[MITgcm-support] build errors for llc_1080

[Ryan Abernathey]

Thanks Dimitris, this is just what I was looking for.

-R

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Dimitris Menemenlis <dmenemenlis at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/attachments/20161116/8c0c7628/attachment.htm>