Hello everyone,
I have gone through the papers Kunz et al.,2011 and Smith et al.,2017 and understand the nudging process in specified dynamics compset.
Q1) I want to ask that is 100% nudging in SD-WACCM6 advisable?
Because in all of the papers i saw a nudging of 1or 10% was only done.
I have tried it and keep getting the error "Langrangian levels are crossing".The test run was just for two days.I increased the fv_nspltvrm and fv_nspltrac to 8 from default value of 4 ( I retained the default value of fv_nsplit =16) and got over it but i have a feeling that the model might keep crashing if i give longer runs.
Q2) I went for a test run for 100% nudging in SD-CAM6 and did not get any error such as the above and it ran successfully.Why did not i get such an error in SD-CAM6?
The requirement of my experiment is 100% nudging.
Looking forward to your reply.
Regards,
Anushree
I have gone through the papers Kunz et al.,2011 and Smith et al.,2017 and understand the nudging process in specified dynamics compset.
Q1) I want to ask that is 100% nudging in SD-WACCM6 advisable?
Because in all of the papers i saw a nudging of 1or 10% was only done.
I have tried it and keep getting the error "Langrangian levels are crossing".The test run was just for two days.I increased the fv_nspltvrm and fv_nspltrac to 8 from default value of 4 ( I retained the default value of fv_nsplit =16) and got over it but i have a feeling that the model might keep crashing if i give longer runs.
Q2) I went for a test run for 100% nudging in SD-CAM6 and did not get any error such as the above and it ran successfully.Why did not i get such an error in SD-CAM6?
The requirement of my experiment is 100% nudging.
Looking forward to your reply.
Regards,
Anushree