In December of Year 46 of a CESM 1.2.2 slab ocean run with horizontal fluxes set to zero: (1850_CAM5_CLM45_CICE_DOCN%SOM_RTM_SGLC_SWAV), I get CLM crashing because of issues with snow balance. In particular, I get this in the CESM log: WARNING: snow balance error nstep = 804117 indexc= 5230 ltype: 6 errh2osno= 0.213626229745594 clm model is stopping - error is greater than .10 nstep = 804117 indexc= 5230 errh2osno= 0.213626229745594 ltype: 6 ctype(indexc): 65 snl: -1 h2osno: 1.34031126790802 h2osno_old: 1.39951518049922 snow_sources: 1.884662632477202E-008 snow_sinks: 1.515911479245435E-004 qflx_prec_grnd: 3.392392738458963E-005 qflx_sub_snow: 2.217117946664299E-002 qflx_evap_grnd: 3.706665705194147E-002 qflx_top_soil: 0.000000000000000E+000 qflx_dew_snow: 0.000000000000000E+000 qflx_dew_grnd: 0.000000000000000E+000 qflx_snwcp_ice: 0.213626229745594 qflx_snwcp_liq: 0.000000000000000E+000 qflx_sl_top_soil: 0.000000000000000E+000 clm model is stopping Does anyone know the significance of "snow capping"? And why there would be sudden dump of ice in a single timestep? Nicholas Heavens Research Assistant Professor of Planetary ScienceHampton University
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sudden Crash Due to ErrH2OSno
- Thread starter heavens
- Start date
This looks similar to a known bug. The ice "dumped" is actually ponded ice on top of the soil exceeding a prescribed limit and it shouldn't be included in the qflx_snwcp_ice. See here for a description of the bug:
http://bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2238 This was fixed in clm4_5_6_r156. I'm not sure what version you are using. If you have access to the cesm respository, you could look at the change log and see what changes were made to the code. However, the simplest thing to do might be to comment out the endrun in BalanceCheck temporarily to get past the error.
http://bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2238 This was fixed in clm4_5_6_r156. I'm not sure what version you are using. If you have access to the cesm respository, you could look at the change log and see what changes were made to the code. However, the simplest thing to do might be to comment out the endrun in BalanceCheck temporarily to get past the error.
This looks similar to a known bug. The ice "dumped" is actually ponded ice on top of the soil exceeding a prescribed limit and it shouldn't be included in the qflx_snwcp_ice. See here for a description of the bug:
http://bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2238 This was fixed in clm4_5_6_r156. I'm not sure what version you are using. If you have access to the cesm respository, you could look at the change log and see what changes were made to the code. However, the simplest thing to do might be to comment out the endrun in BalanceCheck temporarily to get past the error.
http://bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2238 This was fixed in clm4_5_6_r156. I'm not sure what version you are using. If you have access to the cesm respository, you could look at the change log and see what changes were made to the code. However, the simplest thing to do might be to comment out the endrun in BalanceCheck temporarily to get past the error.
This looks similar to a known bug. The ice "dumped" is actually ponded ice on top of the soil exceeding a prescribed limit and it shouldn't be included in the qflx_snwcp_ice. See here for a description of the bug:
http://bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2238 This was fixed in clm4_5_6_r156. I'm not sure what version you are using. If you have access to the cesm respository, you could look at the change log and see what changes were made to the code. However, the simplest thing to do might be to comment out the endrun in BalanceCheck temporarily to get past the error.
http://bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2238 This was fixed in clm4_5_6_r156. I'm not sure what version you are using. If you have access to the cesm respository, you could look at the change log and see what changes were made to the code. However, the simplest thing to do might be to comment out the endrun in BalanceCheck temporarily to get past the error.
Thanks. I don't have access to the repository, but I did find this note on a listhost archive:clm William Sacks 2015-11-24 - clm4_5_6_r156 - components/clm (cesm1_5_alpha03e) https://svn-ccsm-models.cgd.ucar.edu/clm2/trunk_tags/clm4_5_6_r156/components/clm Fix QSNWCPICE and glacial inception Changes diagnostic fields for clm45/clm50 compsets Potentially significant changes for IG compsets with clm45/clm50That's all I really need to know.
Thanks. I don't have access to the repository, but I did find this note on a listhost archive:clm William Sacks 2015-11-24 - clm4_5_6_r156 - components/clm (cesm1_5_alpha03e) https://svn-ccsm-models.cgd.ucar.edu/clm2/trunk_tags/clm4_5_6_r156/components/clm Fix QSNWCPICE and glacial inception Changes diagnostic fields for clm45/clm50 compsets Potentially significant changes for IG compsets with clm45/clm50That's all I really need to know.
Thanks. I don't have access to the repository, but I did find this note on a listhost archive:clm William Sacks 2015-11-24 - clm4_5_6_r156 - components/clm (cesm1_5_alpha03e) https://svn-ccsm-models.cgd.ucar.edu/clm2/trunk_tags/clm4_5_6_r156/components/clm Fix QSNWCPICE and glacial inception Changes diagnostic fields for clm45/clm50 compsets Potentially significant changes for IG compsets with clm45/clm50That's all I really need to know.
xiejinbo@mail_iap_ac_cn
New Member
From the error log the landtype is actually urban landunit--pervious landtype,does this bug also apply to urban landunit?
xiejinbo@mail_iap_ac_cn
New Member
From the error log the landtype is actually urban landunit--pervious landtype,does this bug also apply to urban landunit?
xiejinbo@mail_iap_ac_cn
New Member
From the error log the landtype is actually urban landunit--pervious landtype,does this bug also apply to urban landunit?
xiejinbo@mail_iap_ac_cn
New Member
I met the same problem in my simulation, where ctype=65 often comes with warning or even imbalance while have not met any with ctype=1. I was wondering what are the differences between ctype=65 and ctype=1 that may cause this problem?
xiejinbo@mail_iap_ac_cn
New Member
I met the same problem in my simulation, where ctype=65 often comes with warning or even imbalance while have not met any with ctype=1. I was wondering what are the differences between ctype=65 and ctype=1 that may cause this problem?
xiejinbo@mail_iap_ac_cn
New Member
I met the same problem in my simulation, where ctype=65 often comes with warning or even imbalance while have not met any with ctype=1. I was wondering what are the differences between ctype=65 and ctype=1 that may cause this problem?