UKESM Coupled suite porting

Unified Model
1

Dear CMS support,

I am looking to port a suite of the fully interactive hydrogen with methane suite by Brown, M. A. J., Warwick, N. J., Abraham, N. L., Griffiths, P. T., Rumbold, S. T., Folberth, G. A., O’Connor, F. M., Bryant, H., and Archibald, A. T.: Development of fully interactive hydrogen with methane in UKESM1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 1537–1557, GMD - Development of fully interactive hydrogen with methane in UKESM1.0, 2026., to a fully coupled UKESM system from the atmosphere-only configuration (UKESM1.0-AMIP). I have been using this UKESM suite thanks to Dr. Paul Griffiths.

I likely won’t have scope to run the spin up period involved in the fully coupled system.

To do this I think there are a number of options to port the hydrogen-methane developments into a coupled configuration

a) Use a UKESM1.0 coupled suite at vn11.2, port the AMIP forward.

b) Find a UKESM coupled suite at vn12.0 and port the AMIP forward

c) Run a coupled configuration of the same paper’s suite at vn12.0 which isn’t really feasible for my scope.

Is there any coupled vn12.0 suite ID and a JASMIN MASS restart dump from that suite is available (piControl year ~400+ or historical ~1950). If not a vn 11.2 suite I can access?

Thank you, I hope this is the correct approach.

I would be grateful to hear if there is a better approach or if there s any advice on this.

Best regards,

2

Hi there.

A couple of points.

  • There is a list of some configurations of the various models (atmosphere-only, UKESM, …) available on the NCAS-CMS website here.

  • ARCHER2 is close to end of service (November), here for more info.

  • It is not clear to me from a brief look at the paper referenced above what workflow ID(s) were used (of the form u-ab123) or on what machine the simulations were run (ARCHER2 and Monsoon are both acknowledged).

  • Although there is no ‘correct’ answer to your suggestions as to how to proceed, developing science configurations using older configurations is likely to be of less use going forward than more recent ones. I’d certainly suggest contacting the author(s) of the paper directly to gauge their thoughts.

All the best.

Jonny

3

Hi Jonny,

Thank you for the swift and detailed reply, this has cleared up a lot and I have found a way forward.

Best regards,