DRAFT: CTSM5.4 w/ Fire updates and CMIP7 CO2 isotope streams (enter the name of the run here)

[wwieder]

Building on #116 and #118 I'd like to do a run that brings in:

• Fire update May 2025 ESCOMP/CTSM#3204
• C Isotope data for CMIP7 for clm6_0 physics ESCOMP/CTSM#3346
• ctsm5.3.075: Change default glcmec_downscale_longwave from true to false for clm6 ESCOMP/CTSM#3475
• Use CRU-JRA crop maturity requirements ESCOMP/CTSM#3474
• new parameter file suggestions?

The purpose of this run will be to look at historical

• Fire parameterization
• Crop yields
• C isotope results
• glacier / TWS results in I cases

@samsrabin is there another crop calendar PR that's (nearly) ready for testing yet?
@olyson, does cramming a bunch of answer changing tags into one set of simulations raise your eyebrows or blood pressure?
@slevis-lmwg can you help me with creating a sandbox that reflects these changes, relative to the 5.4 branch?

Urgency here is low, but I wanted to flag this, as I'm imagining it will be the next set of development runs we need to do.

[samsrabin]

I'm testing with CRU-JRA maturity requirements now, so no need to worry about that in your test.

[wwieder]

I think this is now ready to test with this branch tag branch_tags/CMIP7_ciso.n01.alpha-ctsm5.4.CMIP7.11.ctsm5.3.075 created by @ekluzek with contributions from @samsrabin and @slevis-lmwg

I've created this worktree /glade/u/home/wwieder/ctsm5.4.CMIP7_ciso
And created a test case /glade/work/wwieder/ctsm5.4.0/ctsm5.4.CMIP7_ciso_test_AD

@olyson or @slevis-lmwg can you take a look at this to compare the setup with what we have in #116 (/glade/work/wwieder/ctsm5.3.0/ctsm5.4_5.3.068_PPEcal115_116_AD)?

Does it look like we have everything we need out of the box?

[wwieder]

To make this easier, here are the diffs I see in the lnd_in files:

$diff CaseDocs/lnd_in /glade/work/wwieder/ctsm5.3.0/ctsm5.4_5.3.068_PPEcal115_116_AD/CaseDocs/lnd_in 
3,4c3,4
<  atm_c13_filename = '/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/isotopes/rawdata_copies/delta13co2_input4MIPs_atmosphericState_C4MIP_ImperialCollege-3-0_gm_1700-2023.nc'
<  atm_c14_filename = '/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/isotopes/rawdata_copies/delta14co2_input4MIPs_atmosphericState_C4MIP_ImperialCollege-3-0_gz_1700-2023.nc'
---
>  atm_c13_filename = '/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/isotopes/atm_delta_C13_CMIP6_1850-2015_yearly_v2.0_c190528.nc'
>  atm_c14_filename = '/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/isotopes/atm_delta_C14_CMIP6_3x1_global_1850-2015_yearly_v2.0_c190528.nc'
29c29,30
<  hist_fincl1 = 'TOTECOSYSC', 'TOTECOSYSN', 'TOTSOMC', 'TOTSOMN', 'TOTVEGC', 'TOTVEGN', 'TLAI', 'GPP', 'CPOOL', 'NPP', 'TWS'
---
>  hist_fincl1 = 'TOTECOSYSC', 'TOTECOSYSN', 'TOTSOMC', 'TOTSOMN', 'TOTVEGC', 'TOTVEGN', 'TLAI', 'GPP', 'CPOOL', 'NPP', 'TWS',
>          'H2OSNO'
40c41
<  paramfile = '/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/paramdata/clm60_params.ctsm6_li2024.c250822.nc'
---
>  paramfile = '/glade/work/linnia/CLM6-PPE/ctsm6_cal/paramfiles/cal115_c08132025.nc'
84d84
<  use_nvmovement = .false.
127c127
<  glcmec_downscale_longwave = .false.
---
>  glcmec_downscale_longwave = .true.
128a129,130
>  lapse_rate_longwave = 0.032
>  longwave_downscaling_limit = 0.5
153c155
<  stream_fldfilename_cultivar_gdds = '/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/cropdata/calendars/processed/gdds_20250809_025305.tweaked_latlons.nc'
---
>  stream_fldfilename_cultivar_gdds = '/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/cropdata/calendars/processed/gdds_20230829_161011.tweaked_latlons.nc'
179d180
<  init_interp_fill_missing_urban_with_hd = .true.
336c337
<  cli_scale = 0.03d00
---
>  cli_scale = 0.01d00
339c340
<  cropfire_a1 = 0.34d00
---
>  cropfire_a1 = 0.3d00
341c342
<  defo_fire_precip_thresh_bet = 3.0d00
---
>  defo_fire_precip_thresh_bet = 1.8d00
386c387

[samsrabin]

Looks good on my end (paramfile, stream_fldfilename_cultivar_gdds, cli_scale, cropfire_a1, and defo_fire_precip_thresh_bet).

[slevis-lmwg]

My inspection checks, too.

[olyson]

Seems like the isotope files should have a "cdate" on them? Or are they taken directly from the data source?
I checked the difference between the two parameter files (I'm sure @samsrabin has done this also) and see differences in the following parameters:
fd_pft
fsr_pft
rswf_max
rswf_min
These look like fire parameters so I assume these are part of li2024.
I've generally added H2OSNO to hist_fincl1 manually, doesn't come out of the box, probably not that important to have it though.

[samsrabin]

Yep, those are fire parameters and were expected.

[slevis-lmwg]

Keith, yes, we have left the cmip7 c13/c14 files unmodified so far.

[wwieder]

Closing this discusion as #123-125 are now running