Coupling GEOS-Chem with BCC CSM: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "== Overview == '''Lead Developers:''' *[http://www.phy.pku.edu.cn/~acaq/group.html Lin Zhang] (PKU) *[https://scholar.harvard.edu/xiaolu/home Xiao Lu] (PKU) '''Presentation...") |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
On this page, we provide information about an ongoing project to interface GEOS-Chem with the Beijing Climate Center (BCC) GCM. | |||
Please see our ''[[Coupling GEOS-Chem with other models]]'' wiki page for information about projects to interface GEOS-Chem with other Earth System Models. | |||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
Revision as of 14:54, 29 August 2018
On this page, we provide information about an ongoing project to interface GEOS-Chem with the Beijing Climate Center (BCC) GCM.
Please see our Coupling GEOS-Chem with other models wiki page for information about projects to interface GEOS-Chem with other Earth System Models.
Overview
Lead Developers:
Presentation given at GCA1 (May 2018):
Xiao Lu wrote:
- We are coupling the whole GEOS-Chem with BCC-ACGM. So we also use the GCHP interface (e.g. gigc_chunk_mod.F90, although may be an older version), and transfer the State_Met and State_Chm objective between BCC and GC. The difference regards to CESM-GC or WRF-GC as I read from Seb’s and May’s slides is that we turn off HEMCO at this stage and process emissions directly in the model. BCC-GC coupling also does not use MAPL or ESMF as BCC is not build on ESMF.
- I guess the GC code will add many tags as defined (CESM) or defined (WRF) in the modules. If so, I suggest a tag of defined (BCCCSM) be added together. As all couplings are similar in many ways but (I guess) BCC-GC is more model-specific and requires additional coding, e.g. on emissions and eliminating ESMF dependency, I think this is a good way at this stage, and I will reconcile my changes based on these updates in the near future. This can be further discussed.
Validation
TBD
Known issues
TBD