Add support for cryosphere campaign

[xylar]

This includes a new cryosphere config file in the templates and a special --polar_regions flag for MPAS-Analysis. The new flag will only be supported for MPAS-Analysis >= 1.5.0 (not yet released), so it will require an update of E3SM-Unified to work correctly.

[xylar]

This requires #143 so I will rebase once that goes in.

[xylar]

Testing

Did a test run of zppy with a test build of E3SM-Unified 1.5.1 using the following config file:

$ cat test.cfg 
[default]
input = /lcrc/group/acme/ac.dcomeau/scratch/chrys/20210713.CRYO1850.ne30pg2_ECwISC30to60E2r1.IB_bugfixes.chrysalis
output = /lcrc/group/e3sm/ac.xylar/test_zppy/test_20211006/cryo4/20210713.CRYO1850.ne30pg2_ECwISC30to60E2r1.IB_bugfixes.chrysalis
case = 20210713.CRYO1850.ne30pg2_ECwISC30to60E2r1.IB_bugfixes.chrysalis
www = /lcrc/group/e3sm/public_html/diagnostic_output/ac.xylar/test_zppy/add_cryo/cryo4/CRYO1850.ne30pg2_ECwISC30to60E2r1.IB_bugfixes
partition = debug
environment_commands = "source /lcrc/soft/climate/e3sm-unified/test_e3sm_unified_1.5.1_chrysalis.sh"
campaign = "cryosphere"

[climo]
active = True
years = "11:20:10",
mapping_file = /home/ac.zender/data/maps/map_ne30pg2_to_cmip6_180x360_aave.20200201.nc

  [[ atm_monthly_180x360_aave ]]
  input_subdir = "run"
  frequency = "monthly"

  [[ atm_monthly_diurnal_8xdaily_180x360_aave ]]
  input_subdir = "run"
  input_files = "eam.h4"
  vars = "PRECT"
  frequency = "monthly_diurnal_8xdaily"

[ts]
active = True
years = "1:20:10",

  [[ atm_monthly_180x360_aave ]]
  input_subdir = "run"
  input_files = "eam.h0"
  frequency = "monthly"
  mapping_file = /home/ac.zender/data/maps/map_ne30pg2_to_cmip6_180x360_aave.20200201.nc
  # Use default vars

  [[ atm_monthly_glb ]]
  input_subdir = "run"
  input_files = "eam.h0"
  frequency = "monthly"
  mapping_file = "glb"
  # Use default vars

  [[ rof_monthly ]]
  input_subdir = "run"
  input_files = "mosart.h0"
  frequency = "monthly"
  mapping_file = ""
  vars = "RIVER_DISCHARGE_OVER_LAND_LIQ"
  extra_vars = 'areatotal2'

[e3sm_diags]
active = True
years = "11:20:10",
ts_num_years = 10
ref_start_yr = 1979
ref_final_yr = 2016

  [[ atm_monthly_180x360_aave ]]
  short_name = 'CRYO1850.ne30pg2_ECwISC30to60E2r1.IB_bugfixes'
  grid = '180x360_aave'
  reference_data_path = '/lcrc/soft/climate/e3sm_diags_data/obs_for_e3sm_diags/climatology'
  obs_ts = '/lcrc/soft/climate/e3sm_diags_data/obs_for_e3sm_diags/time-series'
  dc_obs_climo = '/lcrc/group/e3sm/public_html/e3sm_diags_test_data/unit_test_complete_run/obs/climatology'
  climo_diurnal_subsection = "atm_monthly_diurnal_8xdaily_180x360_aave"
  output_format_subplot = "pdf",
  streamflow_obs_ts = '/lcrc/group/e3sm/public_html/e3sm_diags_test_data/unit_test_complete_run/obs/time-series/'

[e3sm_diags_vs_model]
active = False

[amwg]
active = False

[mpas_analysis]
active = True
partition = compute
walltime = "6:00:00"
parallelTaskCount = 6
anomalyRefYear = 1
ts_years = "1-20",
enso_years = "1-20",
climo_years = "11-20",
mesh = "ECwISC30to60E2r1"

[global_time_series]
active = False
years = "1-20",
ts_num_years = 10
figstr= "CRYO1850.ne30pg2_ECwISC30to60E2r1.IB_bugfixes"
moc_file = "mocTimeSeries_0001-0020.nc"
experiment_name = "CRYO1850.ne30pg2_ECwISC30to60E2r1.IB_bugfixes"
ts_years = "1-20",
climo_years = "11-20",

MPAS-Analysis results

E3SM-Diags results -- I think...

[xylar]

@forsyth2 and @tomvothecoder, I realize it's not really kosher to add a new feature after a release candidate has already been created. Would you be willing to make an exception for this feature? It's not critical. The more important thing is that zppy users can combine this feature with the latest E3SM-Unified release. They could use development zppy together with E3SM-Unified 1.5.1 if need be. But it would be a lot more convenient if they didn't have to.

[tomvothecoder]

@forsyth2 and @tomvothecoder, I realize it's not really kosher to add a new feature after a release candidate has already been created. Would you be willing to make an exception for this feature? It's not critical. The more important thing is that zppy users can combine this feature with the latest E3SM-Unified release. They could use development zppy together with E3SM-Unified 1.5.1 if need be. But it would be a lot more convenient if they didn't have to.

Sounds good with me, since the intent is to align this zppy feature with the latest E3SM-Unified and the changeset is small.

[xylar]

Thanks @tomvothecoder!

[forsyth2]

Would you be willing to make an exception for this feature?

Yes, I would like this to be in the next release candidate. Besides, I would argue this is an important extension of #138 anyway.

[forsyth2]

This requires #143 so I will rebase once that goes in.

I just merged #143, so you can rebase this now.

[xylar]

I just rebased.

[xylar]

@wlin7, I'd appreciate your feedback on this before I ask anyone else to review. Please let me know what e3sm_diags analysis you would like to run by default and any other changes we need to make from zppy defaults.

[forsyth2]

@xylar Once this is ready to merge, we can add a commit I worked on for testing (forsyth2@d474073)

[forsyth2]

From the standpoint of integrating into zppy, this looks good to me. (I can't say what is necessary for the cryosphere campaign in particular though).

[xylar]

@forsyth2, my testing from above (which I'm rerunning right now) doesn't include any model vs. model testing for e3sm_diags. Could you recommend something I can add to the example config file above to test that part? Say, using a typical WC run you might use for testing?

[forsyth2]

@xylar We haven't really been using/testing e3sm_diags_vs_model (active = False in all test cases). Almost all the E3SM Diags functionality improvements have gone into the e3sm_diags task exclusively. Ultimately, the model-vs-model functionality will be moved into that task too (#147).

[xylar]

I'm taking @darincomeau and @stephenprice off as reviewers. I don't think we need them to approve officially because their existing feedback is all I needed.

@forsyth2, I think this is ready to merge as long as we're okay with the possibility that there are some model vs. model kinks to iron out at a later date.

[xylar]

@forsyth2, one caveat is that you might want to update documentation and/or tests. Do you have a good sense of what would be useful there? I can help but you're likely to be the better person to at least get the ball rolling.

[forsyth2]

@xylar Thanks! Once Chrysalis is back online, I'll update the expected files for forsyth2@d474073, push the tests to this branch, and then merge.

[xylar]

@forsyth2, sorry, I forgot you already said you had a commit to add. Sounds perfect!