[CMIP6 CMOR-ization & ESGF-publication] NorESM2-LM - piClim-CH4

[DirkOlivie]

Mandatory information:

Full path to the case(s) of the experiment on NIRD
/projects/projects/NS9560K/noresm/cases

experiment_id
piClim-CH4

model_id
NorESM2-LM

CASENAME(s) and years to be CMORized
NF1850norbc_ch42014_f19_20190928, 1-30

Optional information

parent_experiment_id
piControl

parent_experiment_rip
r1i1p1f1

parent_time_units
'days since 0421-01-01'

branch_method
'Hybrid-restart from year 1751-01-01 of piControl',

other information

[YanchunHe]

Experiment(s) ready to be published to ESGF:

data path

• /projects/NS9034K/CMIP6/AerChemMIP/NCC/NorESM2-LM/piClim-CH4

Version

• v20190920

other information

• PrePARE quality-check, passed
• sha256sum, calculated

commit: eb38890

Note
The required source_type (model componentes) are "AGCM AER CHEM ",
but during CMORziation, this is set as "AGCM AER ".
Therefore, there is a warming during cmorization, and the cmorized data have atrribute 'source_type" as "AGCM AER " instead of as required "AGCM AER CHEM "
But I don't think this is an real issue and will not affect the data itself at all.
So I did not redo the cmorization to correct this very trivial warning.

[monsieuralok]

@DirkOlivie @YanchunHe published

[YanchunHe]

cmorized with additional fields

data path

• /tos-project1/NS9034K/CMIP6/AerChemMIP/NCC/NorESM2-LM/piClim-CH4

version

• v20191108

sha256sum

• .r1i1p1f1.sha256sum_v20191108b

[monsieuralok]

@DirkOlivie @YanchunHe published

[YanchunHe]

Cmorized with additional iLAMB variables (#262), AERday zg500 (#263) and corrected fNup (#251).

They are ready to be published to ESGF.

data path

• /projects/NS9034K/CMIP6/.cmorout/NorESM2-LM/piClim-CH4
• /projects/NS9034K/CMIP6/AerChemMIP/NCC/NorESM2-LM/piClim-CH4

version

• v20210203

sha256sum
/projects/NS9034K/CMIP6/AerChemMIP/NCC/NorESM2-LM/piClim-CH4

• .r1i1p1f1.sha256sum_v20210203

[monsieuralok]

@YanchunHe same here should it be .r1i1p1f1.sha256sum_v20210203 or .r1i1p2f1.sha256sum_v20210203 ?

[YanchunHe]

@YanchunHe same here should it be .r1i1p1f1.sha256sum_v20210203 or .r1i1p2f1.sha256sum_v20210203 ?

should be .r1i1p1f1.sha256sum_v20210203

There is another separate issue for .r1i1p2f1.sha256sum_v20210203

[YanchunHe]

@monsieuralok

This is fixed. .r1i1p1f1 is available now.

And there is another issue for r1i1p2f1.

[monsieuralok]

@YanchunHe published