[MITgcm-devel] Re: vertical mixing

[Martin Losch]

Hi Andrea,

I am refering to the Mellor-Yamada (1982) paper in Rev. Geophys. Space  
Phys. The model I have implemented is a level 2 closure (not 2.5), and  
turbulent kinetic energy is a diagnostic variable.

The 2.5 closure scheme is certainly interesting for me as another thing  
to compare. I am not quite sure but the so-called TKE closure model  
that is implemented in OPA and (most likely) MOM is such a 2.5 scheme.  
So yes, it has been done. Please correct me, anyone.

I think, it's a good thing to have, especially if you "only" need to  
generalize it from the atmospheric version.

Martin


On Sep 1, 2004, at 5:11 PM, Andrea Molod wrote:

> hi martin,
>
> i have been watching the emails about the different
> vertical mixing schemes going back and forth, and have
> a few questions for you if you don't mind. but first,
> which is the my80 paper that the scheme follows (there
> are a few papers....)? and more to the point: i have a
> MY level 2.5 scheme for the atmosphere as part of the
> new atmospherics physics package. is there any reason
> why one would want a level 2.5 scheme for the ocean?
> (the main difference is the inclusion of a prognostic
> eqn for turb. kin. en.) ie, would it be worth the effort
> to generalize the bouyancy calculation in there to make
> it workable for the ocean? has this been done already?
> lots of questions, i know. thanks for any you can
> (inclined to....) answer.
>
> andrea
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andrea M. Molod, PhD.
> Department of Earth, Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences
> MIT
> Tel: (617) 253-5458, Email: amolod at mit.edu
> WWW:http://paoc.mit.edu/paoc/people/person.asp? 
> position=Postdoc&who=molod
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>