[MITgcm-support] parameter file read

[Dmitri Leonov]

Hello folks,

I have a similar problem running verification/exp4 using checkpoint57k_post.

It runs on a mac (xlf 8.1 compiler, single processor), the text output 
has no errors (!) but shows noise in the topography map instead of a 
clear single bump.
Standard error output looks like this:
1525-088 The NAMELIST READ statement cannot be completed because item 
GMkBackground is not a member of the NAMELIST group parm01.  The program 
will recover by discontinuing further processing of the READ statement.
STOP NORMAL END

When I run the same code on linux (compiled with g77 3.3.1) it crashes 
with a similar error:
namelist read: variable not in namelist
 
I'll try to go back to the checkpoint used in the control run...

Thanks, Dmitri

Thomas Haine wrote:

>Hi Folks, 
>
>I'm experiencing some unfamiliar behaviour reading parameter files. In
>verification/lab_sea (latest release) if I corrupt one of the parameter
>names I get no error message but the subsequent parameter settings are
>ignored.
>
>E.g.:
>
>  
>
>># SEAICE parameters
>> &SEAICE_PARM01
>>      SEAICEwriteState   = .TRUE.,
>>      SEAICE_initialHEFF = 1.0,
>>      SEAICE_deltaTtherm = 3600.,
>>      XXXXXX_deltaTdyn   = 3600.,
>>#     SEAICEuseDYNAMICS  =.FALSE.,
>>      LSR_ERROR          = 1.E-12,
>>#     SEAICE_tave_mnc    = .FALSE.,
>> &
>>    
>>
>
>gives no error and output.txt shows the initial thickness field is set
>correctly at 1.0m, but the LSR_ERROR is still at its default value. In
>other words everything after the illegal parameter is ignored.
>
>This behaviour also seems to apply to data.kpp. But I get an runtime
>namelist error if I corrupt a parameter name in data or data.gmredi
>(which is what I normally expect to see).
>
>This has caused me some headaches because updating my code caused my
>seaice parameter settings to change without me realising for a while
>(e.g., my seaice initial condition file was not read and I got the
>default seaice ics). I guess that my old parameters were no longer all
>valid and the settings below the defunct parameters were ignored without
>giving me a runtime error.
>
>Can you clarify if I have this right and what is the policy on reading
>data files?
>
>Thanks, Tom.
>
>_______________________________________________
>MITgcm-support mailing list
>MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
>http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>  
>