Feature #10231: ERA5 meteo
fast track ERA5 pre-processing
Testing / Processing ERA5 meteo at 1x1 / 137layers / 3hourly back to 1990.
#2 Updated by Philippe Le Sager 15 days ago
- % Done changed from 0 to 50
- 46 minutes with ERA-Interim
- 54 minutes with ERA-5
but these are highly variable on my system (even more with short runs due the extra weight given to IO). Longer runs needed for more useful numbers.
I will start a benchmark run.
#5 Updated by Philippe Le Sager 14 days ago
Philippe Le Sager wrote:
...you added a "restart.ignore" key. What is it for? I cannot run two or more chunks in a row anymore, I wonder if this is the source of the problem.
Ok, found it. That new key defaults to
True! Just need to make sure it defaults to
False, since it is already set to T for ERA5 preprocessing.
After closer look, this new key looks like a quick way of avoiding writing save file (in case it is not compiled with HDF4) when
restart.write : FCorrect?
This is ok for now, but we'll have to rethink the all logic around restarts. Note that option 32 for
istart provides now all the functionality of a save file but with a restart file: remapping and missing tracers are handled.
#7 Updated by Philippe Le Sager 8 days ago
- % Done changed from 50 to 70
Spinup + benchmark runs with full chemistry (CB05+M7) have finished. First look at the performance:
- 1y-spinup was 15% slower with ERA5 (spinup has no output)
- 1y-benchmark was 9% slower with ERA5 (benchmarks have a lot of output)
A closer look at the profiling output shows differences in reading the met fields (in seconds, for one month run):
|tmm readfield 2D||608.29||147.89||more data: every 1h for ERA5, 3 or 6h for ERA-I|
|tmm readfield 3D||1060.52||887.86||same amount of data, but internally compressed in case of ERA5|
#8 Updated by Philippe Le Sager 6 days ago
- File comp_with_observations_overall.pdf added
- File WINTER_2006.pdf added
- % Done changed from 70 to 40
The benchmark comparison between the two models for 2006 is available. While most of the comparisons look OK, there is a couple of serious issues that need to be resolved. Have a look at the O3 sondes comparisons in the comp_with_observations_overall.pdf (pages 9-14). And why is the solar zenith angle different between the two runs (see p.26 of WINTER_2006.pdf)?
#10 Updated by Philippe Le Sager 6 days ago
Yes indeed, SZA is weighted by the actual timestep:
phot_dat(region)%sza_av = phot_dat(region)%sza_av + float(ndyn)/float(ndyn_max) * sza phot_dat(region)%nalb_av = phot_dat(region)%nalb_av + float(ndyn)/float(ndyn_max)
sza_av/nalb_av is written to file. Ok the differences are quite small, so it make sense that is due to the different time step. Quite surprised by the pattern...probably logical though.