Scheduled Downtime
On Tuesday 24 October 2023 @ 5pm MT the forums will be in read only mode in preparation for the downtime. On Wednesday 25 October 2023 @ 5am MT, this website will be down for maintenance and expected to return online later in the morning.
Normal Operations
The forums are back online with normal operations. If you notice any issues or errors related to the forums, please reach out to help@ucar.edu

Fates with future forcing

B

brendanclark

Brendan Clark
New Member
I am using ctsm5.3.063 and I am trying to run FATES with SSP585 forcing initialized from a spinup simulation I did. When I use the compset starting with I (no anomaly forcing enabled) "ISSP585_DATM%GSWP3v1_CLM50%FATES_SICE_SOCN_MOSART_CISM2%NOEVOLVE_SWAV" the model runs without any problems. But, when I switch to the same compset, without the I "SSP585_DATM%GSWP3v1_CLM50%FATES_SICE_SOCN_MOSART_CISM2%NOEVOLVE_SWAV" (anomaly forcing enabled), then the run fails with no errors in the log files. This can be confirmed (I think) in CaseDocs/datm.streams.xml in the two cases below, this is also somewhat confusing since it seems to contradict the naming convention outlined in the user guide. I am able to successfully specify future forcing in CPLHIST mode with FATES, but I am not able to use anomaly forcing with FATES. Is FATES able to be used with a compset that enables future forcing? Am I misunderstanding something about anomaly forcing (I've only ever used CPLHIST mode before) or am I doing something wrong? The two case paths are below, the only difference is the compset used ("I" vs. no "I" at beginning):

Case that works: /glade/work/brendanc/CTSMcases/300725ctsm5.3.063_fates_ISSP585
Case that doesnt work: /glade/work/brendanc/CTSMcases/300725ctsm5.3.063_fates_SSP585_v3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top