[MITgcm-support] build errors for llc_1080

[Dimitris Menemenlis]

yup.  initially you need to run with small time step, until you get rid of initialization shock.

here is a spin-up history for llc1080,
but note that first year is without tides

llc1080 initial conditions and spin-up:
- start on January 1, 2010
  from Hong's 2009-2011 3-year CS510 adjoint-method estimate.
- run for one year with ERA-interim, with corrected dlw.
- kick in tides, atmospheric pressure forcing, and 0.14-degree
  atmospheric analysis on January 1, 2011

run_day1, deltaT=30, dumpFreq=3600, ERAi, January 1, 2010
run_day2_10, deltaT=90, dumpFreq=21600, ERAi, January 2-10, 2010
run_day10_20, deltaT=120, dumpFreq=21600, ERAi, January 11-20, 2010
run_day20_45, deltaT=180, dumpFreq=21600, ERAi, January 21 - February 14, 2010
run_day45_90, deltaT=240, dumpFreq=86400, ERAi, February 15 - March 30, 2010
run_day135,  deltaT=240, dumpFreq=86400, ERAi, March 31 - May 16, 2010
run_year1, deltaT=240, dumpFreq=86400, ERAi, May 17, 2010 - March 16, 2011

run_EOG, deltaT=240, dumpFreq=86400, ECMWF 0.14-deg analysis, January 1-20, 2011

run_EOG_pres, deltaT=240, dumpFreq=86400, ECMWF + atmos pressure, January 1-16, 2011

run_EOG_press_tides, deltaT=120, dumpFreq=86400, ECMWF + pressure + tides, January 1-20,  2011

run_cn_dt120_crash, deltaT=120, dumpFreq=86400, ECMWF + pressure + tides + Crank-Nickelson, January 1-5,  2011
run_2011, deltaT=90, dumpFreq=86400, ECMWF + pressure + tides + Crank-Nickelson, January 5 - December 31,  2011
run_day732_896, deltaT=90, dumpFreq=3600, ECMWF + pressure + tides + Crank-Nickelson, January 1 - June 20, 2012


Dimitris Menemenlis

> On Nov 16, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Ryan Abernathey <ryan.abernathey at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks again for the advice. I got it to start timestepping!
> 
> ...Unfortunately I had NaN's by timestep 2... ;p
> 
> My guess is that I have to reduce my timestep (it's 90 in the example) for a few iterations to overcome the geostrophic adjustment shock, as with most spinup. However, before embarking on this, since people (Dimitris) have already been through the procedure, I thought I would ask for your guidance.
> 
> -Ryan
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/attachments/20161116/a354f6b0/attachment-0001.htm>