1990 control run atmosphere and sea ice times

[andrea_grant@env_ethz_ch]

I have downloaded output files from the 1990 control run at high resolution (the b30.009 run) for monthly averages of atmospheric variables (such as surface air temperature and sea level pressure) and for sea ice (aice variable) and they seem to cover different years.

For example, I have SAT (TS) files:
b30.009.cam2.h0.TS.0100-01_cat_0119-12.nc
through
b30.009.cam2.h0.TS.0620-01_cat_0639-12.nc
which seem to cover years 100 to 639 of the 700 (?) year control run, while I have sea ice (aice) files:
b30.009.csim.h.aice_nh.0250-01_cat_0299-12.nc
through
b30.009.csim.h.aice_nh.0550-01_cat_0599-12.nc
which cover years 250 to 599 of the same 700 year control run.

I assume that for some reason only a subset of the sea ice output is on ESG, but that the year (for example) 384 means the same thing for all variables. This is the obvious interpretation but I'd hate to make an assumption!

Thanks

 

[strandwg]

I assume that for some reason only a subset of the sea ice output is on ESG, but that the year (for example) 384 means the same thing for all variables. This is the obvious interpretation but I'd hate to make an assumption!

The year stamp is the same for all fields.

I'll see what I can find out about the "missing" sea ice data.

 

[kauff]

I processed the data for the b30.009 control run ...

o) The model years are consistent across all models.
o) Which years of model data were post-processed was something the associated working group co-chairs decided -- different working groups made different choices.
o) Which years are included in each CDF file was based largely on making files large, but not too large, and making "handy" chunks of data, like 20, 50, or 100 years (this is subjective).

It seemed most working groups were only interested in data that came out of thier own component model and that coordinating the years included in all these CDF files was either undesireable and/or not worth the effort (at this stage of the game). For example, the land model working group preferred to work with the original monthly avg data files rather than making single-variable time series files.

 

[andrea_grant@env_ethz_ch]

This is great--thanks very much for the info. My group had just got to
wondering about the difference and I wanted to make sure I hadn't
misunderstood the naming scheme!!

I processed the data for the b30.009 control run ...

o) The model years are consistent across all models.
o) Which years of model data were post-processed was something the associated working group co-chairs decided -- different working groups made different choices.
o) Which years are included in each CDF file was based largely on making files large, but not too large, and making "handy" chunks of data, like 20, 50, or 100 years (this is subjective).