Hi, I've also met this question that the energey balance (FSNT-FLNT) is about -26 W/m^2, and to whom it may concern, this problem mainly came from the differences of grid box area at different latitude when calculating the global average. If the global average is calculated without the weight of grid boxes' area, then the global average balance is about -26, but weighted with the cosine of latitude the global average is about zero.
FAQ: Data ocean slab mode (DOCN-SOM)
- Thread starter T_ying
- Start date
I think the people who work on the aquaplanet are better suited to reply here. I believe the default configuration for the aquaplanet is not to have sea ice.
Hi all~
I've made a comparison between CESM1.2.2 and 2.1.2 with similar compset: 2000_CAM40_CLM40%SP_CICE_DOCN%SOM_RTM_SGLC_SWAV. The recomended 150217 som forcing file is used in both cases, and other forcing including GHG and aerosols are the same. The case with CESM1.2.2 (named as E2000_test) seems to reach its equilibrium in 10 years and keep stable in the following decades, while the CESM2.1.2 run (named as E2000_cam4_clm40_test) keeps cooling in its first 30 years. I have no idea whether the CESM2.1.2 run would reach its equilibrium if it continues, or it would keep cooling as mentioned before in many other CESM2 cases. I've also checked the global mean energy balance at the model top FSNT-FLNT, and in the CESM1.2.2 case it reaches around 0 in about 10 years, while in the CESM2.1.2 case it keeps about -0.5W/m^2 until it reaches a turning point and then the energy imbalance increases and the surface temperature cools faster. The time series of global mean surface temperature and net flux at model top are shown as the following figures. Do you guys have any ideas why there is an energy imbalance in the CESM2.1.2 run? Thanks~
I've made a comparison between CESM1.2.2 and 2.1.2 with similar compset: 2000_CAM40_CLM40%SP_CICE_DOCN%SOM_RTM_SGLC_SWAV. The recomended 150217 som forcing file is used in both cases, and other forcing including GHG and aerosols are the same. The case with CESM1.2.2 (named as E2000_test) seems to reach its equilibrium in 10 years and keep stable in the following decades, while the CESM2.1.2 run (named as E2000_cam4_clm40_test) keeps cooling in its first 30 years. I have no idea whether the CESM2.1.2 run would reach its equilibrium if it continues, or it would keep cooling as mentioned before in many other CESM2 cases. I've also checked the global mean energy balance at the model top FSNT-FLNT, and in the CESM1.2.2 case it reaches around 0 in about 10 years, while in the CESM2.1.2 case it keeps about -0.5W/m^2 until it reaches a turning point and then the energy imbalance increases and the surface temperature cools faster. The time series of global mean surface temperature and net flux at model top are shown as the following figures. Do you guys have any ideas why there is an energy imbalance in the CESM2.1.2 run? Thanks~
By comparing the output of year 10 and the year 30 in the CESM2.1.2 run, I've noticed that there's a great increase of ice area near the south pole, and as shown in the following figure, in July of year 30 almost all the Southern Ocean is coverd by ice. It seems that the ice albedo feedback plays the dominant role in the cooling of the CESM2.1.2 case. How can I avoid this situation and make it equilibrium? Thanks~
It's a file named 'b.e15.B1850G.f09_g16.pi_control.25.cice.r.0041-01-01-00000.nc', would it be better if I change it into a 2000 file?
The CESM1.2.2 case used the iced.0001-01-01.gx1v6_20080212 file, but it seems that cice4 is no longer supported in CESM2. Is this file suitable for cice5?
The global mean FSNT-FLNT time series is shown as the last figure above. Before 0025 the imbalance is about -0.5W/m^2, and later the imbalance increases.
Thanks~ BTW, the first two posts seems to belong to the original F&Q, and you can move them back.
