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-pdf_macro-convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default Set pdf_macro=true, which uses Caldwell's Gaussian-PDF based macrophysics. Compared to default (5 years simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C21 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-iter_2_1-obs Changed the sub-cycling of cloud macro and micro physics. The default case does macro-physics once and sub-cycles inside the microphysics twice. This case subcycled the pair of calls to macro and micro physics twice (cld_macmic_iter=2) but set subcycling inside the micro-physics to 1 (cld_mic_iter=1, no sub-cycling). Compared to observations (5 years simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C22 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-iter_2_1-convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default ase subcycled the pair of calls to macro and micro physics twice (cld_macmic_iter=2) but set subcycling inside the micro-physics to 1 (cld_mic_iter=1, no sub-cycling). Compared to default (5 years simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C23 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-frzdry2-obs With the freeze-dry parameterization turned on. Compared to obsservations (1 year simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C24 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-frzdry2-convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default2 With the freeze-dry parameterization turned on. Compared to default (1 yr simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C25 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-best-hi3-obs pdf_macro=true, ncfix=1, cld_macmic_iter=2, and cld_mic_iter=1. Compared to observations (1 year simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C26 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-best-hi3-convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default2 pdf_macro=true, ncfix=1, cld_macmic_iter=2, and cld_mic_iter=1. Compared to default (1 year simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C27 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-sierra_default-obs Default case convect branch r35162 (~cam5.1.16). AMIP climo Y2K SST runs. Compared to observations (10 year simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C28 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-sierra_pdf_micro-obs pdf_macro=true, pdf_micro=true, ncfix=1, cld_macmic_iter=2, and cld_mic_iter=1. Compared to observations (10 year simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C29 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-sierra_pdf_micro-convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-sierra_default pdf_macro=true, pdf_micro=true, ncfix=1, cld_macmic_iter=2, and cld_mic_iter=1. Compared to default (10 year simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C30 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-sierra_1850aer-convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-sierra_default default case with 1850 aerosols compared to default (10 year simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C31 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-sierra_1850aer_pdf_micro-convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-sierra_pdf_micro pdf_macro=true, pdf_micro=true, ncfix=1, cld_macmic_iter=2, and cld_mic_iter=1 with 1850 aerosols compared to same case but with present day aerosols. Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C32 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default-5_1_31 default case compared to observations (9 year simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C33 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-pdf_truncmicro best case (all of Caldwell's cloud physics modifications) compared to observations (9 year simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C34 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-pdf_truncmicro-convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default-5_1_31 best case compared to default case (9 year simulation) Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL
C35 2AMIP_WITH_HD_MODS_Conv36_BEST_CASE_ALST_FIX-3AMIP_WITH_HD_MODS_Conv36_DEFAULT_CAM_ALST_FIX HD mods with Peter's "best" case compared with HD mods only simulation 5 year runs /lustre/d3y423/camout/CAM-climo/2AMIP_WITH_HD_MODS_Conv36_BEST_CASE_ALST_FIX
and
/lustre/d3y423/camout/CAM-climo/3AMIP_WITH_HD_MODS_Conv36_DEFAULT_CAM_ALST_FIX
C36 CAM5_1_31_HD+MAM4+peter-CAM5_1_31_HD+MAM4 HD mods + Peter's "best" case + MAM4 run is compared against HD mods + Peter's "best" case 5 year runs /lustre/d3y423/camout/CAM-climo/CAM5_1_31_HD+MAM4+peter
and
/lustre/d3y423/camout/CAM-climo/CAM5_1_31_HD+MAM4
C37 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-best_LLNL
Vs.
convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
"Best" case compared against "default" case Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-best_LLNL
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
C38 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-best_LLNL
Vs.
obs
"Best" case compared against observations Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-best_LLNL
C39 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
Vs.
obs
"Default" case compared against observations Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
C40 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-iter_LLNL
Vs.
convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
"Iter" case compared against "default" case Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
C41 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-iter_LLNL
Vs.
obs
"Iter" case compared against obervations Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-iter_LLNL
C42 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-ncfix_LLNL
Vs.
convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
"ncfix" case compared against "default" case Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-ncfix_LLNL
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
C43 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-ncfix_LLNL
Vs.
obs
"ncfix" case compared against observations Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-ncfix_LLNL
C44 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-pdf_LLNL
Vs.
convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
"PDF" case compared against "default" case Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-pdf_LLNL
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
C45 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-pdf_LLNL
Vs.
obs
"PDF" case compared against observations Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-pdf_LLNL
C46 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-rainfrz_LLNL
Vs.
convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
"rainfrz" case compared against "default" case Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-rainfrz_LLNL
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
C47 convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-rainfrz_LLNL
Vs.
obs
"rainfrz" case compared against observations Simulation done by Dan Bergmann @ LLNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-rainfrz_LLNL
C48 CAM5_1_31_default
Vs.
convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
PNNL default compared against LLNL default CAM5_1_31 Simulation performed at PNNL and LLNL sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/FromNERSC/convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
C49 CAM5_1_31_Cldfrc_pgi
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_default
"Cloud fraction" changes compared against default Simulation performed at NERSC /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_Cldfrc_pgi
C50 CAM5_1_31_Cldfrc_pgi
Vs.
obs
"Cloud fraction" changes compared against observations Simulation performed at NERSC /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_Cldfrc_pgi
C51 CAM5_1_31_WetDeposit_pgi
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_default
"Wet deposit" correction compared against default Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_WetDeposit_pgi
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default
C52 CAM5_1_31_WetDeposit_pgi
Vs.
obs
"Wet deposit" correction compared against observations Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_WetDeposit_pgi
C53 CAM_5_1_Conv_SAct_pgi
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_default
"convective transport" compared against default Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM_5_1_Conv_SAct_pgi
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default
C54 CAM_5_1_Conv_SAct_pgi
Vs.
obs
"convective transport" compared against observations Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM_5_1_Conv_SAct_pgi
C55 CAM5_1_31_MAM4_pgi
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_default
"MAM4" compared against default Simulation performed at NERSC /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_MAM4_pgi
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default
C56 CAM5_1_31_MAM4_pgi
Vs.
obs
"MAM4" compared against observations Simulation performed at NERSC /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_MAM4_pgi
C57 CAM5_1_31_demott
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_default
"Demott" comapred against default Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_demott
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default
C58 CAM5_1_31_demott
Vs.
obs
"Demott" comapred against observations Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_demott
C59 CAM5_1_31_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_default
PNNL changes compared against default Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default
C60 CAM5_1_31_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
Vs.
obs
PNNL changes compared against observations Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
C61 CAM5_1_31_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_default
ALL changed compared against default Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default
C62 CAM5_1_31_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
Vs.
obs
ALL changed compared against observations Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
C63 CAM5_1_31_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
ALL changed compared against PNNL changes Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
C64 CAM5_1_31_MAM4_pgi
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_MAM7_pgi
MAM4 compared against MAM7 Simulation performed at NERSC /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_MAM4_pgi
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_MAM7_pgi
C65 CAM5_1_31_HD_NO_FreezeDry_MAM4_Demott_pgi
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
All PNNL changes compared for with and without Freeze dry Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_HD_NO_FreezeDry_MAM4_Demott_pgi
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
C66 CAM5_1_31_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
All Changes (PNNL+LLNL) changes compared for chem_rad_passive = TRUE and chem_rad_passive=False Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott_pgi
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
C67 cesm1_1_aeronetDustPhysprop
Vs.
cesm1_1_defaultRun_int
CESM1_1(CAM5.2 only run) with aeronet physprop file for dust as compared to the default run Simulation performed at PNNL /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/cesm1_1_aeronetDustPhysprop
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/cesm1_1_defaultRun_int/
C68 CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
ALL Changes (PNNL_LLNL) CAM5_1_31 with aeronet physprop file for dust as compared to the ALL Changes run Click here for aerosol diagnostics /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott/
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott//
C69 cesm1_1_HD_mods_int
Vs.
cesm1_1_defaultRun_int
CESM1_1 (CAM5.2) HD mods Vs. defualt (10 years) Click here for aerosol diagnostic package Sooty:/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/cesm1_1_HD_mods_int
and
Sooty:/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/cesm1_1_defaultRun_int
C70 Prescribed Aerosol Run Comparing prescribed aerosols using log-normal random sampling Ten year run of prescribed aerosol vs. predicted aerosol runs Sooty:/lustre/yoon753/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag/climo/cesm1_1_prescribe_exp01_e001
and
Sooty:/lustre/yoon753/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag/climo/cesm1_1_prescribe_cntl_e001
C71 cesm1_1_ndrop_err_func_int
Vs.
cesm1_1_defaultRun_int
Comparing default CAM5200 against error function reformulation in ndrop.F90 Ten year simulations Sooty:/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/cesm1_1_ndrop_err_func_int
and
Sooty:/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/cesm1_1_defaultRun_int
C72 doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune
Vs.
obs
Simulation done at LLNL with All (PNNL+LLNL) changes vs. observations{new aeronet dust physprop file}
C73 doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune2xLiqAcc
Vs.
obs
All changes run with 2xLiqAcc tuning vs. obs {new aeronet dust physprop file} This case multiplies the liquid accretion by a factor of 2
C74 doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune2xLiqAcc
Vs.
doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune
All changes run with 2xLiqAcc tuning vs. All changes run {new aeronet dust physprop file} This case multiplies the liquid accretion by a factor of 2
C75 doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-TuneConvDetIDVR50
Vs.
obs
All changes run with tuning ConvDetIDVR50 vs. obs {new aeronet dust physprop file} Detrained ice particles in deep convection are twice as big resulting in a shorter cloud lifetime in areas of deep convective activity
C76 doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-TuneConvDetIDVR50
Vs.
doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune
All changes run with tuning ConvDetIDVR50 vs. All changes run{new aeronet dust physprop file} Detrained ice particles in deep convection are twice as big resulting in a shorter cloud lifetime in areas of deep convective activity
C77 doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-TuneConvDetLSVR15
Vs.
obs
All changes run with tuning ConvDetLSVR15 vs. obs {new aeronet dust physprop file} Detrained liquid water particles in shallow convection are 50% bigger resulting in a shorter cloud lifetime in areas of shallow convective activity
C78 doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-TuneConvDetLSVR15
Vs.
doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune
All changes run with tuning ConvDetLSVR15 vs. All changes run {new aeronet dust physprop file} Detrained liquid water particles in shallow convection are 50% bigger resulting in a shorter cloud lifetime in areas of shallow convective activity
C79 doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-TuneConvEffRad
Vs.
obs
All changes run with tuning ConvEffRad vs. Observations {new aeronet dust physprop file} Radiation sees a weighted average of cloud droplet sizes in areas with both convective and stratiform clouds.
C80 doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-TuneConvEffRad
Vs.
doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune
All changes run with tuning ConvEffRad vs. All changes run {new aeronet dust physprop file} Radiation sees a weighted average of cloud droplet sizes in areas with both convective and stratiform clouds.
C81 CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_zmconv_c0_lnd_0p00295
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
All Changes run (LLNL+HD+MAM4+Demott) with zmconv_c0_lnd tuning(divided by 2, changed from .0059 o .00295) vs. All Changes run (LLNL+HD+MAM4+Demott) {new aeronet dust physprop file} 17 months runs starting from 10/01/0000 (first 3 months skipped) Mythos:/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo
and
/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
C82 CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_dp1_0p05
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
All Changes run (LLNL+HD+MAM4+Demott) with dp1 tuning (divided by 2, changed 0.1 to 0.05) vs. All Changes run (LLNL+HD+MAM4+Demott) {new aeronet dust physprop file} 17 months runs starting from 10/01/0000 (first 3 months skipped) Mythos:/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_dp1_0p05
and
/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
C83 CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_rhminh_0p78400
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
p file} 17 months runs starting from 10/01/0000 (first 3 months skipped) Mythos:/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/
and
/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
C84 CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_rhminl_0p90525
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
All Changes run (LLNL+HD+MAM4+Demott) with rhminl tuning (2% increase from 0.8875 to 0.90525) vs. All Changes run (LLNL+HD+MAM4+Demott){new aeronet dust physprop file} 17 months runs starting from 10/01/0000(first 3 months skipped) Mythos:/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_rhminl_0p90525
and
/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
C85 CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_rhminl_0p86975
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
All Changes run (LLNL+HD+MAM4+Demott) with rhminl tuning (decreased 2% from 0.8875 to 0.86975 ) vs. All Changes run (LLNL+HD+MAM4+Demott) {new aeronet dust physprop file} 17 months runs starting from 10/01/0000(first 3 months skipped) Mythos:/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/
and
/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
C86 CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_dp2_50
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
All Changes run (LLNL+HD+MAM4+Demott) with dp2 tuning (decreased by a factor of 10 from 500 to 50) vs. All Changes run (LLNL+HD+MAM4+Demott){new aeronet dust physprop file} 17 months runs starting from 10/01/0000(first 3 months skipped) Mythos:/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_dp2_50
and
/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult
C87 aerosol005_cam5_2_10_NoFreezeDryMzAeroTuning
Vs.
cesm1_1_defaultRun_int
CESM1_1 (CAM5.2 run only) reduced HD mods (Freeze_dry = FALSE and mz_aerosol_inter.F90 tuning) run vs. default CESM1_1 (CAM5.2 run only) 10 years run Sooty:/lustre/sing201/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/aerosol005_cam5_2_10_NoFreezeDryMzAeroTuning
and
Sooty:/lustre/sing201/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/cesm1_1_defaultRun_int
C88 CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott_5Yrs
1 year run (2nd year) compared with the 5 years run (2-6 years) (CAM5.2 run only){new aeronet dust physprop file} Runs performed on Sooty Sooty:/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
and
Sooty:/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott_5Yrs
C89 doe_polar_mrgCodes_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1
Vs.
obs
First tuning attempt Vs. observations {new aeronet dust physprop file} RHMINL increased by 2% and dp1 is changed from 0.1 to 0.05
C90 CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult_Strt_Jan0000_1Year
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult_Strt_Jan0000
CAM5_1_31 default 1 Year run is compared againt CAM5_1_31 default 5 Year run {new aeronet dust physprop file} Runs performed on Mythos Mythos:/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult_Strt_Jan0000_1Year/
and
Mythos:/dtemp/sing201/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_P_M4_Dem_HD_polarTuning_deafult_Strt_Jan0000/
C91 CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_default
ALL changes (PNNL+LLNL polar changes) run with new aeronet dust physprop file compared with CAM5_1_31 default run for 5 years (1st year skipped) Runs performed on Sooty /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default
C92 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5_P_HD_M4_Dem
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
Both test and control runs are ALL changes (PNNL+LLNL polar changes) runs with new aeronet dust physprop file. The test run has rainfrz_t = -40 as compared to ranfrz_t = -5(default) for the control run {5 years (1st year skipped)} Runs performed on Sooty /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5_P_HD_M4_Dem
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
C93 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5_P_HD_M4_Dem
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
Both test(10 years, 2nd to 10th analyzed) and control runs(5 years, 2nd to 6th analyzed ) are ALL changes (PNNL+LLNL polar changes) runs with new aeronet dust physprop file. The test run has rainfrz_t = -40 as compared to ranfrz_t = -5(default) for the control run Runs performed on Sooty /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5_P_HD_M4_Dem
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_aeronetDust_chemRadFalse_Peter_HD_MAM4_Demott
C94 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1_PresentDay
Vs.
doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1_PreIndustrial
Both test(11 years, 2nd to 11th analyzed) and control runs are ALL changes (PNNL+LLNL polar changes)+ tuned (RHMINL increased by 2% and dp1 is changed from 0.1 to 0.05) runs with new aeronet dust physprop file. Test run is with present day emissions and control run is with preindustrial emissions Runs performed on Sooty /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1_PresentDay
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1_PreIndustrial
C95 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1_test1
Vs.
doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5_P_HD_M4_Dem/
Both test(11 years, 2nd to 11th analyzed) and control runs are ALL changes (PNNL+LLNL polar changes) with new aeronet dust physprop file. The test case is tuned (RHMINL increased by 2%, dp1 is changed from 0.1 to 0.05 and tuning is hardwired in micro_mg.F90 and microp_driver.F90) run. Runs performed on Sooty /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1_test1/
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5_P_HD_M4_Dem/
C96 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1_test1
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_default
2nd to 6th years analyzed) is ALL changes (PNNL+LLNL polar changes) with new aeronet dust physprop file tuned run (RHMINL increased by 2%, dp1 is changed from 0.1 to 0.05 and tuning is hardwired in micro_mg.F90 and microp_driver.F90). The control case is CAM5_1_31 default version Runs performed on Sooty /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1_test1/
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default/
C97 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune_10year
Vs.
obs
All cloud improvements With no tuning:
Accretion factor = 1x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 10e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = .8875
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.10
RESTOM = -5.454
FLNT_CAM = 233.212
FSNT_CAM = 227.758
Runs done at LLNL
C98 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune_10year
Vs.
convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
All cloud improvements With no tuning compared against default(5 Years Comparison):
Accretion factor = 1x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 10e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = .8875
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.10
RESTOM = -5.454
FLNT_CAM = 233.212
FSNT_CAM = 227.758
Runs done at LLNL
C99 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1_10year
Vs.
obs
First tuning run using Steve Kein's Suggested values :
Accretion factor = 2x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.90525
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM = -0.862
FLNT_CAM = 234.494
FSNT_CAM = 233.632
Runs done at LLNL
C100 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1_10year
Vs.
convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
First tuning run using Steve Kein's Suggested values compared against default(5 Years Comparison) :
Accretion factor = 2x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.90525
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM = -0.862
FLNT_CAM = 234.494
FSNT_CAM = 233.632
Runs done at LLNL
C101 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1a_10year
Vs.
obs
Tune1 except increase rhminl (Rasch) :
Accretion factor = 2x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.92
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM = +0.141
FLNT_CAM = 234.344
FSNT_CAM = 234.485
Runs done at LLNL
C102 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1b_10year
Vs.
obs
Tune1 except increase accretion (Rasch) :
Accretion factor = 3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.90525
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM = +0.590
FLNT_CAM = 234.939
FSNT_CAM = 235.529
Runs done at LLNL
C103 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1c_10year
Vs.
obs
Tune1 except increase accretion AND rhminl :
Accretion factor = 3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.92
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM=+1.277
FLNT_CAM=234.837
FSNT_CAM=236.144
Runs done at LLNL
C104 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1c_10year
Vs.
convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
n) :
Accretion factor = 3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.92
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM=+1.277
FLNT_CAM=234.837
FSNT_CAM=236.144
Runs done at LLNL
C105 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1c_10year
Vs.
doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune_10year
Tune1 except increase accretion AND rhminl compared against All cloud improvements with no tuning (10 Years Comparison) :
Accretion factor = 3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.92
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM=+1.277
FLNT_CAM=234.837
FSNT_CAM=236.144
Runs done at LLNL
C106 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1d_10year
Vs.
obs
Tune1 except increase accretion AND rhminl=0.915 :
Accretion factor = 3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.915
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM = +1.098
FLNT_CAM = 234.787
FSNT_CAM = 235.885
Runs done at LLNL
C107 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1e_10year
Vs.
obs
Tune1c except dust emissions decreased, dust_emis_fact=0.55 :
Accretion factor = 3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl =0.92
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM = +1.428
FLNT_CAM = 234.781
FSNT_CAM = 236.209
Runs done at LLNL
C108 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1e_10year
Vs.
convect_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-default_LLNL
Tune1c except dust emissions decreased, dust_emis_fact=0.55 compared against default(5 Years Comparison) :
Accretion factor = 3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl =0.92
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM = +1.428
FLNT_CAM = 234.781
FSNT_CAM = 236.209
Runs done at LLNL
C109 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1e_10year
Vs.
doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune_10year
Tune1c except dust emissions decreased, dust_emis_fact=0.55 compared against All cloud improvements with no tuning (10 Years Comparison) :
Accretion factor = 3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl =0.92
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM = +1.428
FLNT_CAM = 234.781
FSNT_CAM = 236.209
Runs done at LLNL
C110 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune1f_10year
Vs.
obs
Tune1c except dust emissions decreased, dust_emis_fact=0.45 :
Accretion factor =3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.92
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
RESTOM = +1.460
FLNT_CAM = 234.731
FSNT_CAM = 236.191
Runs done at LLNL
C111 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune2_10year
Vs.
obs
Second tuning run increasing all 4 parameters :
Accretion factor = 2.5x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 17.5e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.914125
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.025
RESTOM = +0.724
FLNT_CAM = 234.997
FSNT_CAM = 235.721
Runs done at LLNL
C112 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune3_10year
Vs.
obs
reasing effectof all4 parameters:
Accretion factor = 3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 20e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.923
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.020
RESTOM = 1.766
FLNT_CAM = 235.153
FSNT_CAM = 236.919
Runs done at LLNL
C113 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune3a_10year
Vs.
obs
Tune2 except accretion :
Accretion factor = 3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 17.5e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.914125
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.025
RESTOM = 1.294
FLNT_CAM = 235.303
FSNT_CAM = 236.597
Runs done at LLNL
C114 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune3b_10year
Vs.
obs
Tune2 except shcu :
Accretion factor = 2.5x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 20e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.914125
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.025
RESTOM = 0.763
FLNT_CAM = 235.002
FSNT_CAM = 235.765
Runs done at LLNL
C115 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune3c_10year
Vs.
obs
Tune2 except rhminl :
Accretion factor = 2.5x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 17.5e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.923
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.025
RESTOM = 1.072
FLNT_CAM = 235.030
FSNT_CAM = 236.102
Runs done at LLNL
C116 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_1.9x2.5_1.9x2.5-Tune3d_10year
Vs.
obs
Tune2 except dp1 :
Accretion factor = 2.5x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 17.5e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.914125
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.020
RESTOM = +0.532
FLNT_CAM = 235.212
FSNT_CAM = 236.717
Runs done at LLNL
C117 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1f_test2_b4b_mam4_mode4_modal_file
Vs.
doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1f_PresentDay
Test case: 4th mode in MAM4 uses a new input file
Control case:4th mode in MAM4 uses mode 3 input file
Both runs use Tune 1f: Accretion factor =3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size = 15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.92
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
These are 11 year runs, diagnostics are only for the 2-11 years(1st year skipped). Please note that, in Control case, mode4 was using mode 3 values only when these values were pulled from the rad_cnst calls (e.g. water uptake, calcsize etc.)
C118 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1f_PresentDay
Vs.
doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1f_PreIndustrial
**IMPORTANT**: This is pre MAM4 physprop file bug fix run
Tune1f Present day Vs. Preindustrial (10 years comparison with 1st year skipped):

Accretion factor =3x
Shallow convective Detrainment size =15e-6
Cldfrc_rhminl = 0.92
Cldfrc_dp1 = 0.05
Aerosol diagnostics
C119 CAM5_1_31_default
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_default_PI
CAM5_1_31 default run comparing present day and preindustrial emission simulations Aerosol diagnostics /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default_5years
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default_PI_5years
C120 doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_PI
**IMPORTANT**: This simulation is using *wrong* emission file (MAM4 emission file for num_a1)
No tuning CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following:
1. MAM3 simulation
2. HD mods with Freeze Dry turned ON
5 Years analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_PI
C121 doe_polar_M4_HD_Dmt_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M4_HD_Dmt_PI
No tuning CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following:
1. MAM4
2. HD mods (freezedry turned OFF)
3. Demott
5 Years analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M4_HD_Dmt_PD_5years
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M4_HD_Dmt_PI_5years
C122 doe_polar_P_M4_HD_Dmt_noTune_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_P_M4_HD_Dmt_noTune_PI
No tuning CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following:
1. All LLNL mods
2. MAM4
3. HD mods (freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
4. Demott
5 Years analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_P_M4_HD_Dmt_noTune_PD_5years
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_P_M4_HD_Dmt_noTune_PI_5years
C123 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1f_mode4ModalFileRun_PresentDay
Vs.
doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1f_mode4ModalFileRun_preIndustrial
Tune 1f tuned CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following:
1. All LLNL mods
2. MAM4
3. HD mods (freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
4. Demott
5 Years analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1f_mode4ModalFileRun_PresentDay
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1f_mode4ModalFileRun_preIndustrial
C124 Tune 1f Vs. cesm110_cam5136 control Tune 1f Vs. control:
1. All LLNL mods
2. MAM4
3. HD mods (freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
4. Demott
10 Years analyzed blic/jinho/b1850cam5cn_cesm110cam5136_fv2_PeterHDDemottMAM4.hp.e004-b1850cam5cn_cesm110cam5136_fv2_cntl.hp.e001
C125 doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_MAM3Emiss_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_MAM3Emiss_PI
No tuning CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following:
1. MAM3 simulation
2. HD mods with Freeze Dry turned ON
5 Years analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_MAM3Emiss_PD_5years
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_MAM3Emiss_PI_5years
C126 doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1f_mode4ModalFileRun_PresentDay
Vs.
obs
Tune 1f tuned CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. OBS with the following:
1. All LLNL mods
2. MAM4
3. HD mods (freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
4. Demott
5 Years analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1f_mode4ModalFileRun_PresentDay
C127 de4ModalFileRun_PresentDay
Vs.
CAM5_1_31(default)
Tune 1f tuned CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. CAM5_1_31(default) with the following:
1. All LLNL mods
2. MAM4
3. HD mods (freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
4. Demott
5 Years analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar004_cam5_1_31_FC5_P_HD_M4_Dem_Tuned1f_mode4ModalFileRun_PresentDay
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default
C128 CAM5_1_31_default
Vs.
obs
CAM5_1_31 default run compared against observations /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default
C129 CAM5100_5SOA_BrwnCrbnRun_1_PhysProp06042013_woRadDiag_int
Vs.
CAM5100_5SOA_BrwnCrbnRun_woRadDiag
CAM5100 run with 5 SOA species using brownoc_rrtmg_06042013 as their physprop file compared againt 5SOA CAM5100 run using default physprop file 5 years analyzed (1st yr skipped) /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5100_5SOA_BrwnCrbnRun_1_PhysProp06042013_woRadDiag_int
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5100_5SOA_BrwnCrbnRun_woRadDiag
C130 CAM5100_5SOA_BrwnCrbnRun_1_PhysProp06042013_woRadDiag_int
Vs.
CAM5100_5SOA_BrwnCrbnRun_woRadDiag
CAM5100 run with 5 SOA species using brownoc_rrtmg_06042013 as their physprop file compared againt 5SOA CAM5100 run using default physprop file 10 years analyzed (1st yr skipped) /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5100_5SOA_BrwnCrbnRun_1_PhysProp06042013_woRadDiag_int
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5100_5SOA_BrwnCrbnRun_woRadDiag
C131 CAM5_1_31_default
Vs.
CAM5_1_31_default_PI
CAM5_1_31 default run comparing present day and preindustrial emission simulations (year 2 comparison ONLY) Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default_year2
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5_1_31_default_PI_year2
C132 doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_MAM3Emiss_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_MAM3Emiss_PI
No tuning CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following (year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3 simulation
2. HD mods with Freeze Dry turned ON
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_MAM3Emiss_PD_year2
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_HD_FrzDryOn_MAM3Emiss_PI_year2
C133 doe_polar_M4_HD_Dmt_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M4_HD_Dmt_PI
No tuning CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM4
2. HD mods (freezedry turned OFF)
3. Demott
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M4_HD_Dmt_PD_year2
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M4_HD_Dmt_PI_year2
C134 doe_polar_P_M4_HD_Dmt_noTune_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_P_M4_HD_Dmt_noTune_PI
No tuning CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. All LLNL mods
2. MAM4
3. HD mods (freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
4. Demott
Only year 2 analyzed re/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_P_M4_HD_Dmt_noTune_PD_year2
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_P_M4_HD_Dmt_noTune_PI_year2
C135 doe_polar_P_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_P_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. All LLNL mods
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_P_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_P_PI
C136 doe_polar_P_HD_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_P_HD_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. All LLNL mods
2. HD mods (freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_P_HD_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_P_HD_PI
C137 doe_polar_P_HD_M4_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_P_HD_M4_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. All LLNL mods
2. MAM4
3. HD mods (freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_P_HD_M4_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_P_HD_M4_PI
C138 doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. HD mods(freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
3. rain freeze = -40
4. pdf_macro = True
5. trunc_macro =2
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_PI
C139 doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_ncfix1_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_ncfix1_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. HD mods(freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
3. rain freeze = -40
4. pdf_macro = True
5. trunc_macro = 2
6. ncfix = 1
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_ncfix1_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_ncfix1_PI
C140 doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_ncfix1_cldmacmic2_cldmic1_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_ncfix1_cldmacmic2_cldmic1_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. HD mods(freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
3. rain freeze = -40
4. pdf_macro = True
5. trunc_macro = 2
6. ncfix = 1
7. cldmacmic = 2
8. cldmic = 1
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/
C141 doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_ncfix1_cldmacmic2_cldmic1_pmicro_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_ncfix1_cldmacmic2_cldmic1_pmicro_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. HD mods(freeze dry is not used here as LLNL macrophysics does not use freezedry )
3. rain freeze = -40
4. pdf_macro = True
5. trunc_macro = 2
6. ncfix = 1
7. cldmacmic = 2
8. cldmic = 1
9. pdf_micro = True
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_ncfix1_cldmacmic2_cldmic1_pmicro_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_pmacro_ncfix1_cldmacmic2_cldmic1_pmicro_PI
C142 doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. HD mods(freeze dry is false)
3. rain freeze = -40
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_rnfrz_PI
C143 doe_polar_M3_HD_pmacroOnly_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_HD_pmacroOnly_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. HD mods(freeze dry is false)
3. pdf_macro = True
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_pmacroOnly_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_pmacroOnly_PI
C144 doe_polar_M3_HD_pmacro_truncMac2_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_HD_pmacro_truncMac2_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. HD mods(freeze dry is false)
3. pdf_macro = True
4. trunc_macro = 2
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_pmacro_truncMac2_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_pmacro_truncMac2_PI
C145 doe_polar_M3_HD_FrzDryOff_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_HD_FrzDryOff_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. HD mods(freeze dry is false)
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_FrzDryOff_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_HD_FrzDryOff_PI
C144 doe_polar_M3_pmacroOnly_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_pmacroOnly_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. pdf_macro = True
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacroOnly_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacroOnly_PI
C145 doe_polar_M3_pmacro_wetdeposit_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_pmacro_wetdeposit_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. pdf_macro = True
3. wet deposit
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacro_wetdeposit_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacro_wetdeposit_PI
C146 doe_polar_M3_pmacro_complTreat_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_pmacro_complTreat_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. pdf_macro = True
3. compl treatment
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacro_complTreat_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacro_complTreat_PI
C147 doe_polar_M3_pmacro_convproc_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_pmacro_convproc_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following(year 2 comparison ONLY):
1. MAM3
2. pdf_macro = True
3. convproc only
Only year 2 analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacro_convproc_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacro_convproc_PI
C148 doe_polar_M3_default_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_default_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following:
1. MAM3
10 years compared. This simulation is default CAM5_1_31 MAM3 simulation with files modified for polar project. That is, this simulation is NOT using 'out of the box' CAM5_1_31 tag /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_default_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_default_PI
C149 doe_polar_M3_convproc_nclTuneOff_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_convproc_nclTuneOff_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following:
1. MAM3
2. convproc only
10 years analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_convproc_nclTuneOff_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_convproc_nclTuneOff_PI
C150 doe_polar_M3_pmacroOnly_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_pmacroOnly_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following:
1. MAM3
2. pdf_macro = True
10 years analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacroOnly_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacroOnly_PI
C151 doe_polar_M3_pmacro_convproc_nclTuneOff_PD
Vs.
doe_polar_M3_pmacro_convproc_nclTuneOff_PI
CAM5_1_31 PD Vs. PI with the following:
1. MAM3
2. pdf_macro = True
3. convproc only
10 years analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacro_convproc_nclTuneOff_PD
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/doe_polar_M3_pmacro_convproc_nclTuneOff_PI
C152 withoutPerGrow_test_cesm103_uwshcuChng1_online
Vs.
withoutPerGrow_test_cesm103_online
2 years online runs (only 2nd year analyzed) comparing the Sungsu UWSHCU fix with the default model:
1. There was a 0.4 degree jump from the UWSHCU scheme while performing the pergrow test
2. It was due to an "if condition" in UWSHCU scheme which was not resulting in an asymptotic behavior
3. Sungsu suggested changes in the UWSCHU code to get an asymptotic behavior by getting rid of an else block 4. These simulations were done to see how the changes suggested by Sungsu effect the simulation
Only 2nd year analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/withoutPerGrow_test_cesm103_uwshcuChng1_online
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/withoutPerGrow_test_cesm103_online
C155 wo_PerGrw_cesm103_online_uwshcuChng1_int
Vs.
wo_PerGrw_cesm103_online_int
6 years online runs (only 2nd to 6th year analyzed) comparing the Sungsu UWSHCU fix with the default model:
1. This run is different from C152 as here we are not using "aqua planet" namelist option
2. There was a 0.4 degree jump from the UWSHCU scheme while performing the pergrow test
3. It was due to an "if condition" in UWSHCU scheme which was not resulting in an asymptotic behavior
4. Sungsu suggested changes in the UWSCHU code to get an asymptotic behavior by getting rid of an else block
5. These simulations were done to see how the changes suggested by Sungsu effect the simulation
Only 2nd to 6th years analyzed /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/wo_PerGrw_cesm103_online_uwshcuChng1_int
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/wo_PerGrw_cesm103_online_int
C156 CAM5100_5SOA_BrC_PhysP06042013_2x_soais
Vs.
CAM5100_5SOA_BrwnCrbnRun_1_PhysProp06042013_woRadDiag_int
CAM5100 run with 5 SOA species using brownoc_rrtmg_06042013 as their physprop file compared againt a run with 2x yeild of soais emissions 5 years analyzed (1st yr skipped) /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5100_5SOA_BrC_PhysP06042013_2x_soais
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/CAM5100_5SOA_BrwnCrbnRun_1_PhysProp06042013_woRadDiag_int
C157 fc5_2000_pm_2deg
Vs.
fc5_2000
fc5_2000_pm_2deg is the prescribed aerosols 10 year run and fc5_2000 is the free running CAM with year 2000 climotology. Both runs use cesm1_2_0 (CAM5.3) model 10 years analyzed (1st yr skipped) /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/fc5_2000_pm_2deg
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/fc5_2000
C158 fc5_2000_pm_2deg
Vs.
fc5_2000
fc5_2000_pm_2deg is the prescribed aerosols 10 year run (with prescribed surface fluxes for cloud borne aerosols) and fc5_2000 is the free running CAM with year 2000 climotology. Both runs use cesm1_2_0 (CAM5.3) model 10 years analyzed (1st yr skipped) /lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/fc5_2000_pm_2deg
and
/lustre/sing201/CAM/cesm_diagnostics/amwg_diag5.2/climo/fc5_2000
C159 YA003
Vs.
YA190
cam5_1_00 simulations at 2 degree resolution, 30 min vs 4 min time step 5 years analyzed (1st yr skipped)
C160 m2005+CLUBB_c6rtc7LSw
Vs.
obs
The comparison between MMF+CLUBB and observations. MMF+CLUBB has the Morrison microphysics. The MMF+CLUBB use the updated c6rt and c7 from Zhun's paper (c6rt=2.3 and c7=0.32 for the low skewness only)
C161 m2005+CLUBB_c6rtc7LSw
Vs.
m2005
The comparison between MMF+CLUBB and MMF with the Morrison microphysics. The MMF+CLUBB use the updated c6rt and c7 from Zhun's paper (c6rt=2.3 and c7=0.32 for the low skewness only)
C162 m2005+CLUBB_default
Vs.
m2005
The comparison between MF+CLUBB and MMF with the Morrison microphysics. Here the MMF+CLUBB uses the default values of CLUBB tunable parameters
C163 sam1mom+CLUBB_c6rtc7LSw
Vs.
sam1mom
The comparison between MMF+CLUBB and MMF with the single-moment microphysics. Here the MMF+CLUBB uses the updated c6rt and c7 from Zhun's paper (c6rt=2.3 and c7=0.32)
C164 CAM5_CLUBB_opt1
Vs.
CAM5_CLUBB_defalut
The comparison between CAM5_CLUBB with a set of optimal CLUBB parameters and CAM_CLUBB with the default CLUBB parameters. The optimal CLUBB parameters are identified based on 2048 experiments for 35 CLUBB tunable parameters.
C165 b1850cam5cn_doe_polar_merged_0_cesm1_2_0_PNNL.hp.e001
Vs.
b1850cam5cn_doe_polar_merged_0_cesm1_2_0_default.hp.e001
C166 fc5_2000_mam4only
Vs.
fc5_2000_pd
2 Degree MAM4 Vs. Default Ten year simulations compared(2-11 years).

Click here for aerosol diagnostic package
C167 fc5_2000_wet
Vs.
fc5_2000_pd
2 Degree with Convective scavenging Vs. Default Ten year simulations compared(2-11 years).

Click here for aerosol diagnostic package
C168 fc5_2000_mam4wet
Vs.
fc5_2000_pd
2 Degree MAM4 with Convective scavenging Vs. Default Ten year simulations compared(2-11 years).

Click here for aerosol diagnostic package
C169 fc5_2000_f09_mam4only
Vs.
fc5_2000_f09_pd
1 Degree MAM4 Vs. Default Ten year simulations compared(2-11 years).

Click here for aerosol diagnostic package
C170 fc5_2000_f09_wet
Vs.
fc5_2000_f09_pd
1 Degree with Convective scavenging Vs. Default Ten year simulations compared(2-11 years).

Click here for aerosol diagnostic package
C171 fc5_2000_f09_mam4wet
Vs.
fc5_2000_f09_pd
1 Degree MAM4 with Convective scavenging Vs. Default Ten year simulations compared(2-11 years).

Click here for aerosol diagnostic package
C172 cesm103nn_uw_drage_w_allprev_fxs_excpt_lndzeroout
Vs.
cesm103nn_default_run
cesm103nn with all mods:
1. Thresh hold qsmall changed from 1e-18 to 1e-8
2. wrk1 variable is now a function of T in conv_water_4rad subroutine
3. Sungsu suggested changes in uwshcu
4. if condition for 1.0 Vs 0.99 in modal_aero_wateruptake.F90
5. RNG chng in rad
6. Limit for cloud fraction lcldm
7. drage limit in uwshcu.F90
Vs. Default
One year simulation /dtemp/sing201/cam/cesm_diagnostics-output/amwg_diag5.2/climo/: cesm103nn_uw_drage_w_allprev_fxs_excpt_lndzeroout and cesm103nn_default_run folders
C173 Case B
C174 Case C
C175 Case D
C176 Case E
C177 Case Y

Climate Modeling

Links

Internal