b4b: Introduce separate cmip6 and cmip7 co2 stream files keeping cmip6 as default

[slevis-lmwg]

CDEPS issues:
Resolves #352
Resolves #361
Resolves #379

Are there dependencies on other component PRs (if so list):
CTSM issue ESCOMP/CTSM#3386
CTSM PR to update .gitmodules with this PR's changes: TODO

Are changes expected to change answers (bfb, different to roundoff, more substantial):
Yes, more than roundoff, because the cmip7 co2 dataset differs from its cmip6 counterpart.

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes):
The new dataset spans 1750-2022 instead of 1750-2014.

Testing performed (e.g. aux_cdeps, CESM prealpha, etc):
So far, I completed 1-day simulations in

/glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/archive/IHistClm6BgcCropCrujra_f09_ctsm5.4.003/cmip7co2
/glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/archive/IHistClm6BgcCropCrujra_f09_ctsm5.4.005

and the PCO2 output looks

• identical in these two cmip7 cases and
• similar to the following cmip6 1-day baseline:
  /glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/archive/IHistClm6BgcCropCrujra_f09_ctsm5.4.003/cmip6co2

Hashes used for testing:
1-day baseline: ctsm5.4.003
1-day experiment: ctsm5.4.003 with co2 stream changes in user_nl_datm_streams
1-day experiment: ctsm5.4.005 with cdeps1.0.84-1-g5a06fe0 (this PR)

[slevis-lmwg]

I would like a preliminary review of this PR before I

• submit the aux_cdeps test-suite
• ./rimport and relink the new file

@ekluzek would you like to look at this or recommend another reviewer? Only 5 lines have changed.

[slevis-lmwg]

From this morning's meeting with @ekluzek

• Make the changes in this PR such that answers will not change.
• Open a follow-up PR that will make cmip7 the default option, which will change answers. Implementation of this needs discussion with a bigger group due to potential changes in components/cdeps/datm/cime_config/config_component.xml and/or elsewhere.

[slevis-lmwg]

• derecho OK: ./run_sys_tests -s aux_clm -c ctsm5.4.008 --skip-generate

@ekluzek I forget whether there is such a thing as aux_cdeps, as well, and whether I should run that from somewhere...

UPDATE: on derecho

• ./run_sys_tests -s aux_cdeps --skip-compare -g /glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/cseg/cesm_baselines/cdeps1.0.84-ctsm5.4.008 <-- baseline for comparing the next
  One failure due to missing grid (explained in post below and solution pending for now)
• ./run_sys_tests -s aux_cdeps -c /glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/cseg/cesm_baselines/cdeps1.0.84-ctsm5.4.008 -g /glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/cseg/cesm_baselines/cdeps1.0.85-ctsm5.4.008
  Submitted this anyway while we decide how to resolve the one failing test in the baseline: Results OK.

[ekluzek]

• derecho: ./run_sys_tests -s aux_clm -c ctsm5.4.008 --skip-generate

@ekluzek I forget whether there is such a thing as aux_cdeps, as well, and whether I should run that from somewhere...

Yes, there is an aux_cdeps and you should run that as well. That's one of the ones that you need to create the baseline beforehand. The baselines are under: /glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/cseg/cesm_baselines/ on Derecho, and you only need to do Derecho. The last baseline you actually ran and it was for: cdeps1.0.70 and labeled that way. I imagine you used a CTSM tag to get the other externals for it, but I'm not sure.

[slevis-lmwg]

One aux_cdeps test failed when generating the baseline (see a couple of posts back):
FAIL SMS_Ld3.f19_g17_rx1.2000_SATM_SLND_SICE_SOCN_DROF%NYF_SGLC_SWAV.derecho_intel CREATE_NEWCASE
with
ERROR: no alias f19_g17_rx1 defined
@ekluzek how would you like to address this?

UPDATE: Move to TL319_t232, run the case, and point them to it so they can confirm it makes sense. See this post for details:
#379 (comment)

[ekluzek]

Alper removed that grid about a year ago from ccs_config. There are other rx1 grids still there. But, it looks like with MOM JRA025 is being used, so we should see what Ocean people want and have them decide. I'll open an issue and loop them into discuss what they want.

Pining @mnlevy1981 @alperaltuntas

[slevis-lmwg]

In case it helps others...
git diff cdeps1.0.84 shows (at least for me) a cleaner version of the PR's diffs than I see here in github.

[slevis-lmwg]

From 3 posts up from here:

UPDATE: Move to TL319_t232, run the case, and point them to it so they can confirm it makes sense. See this post for details: #379 (comment)

I have good news (pinging @alperaltuntas @mnlevy1981) and so-so news (pinging @jedwards4b).

The good news:
PASS SMS_Ld3.TL319_t232_wt232.2000_SATM_SLND_SICE_SOCN_DROF%NYF_SGLC_SWAV.derecho_intel
@ekluzek are we supposed to ask @alperaltuntas and @mnlevy1981 for confirmation that this test makes sense?
See the test here:
/glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/SMS_Ld3.TL319_t232_wt232.2000_SATM_SLND_SICE_SOCN_DROF%NYF_SGLC_SWAV.derecho_intel.20260128_155945_98lojp

The so-so news:
@jedwards4b for the above test to build, I had to back out your last commit that merges a newer cdeps. How do you recommend that we proceed?

[slevis-lmwg]

@jedwards4b the test case that failed while building is here:
/glade/derecho/scratch/slevis/SMS_Ld3.TL319_t232_wt232.2000_SATM_SLND_SICE_SOCN_DROF%NYF_SGLC_SWAV.derecho_intel.20260128_150601_i8mago/bld/CDEPS.bldlog.260128-150606

[jedwards4b]

@slevis-lmwg The CDEPS update requires an update to CMEPS - you need cdeps1.1.29 or newer.