[MITgcm-support] Using pkg/calendar with diagnostics

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Samar,

The calendar round off of monthly frequency is not taken into account
when writing timeInterval into the meta file.
This is something that needs to be fixed (but would imply to
store in common block when the storage array is reset, rather than
to try to guess, at the time the output is written, when the timeInterval 
started).

So, for now, let focus on the time stamps of the output files.
It looks like the length of each month is right (assuming you are
starting on a leap year), but it's shifted by half a day.

What is deltaTClock and other timing parameters (PARM03 in data)
and data.cal + relevant output params from data.diagnostics
that you are using ?

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 03:57:02PM -0400, Samar Khatiwala wrote:
> Hi Dimitris,
> 
> I don't understand the logic either but I'm assuming what is written in the .meta file is correct. Good idea 
> to look at the time stamps of the output files. This is what I get:
> 
>    30.5   59.5   90.5  120.5  151.5  181.5  212.5  243.5  273.5  304.5  334.5  365.5
>   396.5  424.5  455.5  485.5  516.5  546.5  577.5  608.5  638.5  669.5  699.5
> 
> Clearly something funny. Sounds like an issue previously reported in this thread: 
> http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/2012-June/007789.html
> 
> And, yes, I do have endTime such that there should be 2 years of output.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Samar
> 
> On Mar 21, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Dimitris Menemenlis <dmenemenlis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Samar, I am not very familiar with the timeInterval logic.
> > But I if you look at the time stamps of your output files,
> > if you start integration from January 1, they should be
> > 31, 59, 90, 120, 151, etc. days for normal years and
> > 31, 60, 91, 121, 152, etc. days for leap years.
> > Maybe the "timeInterval" computation is off?
> > 
> > To get 2 years of output you need to make sure
> > that endTime >= 31536000 for normal years
> > and endTime >= 31633400 for leap years.
> > 
> > On Mar 21, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Samar Khatiwala <spk at ldeo.columbia.edu> wrote:
> > 
> >> Thanks Dimitris!
> >> 
> >> I gave it a try but am puzzled by the output. I ran the model for 2 years expecting to find 24 output files 
> >> but instead got 23. Also, the timeInterval stamp in the .meta files looks odd. For example, compare the 
> >> second digit in the 2d line with the first digit in the 3d line. There's a gap which seems to explain why 
> >> none of the averaging intervals exceeds 29.5 days (except the first one). Any thoughts as to what I'm 
> >> doing wrong?
> >> 
> >> Thanks, Samar
> >> 
> >> timeInterval = [  3.600000000000E+03  2.635200000000E+06 ]; 30.4583  <-- number of days
> >> timeInterval = [  2.635200000000E+06  5.140800000000E+06 ]; 29
> >> timeInterval = [  5.270400000000E+06  7.819200000000E+06 ]; 29.5
> >> timeInterval = [  7.905600000000E+06  1.041120000000E+07 ]; 29
> >> timeInterval = [  1.054080000000E+07  1.308960000000E+07 ]; 29.5
> >> timeInterval = [  1.317600000000E+07  1.568160000000E+07 ]; 29
> >> timeInterval = [  1.581120000000E+07  1.836000000000E+07 ];
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-support mailing list
> > MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> > http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support