CICE C-grid crash on 1/12 degree tripole about cice

[JFLemieux73]

Hi Dave,

Finally I don't think it is the remapping that is causing the problem. The velocities are huge. 6.67 m/s is unrealistic. There might even be higher velocities elsewhere. What do you get in ice_std_out for the max velocity?

I guess there is an instability developing. It could be related to the coupling with the ocean model.

[daveh150]

Hi JF, Thank you. Yes, for sure those are unrealistic velocities. What I am not sure about is this case does run without error if I switch to grid_ocn = 'B' instead of 'C'. So I was wondering if the large velocities would be related to the C grid somehow. I'll need to re-run both cases to get diagnostic output. We turn that off (set a very large diagfreq) because we found the diagnostics with global sums can take a fair amount of time in operational runs. Once I have more details I'll post them. Thank you again! David From: JFLemieux73 ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 10:07 To: CICE-Consortium/CICE ***@***.***> Cc: david.hebert ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [CICE-Consortium/CICE] CICE C-grid crash on 1/12 degree tripole (Issue #941) Hi Dave, Finally I don't think it is the remapping that is causing the problem. The velocities are huge. 6.67 m/s is unrealistic. There might even be higher velocities elsewhere. What do you get in ice_std_out for the max velocity? I guess there is an instability developing. It could be related to the coupling with the ocean model. - Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c om%2FCICE-Consortium%2FCICE%2Fissues%2F941%23issuecomment-1992148896&data=05 %7C02%7Cdavid.a.hebert10.civ%40us.navy.mil%7C109bb83b357f46c795e608dc42b6e29 c%7Ce3333e00c8774b87b6ad45e942de1750%7C0%7C0%7C638458600454974186%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn 0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Nm7vxLdLonc5dWwI7IOcgSH502CKaeaiSQZLQ6V6nIs%3D&reser ved=0> , or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread. <https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AE52VPDVGK6LGAN3UQYRPALYX4Y3FA5CNFS M6AAAAABESKRND6WGG33NNVSW45C7OR4XAZNMJFZXG5LFINXW23LFNZ2KUY3PNVWWK3TUL5UWJTT WXXD2A.gif> Message ID: ***@***.*** ***@***.***> >

[JFLemieux73]

Hi Dave,

I am adding @dupontf to the discussion. I think a good candidate for the instability is the explicit treatment of Coriolis for the C-grid (it is implicit for the B-grid).

This was already identified as a potential problem is this issue:

#917

We didn't have problems in uncoupled mode but it might be different when coupled to an ocean model. What I don't understand is that we followed Kimmritz et al. 2016 which is probably what is used in the MITgcm.

Here is what I propose:

-I will contact Martin Losch about the MITgcm.
-I will talk to @dupontf about this. We will try to come up with a semi-implicit approach (Bouillon et al. 2009).
-Could you please rerun the 29 hours and if possible have a plot of the max speed (in ice_std_out) as a function of time?
-To make sure it is not the remapping, could you please do a second run with upwind? You could also add max speed as a function of time (with upwind) to the previous plot.

Sounds good?

jf

[daveh150]

Thank you JF, Fred, all involved! All sounds good. I will work on setting up new runs in the coming days. Sorry it will be a little slow while I am on travel. Dave From: JFLemieux73 ***@***.***> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 07:30 To: CICE-Consortium/CICE ***@***.***> Cc: david.hebert ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [CICE-Consortium/CICE] CICE C-grid crash on 1/12 degree tripole (Issue #941) Hi Dave, I am adding @dupontf <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c om%2Fdupontf&data=05%7C02%7Cdavid.a.hebert10.civ%40us.navy.mil%7Cbff7a6fa124 3402abedd08dc436a23e9%7Ce3333e00c8774b87b6ad45e942de1750%7C0%7C0%7C638459370 350503273%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sNFOl7ee1mH3EPi7dnkJVpCu9ljvbdIp 74tMPtdgeHY%3D&reserved=0> to the discussion. I think a good candidate for the instability is the explicit treatment of Coriolis for the C-grid (it is implicit for the B-grid). This was already identified as a potential problem is this issue: #917 <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c om%2FCICE-Consortium%2FCICE%2Fissues%2F917&data=05%7C02%7Cdavid.a.hebert10.c iv%40us.navy.mil%7Cbff7a6fa1243402abedd08dc436a23e9%7Ce3333e00c8774b87b6ad45 e942de1750%7C0%7C0%7C638459370350503273%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4w LjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gl X7czamIhPuAVr6nG%2BIxkvIWGMfWAffSQSx4hRdRbU%3D&reserved=0> We didn't have problems in uncoupled mode but it might be different when coupled to an ocean model. What I don't understand is that we followed Kimmritz et al. 2016 which is probably what is used in the MITgcm. Here is what I propose:

…

-I will contact Martin Losch about the MITgcm. -I will talk to @dupontf <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c om%2Fdupontf&data=05%7C02%7Cdavid.a.hebert10.civ%40us.navy.mil%7Cbff7a6fa124 3402abedd08dc436a23e9%7Ce3333e00c8774b87b6ad45e942de1750%7C0%7C0%7C638459370 350503273%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sNFOl7ee1mH3EPi7dnkJVpCu9ljvbdIp 74tMPtdgeHY%3D&reserved=0> about this. We will try to come up with a semi-implicit approach (Bouillon et al. 2009). -Could you please rerun the 29 hours and if possible have a plot of the max speed (in ice_std_out) as a function of time? -To make sure it is not the remapping, could you please do a second run with upwind? You could also add max speed as a function of time (with upwind) to the previous plot. Sounds good? jf - Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c om%2FCICE-Consortium%2FCICE%2Fissues%2F941%23issuecomment-1994536201&data=05 %7C02%7Cdavid.a.hebert10.civ%40us.navy.mil%7Cbff7a6fa1243402abedd08dc436a23e 9%7Ce3333e00c8774b87b6ad45e942de1750%7C0%7C0%7C638459370350503273%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn 0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gc6AWCxdg6WD4cd7OC0d9721tNXRJ3dly29t9sUmEng%3D&reser ved=0> , or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread. <https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AE52VPEWQV34PTBD3KNXZSLYYBPH7A5CNFS M6AAAAABESKRND6WGG33NNVSW45C7OR4XAZNMJFZXG5LFINXW23LFNZ2KUY3PNVWWK3TUL5UWJTT W4I2QS.gif> Message ID: ***@***.*** ***@***.***> >

[JFLemieux73]

I emailed Martin Losch. Here is what he wrote:

"I haven’t had any issues with EVP in a very long time, so I am not quite sure how much I can help here. I always use explicit Coriolis (also for implicit solvers) and this was never a problem other than a timestep constraint (~1hour or so). The EVP subcycling “timesteps” are so short that I don’t expect this ever to be an issue.

If this is happening in the nearly free-drift of the MIZ I would expect that there’s something with happening with the ice-ocean/ice-wind stress. Here I usually use a “semi-implicit” treatment, where I compute the linear drag from cDrag = Cd*abs(ui-uo) (with some minimal drag) and then add the the “symmetric parts” (the cosine part when you do rotate the drag to model some sort of Ekman spiral) to the LHS. But In a python version of the EVP solver we tried both implicit and explicit treatment and didn’t find too much of a difference (in coarse simulations).

I hope that helps"

[JFLemieux73]

One more comment from Martin:

"HYCOM is on a C-grid, right? If CICE was on B then there needed to be some averaging to get the velocities onto B-points and the ice-ocean stress right, whereas now this averaging needs to be different, right? So I would put my money on the ice-ocean stress …"

[dupontf]

Well, I am not totally ignoring the possibility of Coriolis instability since, in absence of friction, the explicit representation is unconditionally unstable. However, we had a coupling issue in the past in NEMO that is worth mentioning: it is the feedback between ice-ocean stress computed in the sea-ice component and passed back to NEMO. NEMO uses a leapfrog scheme which is stable to friction if friction uses velocity at n-1 for computing velocity at n+1 (leapfrog on n-1, n, and n+1). However, NEMO was passing ocean velocity at time n to the ice module, which is passed back to NEMO ultimately, once the ice-ocean stress is computed, and is therefore unstable in the leapfrog framework... just a thought!

[JFLemieux73]

Hi Dave,
In case the problem is Coriolis. I coded a semi-implicit treatment instead of the explicit approach. Have a look at this branch:

https://github.com/JFLemieux73/CICE/tree/semi_imp_Coriolis

I ran gx1 for five days in stand-alone mode. The fields (aice, hi, uvelE, vvelN) are very similar between the standard (explicit) and new (semi-implicit) code.

[anton-seaice]

For what its worth ... I ran latest CICE with nuopc/cmeps driver on 1 degree tripole grid for 12 months without any crashes. The uvel/vvel maximum look ok. The resolution is quite different but the configuration is similar, i.e. all coupling for ocean and atmosphere is done on the A-grid but cice is calculating on C-grid (grid_ice="C").

[JFLemieux73]

Thanks Anton for the info.

[dabail10]

I have just run CICE6-MOM6 coupled with JRA55 forcing for two cycles (122) years. CICE6 / MOM6 are both on the c-grid, but the coupling is still done at A-grid points. This was the 2/3 degree tripole grid.