Remove ERA5 forcing option as it isn't functional

[ekluzek]

In our XML files we list ERA5 as an option, because it's an option in DATM, but that forcing option isn't valid for CTSM. There was some work at getting it to work for land and ocean, but that didn't pan out so far. Maybe it will be an option in the future, but the current version as non-functional should be removed.

[ekluzek]

@slevis-lmwg I'd like to assign this to you, and I'm thinking this should be part of your CRUJRA PR, because it helps compensate for the complexity that CRUJRA is adding. This might make more sense, after I finish the review there.

[ekluzek]

There aren't very many references so easy to do:

cime_config/buildnml:        "clm4_5_ERA5": "clm4_5_CRUv7",
cime_config/buildnml:        "clm5_0_ERA5": "clm5_0_GSWP3v1",
cime_config/buildnml:        "clm6_0_ERA5": "clm6_0_GSWP3v1",
cime_config/config_component.xml:               ERA5   (not tuned)
cime_config/config_component.xml:    <!-- 10 forcing options for each CLM physics option: CRUv7, GSWP3, cam7.0, cam6.0, cam5.0, cam4.0, QIAN, 1PT, NLDAS2, ERA5 -->
cime_config/config_component.xml:    <valid_values>clm5_0_cam6.0,clm5_0_cam7.0,clm5_0_cam5.0,clm5_0_cam4.0,clm5_0_GSWP3v1,clm5_0_CRUv7,clm5_0_QIAN,clm5_0_1PT,clm5_0_NLDAS2,clm5_0_ERA5,clm4_5_CRUv7,clm4_5_GSWP3v1,clm4_5_QIAN,clm4_5_cam6.0,clm4_5_cam7.0,clm4_5_cam5.0,clm4_5_cam4.0,clm4_5_1PT,clm4_5_NLDAS2,clm4_5_ERA5,clm6_0_CRUv7,clm6_0_GSWP3v1,clm6_0_cam6.0,clm6_0_cam7.0,clm6_0_cam5.0,clm6_0_cam4.0,clm6_0_QIAN,clm6_0_1PT,clm6_0_NLDAS2,clm6_0_ERA5</valid_values>
cime_config/config_component.xml:      <!-- Options for atm forcing are: CRU, CRUv7, GSWP3, cam6.0 (also used for DATM%CPLHIST), cam5.0, cam4.0, QIAN, WISOQIA, 1PT, NLDAS2, and ERA5) -->
cime_config/config_component.xml:      <value compset="DATM%ERA5_CLM45"   >clm4_5_ERA5</value>
cime_config/config_component.xml:      <value compset="DATM%ERA5_CLM50"   >clm5_0_ERA5</value>
cime_config/config_component.xml:      <value compset="DATM%ERA5_CLM60"   >clm6_0_ERA5</value>

[wwieder]

I think I'd prefer to not lump this issue in with the CRUJRA pr to prevent scope creep and to keep prs manageable and focused.

I also wonder if removing ERA5 is prudent at this point, given ESPAT interest in the capability? We can discuss.

[wwieder]

@swensosc have you run with ERA data before?

[swensosc]

I have used it. Currently I am have a regional subset on derecho. For global runs, there is a complication with generating a mesh file due to the treatment of the poles.

…

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 7:41 PM will wieder ***@***.***> wrote: @swensosc <https://github.com/swensosc> have you run with ERA data before? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3010 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGRN57B45RIVIHCG6N6I5H32UDO3VAVCNFSM6AAAAABY4VSFFOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDOMJZGUZTAOJVGU> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***> [image: wwieder]*wwieder* left a comment (ESCOMP/CTSM#3010) <#3010 (comment)> @swensosc <https://github.com/swensosc> have you run with ERA data before? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3010 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGRN57B45RIVIHCG6N6I5H32UDO3VAVCNFSM6AAAAABY4VSFFOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDOMJZGUZTAOJVGU> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>