1850 CPLHIST ndep

[ekluzek]

Description of changes

Work with 1850_clim settings for ndep. As well as some work with CPLHIST options.

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any: @billsacks

CDEPS Issues Fixed (include github issue #):

• Fixes Add error checking and set defaults for DATM_CPLHIST_DIR and DATM_CPLHIST_CASE #399
• Fixes Bring in option for the new preliminary CMIP7 1850 ndep dataset #388
• Fixes Add expect statements to the DATM buildnml for the NEON/PLUMBER2/generic tower settings #432
• Fixes Update CPLHIST data for DATM for cesm3 spinup with preliminary data #397
• Fixes New DATM CMIP7 CO2 file replacing earlier one that would fail after 6 month simulation #410

Are there dependencies on other component PRs (if so list):

Are changes expected to change answers (bfb, different to roundoff, more substantial): No
This will add some new options, but won't change defaults (which primarily need to be changed in compsets anyway)

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes): Yes

Testing performed (e.g. aux_cdeps, CESM prealpha, etc): Have tested a few cases will test aux_cdeps against cesm3_0_beta08 tests

Hashes used for testing:

Definition of done:

• Finish work on all of the modes
• Add needed aux_cdeps tests
• Test against the aux_cdeps cesm3_0_beta09 baseline and make sure identical
• Test in the context of CTSM and make sure it does everything needed

[wwieder]

It's not clear to me if the intent of this PR + #405 are needed for:

1. CLM to be able to use CPL_HIST output (and therefore lower priority for an alpha tag); or
2. CESM to write out CPL_HIST files that we'll use for spinup (and therefore a higher priority)?

[billsacks]

It's not clear to me if the intent of this PR + #405 are needed for:

1. CLM to be able to use CPL_HIST output (and therefore lower priority for an alpha tag); or
2. CESM to write out CPL_HIST files that we'll use for spinup (and therefore a higher priority)?

It's (1) - to be able to use CPLHIST output.

[wwieder]

OK, if this is only needed for CTSM to read CPL_HIST data my read is that this PR isn't critical for the next alpha09 tag. What do others think?

[ekluzek]

@fischer-ncar I didn't find aux_cdeps baselines for either cesm3_0_alpha09g or cesm3_0_beta09. So I'm going to make my own baseline with the previous CDEPS tag.cd .

[ekluzek]

The aux_cdeps testlist all passed just now. But, I need to make a new baseline to compare it to the previous version.

[ekluzek]

I ran aux_cdeps and it passes. And everything is identical to the new baseline I made otehr than the cplhist tests.

 ../../CIME/Tools/compare_test_results -b cesm3_0_alpha09g.cdeps1.0.105 --baseline-root $CPL_BASELINE/ -r . | & grep FAIL
FAIL ERS_Ld5.f10_f10_mt232.1850_DATM%CRUJRA2024b_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel.datm-cplhist_create NLCOMP See ./ERS_Ld5.f10_f10_mt232.1850_DATM%CRUJRA2024b_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel.datm-cplhist_create.GC.cesm3A9gcdeps115cplhistaacd/compare.log.cesm3_0_alpha09g.cdeps1.0.105.20260821_145458
FAIL SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mt232.1850_DATM%CPLHIST_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel.datm-cplhist NLCOMP See ./SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mt232.1850_DATM%CPLHIST_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel.datm-cplhist.GC.cesm3A9gcdeps115cplhistaacd/compare.log.cesm3_0_alpha09g.cdeps1.0.105.20260821_145458
FAIL SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mt232.1850_DATM%CPLHIST_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel.datm-cplhist BASELINE DIFF

The first case cplhist_create is just different in NLCOMP because it was done postrun. So it's actually identical.

The second case shows differences due to NDEP, and using CPRNC by hand I see this...

cases/SMS_Ld5.f10_f10_mt232.1850_DATM%CPLHIST_SLND_SICE_SOCN_SROF_SGLC_SWAV_SESP.derecho_intel.datm-cplhist.GC.cesm3A9gcdeps115cplhistaacd> grep RMS cprnc.out 
 RMS atmImp_Faxa_ndep1                1.4839E-12            NORMALIZED  4.2846E+00
 RMS atmImp_Faxa_ndep2                2.7585E-12            NORMALIZED  9.0720E+00
tail -13 cprnc.out
SUMMARY of cprnc:
 A total number of     51 fields were compared
          of which      2 had non-zero differences
               and      0 had differences in fill patterns
               and      0 had different dimension sizes
               and      0 had different data types
 A total number of      0 fields could not be analyzed
 A total number of      0 time-varying fields on file 1 were not found on file 2.
 A total number of      0 time-constant fields on file 1 were not found on file 2.
 A total number of      0 time-varying fields on file 2 were not found on file 1.
 A total number of      0 time-constant fields on file 2 were not found on file 1.
  diff_test: the two files seem to be DIFFERENT 

so this is as expected.

[ekluzek]

Note, the new baseline I created was identical to cesm3_0_alpha09f baselines with the exception of the scam test which I assume must be expected.

[ekluzek]

Some notes on things I figured out.

[ekluzek]

I think I have everything in place now, so opening up for review. I'm going to redo the testing. And I'll have some peeps review it as well, before asking for merge.