Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Turn shuffle option on in soca -> cice. #60

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 18, 2024

Conversation

shlyaeva
Copy link
Collaborator

This turns on shuffle option in soca -> cice and changes seaice edge to 40%.
For all background ice concentrations < seaice edge when shuffle is on, the code finds a nearest background point whose total ice concentration is closest to the soca analysis total ice concentration, and copies that background ice profile as the new analysis at the current point. For all background ice concentrations > seaice edge ice concentrations are rescaled, and some ice fields recomputed.

Some results from a first cycle of high res experiment:
Background:
ice_bg
soca analysis (no postprocessing; I am cutting off values outside of [0, 1] when plotting):
ice_an_soca
analysis after Soca2Cice on develop (where shuffle is off, and seaice edge for the arctic is 0.8) As expected, the analysis looks like background for ice concentrations < 0.8
ice_an_soca2cice_noshuffle
analysis after Soca2Cice in this branch (shuffle is on, seaice edge is set to 0.4). Note that these results are with JCSDA-internal/soca#1108
ice_an_soca2cice_shuffle_bugfix_edge40

This branch can be merged in develop regardless of JCSDA-internal/soca#1108, since gdasapp soca hash already includes the bugfix that allows shuffle to be turned on. However, I would recommend running experiments that include JCSDA-internal/soca#1108 which further improves on shuffle.

I ran C384mx025_3DVarAOWCDA for 2 cycles with this setup, and forecasts succeeded (cice was OK with these analyses). We'll do better evaluation when we run the next marine candidate experiment.

Copy link
Contributor

@guillaumevernieres guillaumevernieres left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🎉

@shlyaeva
Copy link
Collaborator Author

FYI to repo maintainers: It looks like I have the rights to merge here, should I have those rights?

@guillaumevernieres
Copy link
Contributor

FYI to repo maintainers: It looks like I have the rights to merge here, should I have those rights?

Yes, for sure you should too!

@guillaumevernieres guillaumevernieres merged commit 154c61a into develop Dec 18, 2024
1 check passed
@guillaumevernieres guillaumevernieres deleted the feature/soca2cice_shuffle branch December 18, 2024 18:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants