Thank you for the explanation, this was very helpful.In CESM1.1 the CLM version is CLM4. This is what was used for CESM1-LENS. In terms of CN (carbon-nitrogen) on or off, this SOM forcing should still be fine for both. Generally, the SOM forcing can work well with many differences. For example, we typically do simulations with 1850 CO2 levels and then double the CO2 levels and the SOM forcing remains fixed. There was some work out of Livermore where they did an uncertainty quantification and made many physics/parameter changes within CAM. Out of 50 or so experiments, only one did not remain stable.
Ok thanks!If you really want to use CAM5, then sticking with CESM1 is the best idea. However, the problem is that CESM1 is not necessarily supported on a lot of machines.
Interesting. Thought I had added it. It is there now.Ok thanks!
One last thing: Is it possible to add the recommended SOM forcing file (pop_frc.b.e11.B1850C5CN.f09_g16.005.150217.nc) to the online repository (https://svn-ccsm-inputdata.cgd.ucar.edu/trunk/inputdata/ocn/docn7/SOM/) ?
Thanks for your reply!If I understand correctly, this is kind of comparing apples to oranges. The F compset uses specified SST/ICEFRAC from observations, while the sea ice/sst in a SOM run is prognostic. If you are comparing the atmosphere in these, then they are both f09. However, I don't see what you would gain by comparing the SST/ICEFRAC between these two. What you could do instead is derive SST/ICEFRAC from a fully coupled run. This would be from the same run that the SOM forcing was derived from. Then you can actually run the F compset at f09_g16 and read in the model SST/ICEFRAC. This would be more analogous to the SOM run in my mind.