[MITgcm-devel] advcfl_W_hf_max

[Alistair Adcroft]

D.,

Can you look to see how the model state changes in the vicinity of those
peaks in CFL_w that you see between days 480-520. Plot the difference in
state between top of one peak and the preceding low. Try plotting the
difference in W,S,T in thermocline and mixed layer.

If I didn't know you better I'd say there was something wrong in the forcing
that was punching the poor iddy biddy gee cee emy to death. There's clever
"events" happening and the difference in state should give us a clue.

A.
--
Dr Alistair Adcroft            http://www.mit.edu/~adcroft
MIT Climate Modeling Initiative        tel: (617) 253-5938
EAPS 54-1523,  77 Massachusetts Ave,  Cambridge,  MA,  USA

-----Original Message-----
From: mitgcm-devel-bounces at mitgcm.org
[mailto:mitgcm-devel-bounces at mitgcm.org] On Behalf Of Dimitris Menemenlis
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:15 PM
To: mitgcm
Subject: RE: [MITgcm-devel] advcfl_W_hf_max


Alistair, here is a plot of cfl values for days 390-524 and also a blow-up
right before crash.

Model used to crash around day 410.  Minor fix to bathymetry (in middle of
tropical Pacific, see second figure) makes it run for an additional 100
days.

Chris and I tried a bunch of other things, changing vertical and horizontal
diffusivity and viscosity, adjusting biharmonic, and bottom drag.  But none
of them worked (except for reducing time step to 300 s, which is not
practical).

Haven't yet looked at what happens on day 523, but I suspect a similar,
bathymetry-caused crash.

Should I just keep fixing bathymetry?  Any better suggestions?

D.

-- 
Dimitris Menemenlis <menemenlis at jpl.nasa.gov>
Jet Propulsion Lab, California Insitute of Technology
MS 300-323, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena CA 91109-8099
tel: 818-354-1656;  fax: 818-393-6720