[cam-users] CGD Forums

[phpbb at cgd.ucar.edu]

Dear cam-users, 

As you requested, here is the latest digest of messages posted on CGD Forums forums. Please come and join the discussion!


<<  Setting calendar, http://bb.cgd.ucar.edu//viewtopic.php?t=80 >>

PosterboylePostedWed Dec 15, 2004 5:32 pm MST, http://bb.cgd.ucar.edu//viewtopic.php?p=252#252
Message: In the documentation it is indicated that there is a choice of calendars: 'NO_LEAP' and 'GREGORIAN'.
<br />In my namelist I have set calendar = 'GREGORIAN' but the in the output the time variable still has the 'NO-LEAP' calendar attribute. All the other time settings START_YMD START_TOD REF_YMD REF_TOD that are set by the namelist are picked up. NSREST = 0.
<br /> My naive reading of the time_manager.F90 code seems to indicate that NO_LEAP is set there and I can't find where the namelist variable is adopted.
<br />
<br />This seems very simple- what am I doing wrong?

------------------------------
PostereatonPostedThu Dec 16, 2004 12:54 am MST, http://bb.cgd.ucar.edu//viewtopic.php?p=253#253
Message: Changing the calendar in CAM is not fully implemented.  The time manager,
<br />which is based on a prototype version of the ESMF library, will accept
<br />setting the calendar to Gregorian, and as you advance time the dates will
<br />work correctly.  However, the solar calculations are based strictly on a
<br />365-day calendar.  I'm not exactly sure how the solar zenith calculation
<br />behaves in day 366 of a leap year.  There is a bug as you have noted that
<br />the calendar attribute in the netCDF output is hardcoded to NO_LEAP (in
<br />history.F90).  That could easily be fixed, but the astronomy calculation
<br />would still be wrong which is a larger problem.

------------------------------

<<  Port Validation in HP (formerly Compaq) Tru64, http://bb.cgd.ucar.edu//viewtopic.php?t=77 >>

PostereatonPostedThu Dec 16, 2004 1:24 am MST, http://bb.cgd.ucar.edu//viewtopic.php?p=254#254
Message: I'm not aware of an official support policy for CAM.  The following
<br />comments are my opinions/observations only.
<br />
<br />The IBM is our production platform, and the model is tuned to produce an
<br />acceptable climate there.  The control simulations that are provided via the CAM
<br />homepage are the final results of that tuning process.
<br />
<br />CAM passes perturbation growth tests on our SGI (Origin 3800) and on an x86
<br />based Linux cluster (using the Lahey Fortran compiler) compared to results
<br />from the IBM.  But we have not done full climate validations on either of
<br />these platforms.
<br />
<br />CAM running in the CCSM has been validated on more machines.  See the CCSM
<br />web site for a list of the fully supported machines on which full climate
<br />validations have been performed.  I don't know the details of that
<br />validation process, but it does not use perturbation growth testing.

------------------------------




Format TEXT
Show Message Text YES
Show My Messages YES
Digest Frequency DAY
Show only new messages since last time I logged in FALSE
Send empty digests NO
Time of day to send digest 9 AM
Maximum characters per message in digest 32000