You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
a_min and m_min are fixed parameters in ice_dyn_shared.F90, which were originally intended to prevent the dynamics code from blowing up when the ice area or volume are very small. Tests in E3SM indicate that these can be as small as 1.e-11 and 1.e-10, respectively (although that might be a function of the driver code in E3SM), and that reducing them improves the simulation results. I recommend adding a_min to namelist and setting m_min=10*a_min for easier testing.
I'm curious whether any model blows up with such small values, or if E3SM's stability is unique and worth a closer look.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Finally had a chance to run this case. I believe the change to a_min and m_min is within variability in the CESM. I have run for 50 years so far, but likely will do 100 just to be safe.
CICE/cicecore/cicedyn/dynamics/ice_dyn_shared.F90
Line 68 in b109fa4
CICE/cicecore/cicedyn/dynamics/ice_dyn_shared.F90
Line 69 in b109fa4
a_min
andm_min
are fixed parameters in ice_dyn_shared.F90, which were originally intended to prevent the dynamics code from blowing up when the ice area or volume are very small. Tests in E3SM indicate that these can be as small as 1.e-11 and 1.e-10, respectively (although that might be a function of the driver code in E3SM), and that reducing them improves the simulation results. I recommend addinga_min
to namelist and settingm_min=10*a_min
for easier testing.I'm curious whether any model blows up with such small values, or if E3SM's stability is unique and worth a closer look.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: