[MITgcm-devel] cal_time2dump

[Martin Losch]

Hi Jean-Michel,

I repeated the run with startDate2 = 000000 and still get 13 files
diag2Dm.0000108405.data
diag2Dm.0000108498.data
diag2Dm.0000108582.data
diag2Dm.0000108675.data
diag2Dm.0000108765.data
diag2Dm.0000108858.data
diag2Dm.0000108948.data
diag2Dm.0000109041.data
diag2Dm.0000109134.data
diag2Dm.0000109224.data
diag2Dm.0000109317.data
diag2Dm.0000109407.data
diag2Dm.0000109500.data

The first 108405*28800sec = 3122064000sec now has the time stamp of my timePhase(4) = 3122064000.,

Is this what you expect? I would have expected the first file at  timePhase + frequency = (3122064000+31*86400)/28800 = 108498, which is exactly the second file. Or is this extra file diag2Dm.0000108405.data actually the average over the entire simulation until time step 108405 and should be discarded anyway?

Martin

> On 07 Jul 2016, at 17:01, Martin Losch <martin.losch at awi.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jean-Michel,
> 
> mitgcm.org has been down so much that I didn’t get a chance to check this, but now I find this:
> 
> Basically, I do 100 years (365days each) + 1 time step with a 8h asynchronous time step (see below data&PARAM03) and my data.diagnostics settings are:
>  frequency(4) = 2628000.,
>  timePhase(4) = 3122064000.,
>  filename(4) = 'diag2Dm',
>  fields(1,4) = 'MXLDEPTH','ETAN    ',
>                'SIarea  ','SIheff  ','SIhsnow ',
>                'SIuice  ','SIvice  ‘,
> 
> cat data.cal
> &CAL_NML
> TheCalendar='noLeapYear',
> calendarDumps=.TRUE.,
> #TheCalendar='model',
> startDate_1=19480101,
> # I am not sure why this is here. Maybe that’s the problem?
> startDate_2=120000, 
> &
> 
> Then I get 13 output files diag2Dm.*.data instead of 12 (as with my version of cal_time2dump):
> diag2Dm.0000108404.data <- this is the extra file
> diag2Dm.0000108497.data
> diag2Dm.0000108581.data
> diag2Dm.0000108674.data
> diag2Dm.0000108764.data
> diag2Dm.0000108857.data
> diag2Dm.0000108947.data
> diag2Dm.0000109040.data
> diag2Dm.0000109133.data
> diag2Dm.0000109223.data
> diag2Dm.0000109316.data
> diag2Dm.0000109406.data
> diag2Dm.0000109499.data
> 
> &PARM03
> nIter0=0,
> nTimeSteps = 109501,
> forcing_In_AB=.FALSE.,
> momDissip_In_AB=.FALSE.,
> # asynchronous time stepping:
> deltaTmom   =1200.,
> deltaTtracer=28800.,
> deltaTfreesurf=28800.,
> deltaTClock =28800.,
> doAB_onGtGs=.FALSE.,
> alph_AB=0.5,
> beta_AB=0.281105,
> pChkptFreq  =315360000.0,
> chkptFreq   = 2628000.0,
> monitorFreq = 86400.0,
> dumpInitAndLast = .FALSE.,
> &
> 
> Do you expect that? Is the startDate_2=120000, the problem (I guess it should be 000000)?
> I’ll try again.
> 
> Martin
> 
>> On 01 Jul 2016, at 01:01, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at mit.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Martin,
>> 
>> I added the same type of condition in cal_time2dump.F
>> as ithe one in diff_phase_multiple.F for the case calendarDumps=F.
>> I did not checked (yet) that this fix the problem.
>> plese let me know if you find something strange.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Jean-Michel
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 02:03:40PM +0200, Martin Losch wrote:
>>> not so important, but it would be nice to fix it. Any comments?
>>> 
>>> M.
>>>> On 07 Jun 2016, at 10:20, Martin Losch <Martin.Losch at awi.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi there,
>>>> 
>>>> I think there is a bug in cal_time2dump.F
>>>> 
>>>> When I specify in data.diagnostics:
>>>> frequency = 1 month
>>>> timePhase = 99 years
>>>> I expect that the monthly averages start in year 100, ie. 99year + 1month would be the first monthly averagy that I get.
>>>> 
>>>> This does not work if calendarDumps=.True. in data.cal, because cal_time2dump computes
>>>>      shTime = myTime - phase
>>>>      prTime = shTime - step
>>>>      CALL CAL_GETDATE( myIter, shTime, thisDate, myThid )
>>>>      CALL CAL_GETDATE( myIter, prTime, prevDate, myThid )
>>>> and then evaluates the difference between thisDate and prevDate. But shTime and prTime both contain ???-phase???, so that the model starts writing averages in the first year. Since I don???t know these packages very well and I don???t want to break anything, I???d like to know what to do here. Is this intentional? If not, should it be fixed by adding something to the if-statement ( myTime.GE.phase )? Or should cal_getdate actuall return something special if shTime<0, and the problem is in that routine?
>>>> 
>>>> Martin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
>>>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
>>>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
>>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
>>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel