[MITgcm-devel] RE: update of AIM test exp.

[Chris Hill]

Sounds fine.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Michel Campin [mailto:jmc at ocean.mit.edu] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 4:16 PM
> To: cnh at ocean.mit.edu
> Cc: MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> Subject: update of AIM test exp.
> 
> Hi Chris, 
> 
> I would like to update the 3 aim.5l* verifications exp:
> a) aim LatLon & EqChannel are still using the old aim pkg, 
> and  since we know that aim_v23 works better than the old aim 
>  implementation, we can decide to move to aim_v23 for those 2 exp.
>  And for the LatLon, keep the same forcing fields (from NCEP: 
> monthly  mean ground T, soil moisture and albedo, no 
> fractional land-sea mask).
>  Unless there is a good reason to keep the aim LaLon exp as it is ?
> b) there are 2 ways of imposing surface BC with aim_v23  but 
> right now, only 1 type of surface BC is tested (since only  
> aim CS is using aim_v23). aim_LatLon could be used to test 
> aim_v23  with the "NCEP" surface BC and then aim_CS can move 
> to Franco M. 
>  forcing fields in order to use (and test) the fractional 
> land/sea mask.
>  This is presently not tested, not even in the coupled set-up 
> where  the land-sea fraction is always 0 or 1.
>  I can take, for instance, the same set of parameters that I 
> was using  to produce the results for the isomorphism paper.
>  This would also bring this exp closer to what I am generally running.
> 
> I would prefer to update those exp before making 
> modifications in the aim code, so that we can check and 
> follow precisely what affects the results.
> 
> Once this is done, we can start to think of removing the old aim pkg.
> 
> Do you agree with this plan ?
> 
> See you,
> 
> Jean-Michel
>