[ecco-support] higher frequency ECCOv4 output

[Matthew Mazloff]

Hi Gael and Dimitris 

Thanks for the prompt response!

So I take it that monthly is the shortest averaging period that has yet been archived.

OK -- we will likely give running a go and let you know if we have questions.

Regarding keeping code & input up to data: Hong has done a great service by making input files, but these risk getting outdated. Can I recommend either 
(1) checking in his setup as an option for a forward run that comes complete with forcing and parameter coefficients and can be run "out of the box" 
or 
(2)  that a list regarding differences between the latest setup and Hong's be made (could go in a README) so that if one downloaded the setup at http://mitgcm.org/viewvc/MITgcm/MITgcm_contrib/gael/verification/ it would guide how to merge to Hong's setup. I take it the only difference would be changing input file names and turning off controls -- but would make life easier.  I figure anyone who merges the two would have this list -- so likely the first one to do this task (possibly me) can generate it

I'll keep you updated with our activities

Thanks!
Matt




On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:29 PM, gael forget <gforget at mit.edu> wrote:

> Hi Matt,
> 
> re-running the 20 year solution is indeed the preferred approach as stated 
> in the paper (http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/3071/2015/gmd-8-3071-2015.html)
> 
> The official set-up that is kept up to date and regularly tested is @ 
> http://mitgcm.org/viewvc/MITgcm/MITgcm_contrib/gael/verification/
> and the guidelines to run the full solution are in
> http://mitgcm.org/viewvc/*checkout*/MITgcm/MITgcm_contrib/gael/verification/eccov4.pdf
> 
> Hi Dimitris, Hong, et al,
> 
> thanks for preparing and distributing the adjusted forcing fields,
> and sorry I had overlooked your email from June in this regard. 
> 
> I will respond to it in more details shortly (possibly tomorrow) but I am 
> not in favor of distributing more alternative frozen copies of code and 
> input directories (these are just a source of confusion and trouble).
> 
> Cheers,
> Gael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Menemenlis, Dimitris (329D) <Dimitris.Menemenlis at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Matt, not a direct answer to your question, but if you or Jinbo would like
>> to run ECCOv4 without all the adjoint-model machinery attached,
>> Hong has generated the required code/input/forcing files:
>> ftp://ecco2.jpl.nasa.gov/data1/ecco/version4r1/StandAloneForward/
>> 
>> That way you can choose what to output, or even deply floats “online”
>> if you like.  It’s pretty cheap configuration to run.
>> 
>> Cheers, Dimitris
>> 
>>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Matthew Mazloff <mmazloff at ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello
>>> 
>>> Jinbo and I wanted to "deploy" offline floats in the ECCOv4 simulation. Ideally we would use shorter than monthly period averaging to do so. Has output of T,S,U,V,W been archived with shorter than monthly averaging?  
>>> 
>>> If not, who could we bribe to get this output?
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ecco-support mailing list
>>> ecco-support at mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/ecco-support
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ecco-support mailing list
>> ecco-support at mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/ecco-support
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ecco-support mailing list
> ecco-support at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/ecco-support

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/private/ecco-support/attachments/20151013/3a8ed3db/attachment-0001.html