Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Regarding the issue of Track File in HISTORY.rc #434

Open
helpyuan opened this issue Jul 28, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Regarding the issue of Track File in HISTORY.rc #434

helpyuan opened this issue Jul 28, 2024 · 6 comments
Labels
category: Question Further information is requested stale No recent activity on this issue

Comments

@helpyuan
Copy link

helpyuan commented Jul 28, 2024

Your name

liumy

Your affiliation

CAMS

Please provide a clear and concise description of your question or discussion topic.

Hi all,

I have been using track_file to sample the model results recently (https://gchp.readthedocs.io/en/dev/supplement/satellite-overpass.html#output-along-a-track).

# Question 1:
GCHP has output the corresponding file, but there seems to be a slight issue with the latitude and longitude inside, as shown in the figure:
image

The above result is to set rcycle_track to True (SpeciesSample.recycle_track: .true.). But when I set recycle_track to .false. (SpeciesSample.recycle_track: .false.), meaning I don't want to reuse a track_file (if I understand correctly), it seems that no sampling was done, and the output result is shown in the figure (the time dimension is zero):
image

So is this a bug? Or is there a problem with my track file? Here are my files:
HISTORY.rc.txt
trackfile_test_only_latlontime_20190701.txt

# Question 2:
Following the above, when I set track_file to 'trackfile_test_only_latlontime_%y4%m2%d2.nc' and recycle_track to .false. , GCHP doesn't seem to be recognized. So I would like to ask if it is possible to read different track_file based on the date during a simulation process?

It seems that it is not possible to upload netCDF files here. If you need my track_file, I can provide it to you through email or other ways.

version

GCHP-14.4.1

@helpyuan helpyuan added the category: Question Further information is requested label Jul 28, 2024
@lizziel
Copy link
Contributor

lizziel commented Jul 29, 2024

Hi @helpyuan, the satellite overpass feature of GCHP may very well have a bug. We do not test it and are not aware of anyone using it. We will take a look at it as we have time.

@helpyuan
Copy link
Author

Thanks @lizziel, looking forward to your good news.

@yuanjianz
Copy link

@yantosca, just a random related question here. Does SatDiagn work for GCHP or just GC-Classic only? I read the lines here: geoschem/geos-chem#770 (comment). It seems get_local_time function is not yet available in GCHP.

Together with this issue, does it mean currently we do not have satellite overpassing capability within GCHP or models other than GC-Classic?

@yantosca
Copy link
Contributor

@yuanjianz: The SatDiagn and SatDiagnEdge only work for GC-Classic. All of the diagnostic capability of GCHP is handled by the MAPL History component.

I know there was interest in having the similar output in MAPL but I'm not sure where that stands. @lizziel is our MAPL guru.

@lizziel
Copy link
Contributor

lizziel commented Aug 26, 2024

@yuanjianz, the satellite overpass capability of GCHP is restricted to the output along a track. If there is a currently a bug there then we will need to fix it. This is not currently a priority for version 14.5 so it is currently not being worked on.

Copy link

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. If there are no updates within 7 days it will be closed. You can add the "never stale" tag to prevent the issue from closing this issue.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale No recent activity on this issue label Nov 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
category: Question Further information is requested stale No recent activity on this issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants