[MITgcm-devel] Re: [MITgcm-cvs] MITgcm/pkg/gchem CVS Commit

[Stephanie Dutkiewicz]

Martin -
You are correct that these aren't needed, and I can change
it back in gchem.
(The reason I did this was it was the cause of Hezi's problems
on the alpha -- they are some parts of the pkg/dic that calculated
on the overlaps, and it was blowing up when some other parts
didn't: it was easier to make everything on the overlaps than
not...so I took the short cut).
steph


On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Martin Losch wrote:

> Hi Steph,
>
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:08 PM, Stephanie Dutkiewicz wrote:
>
>> Update of /u/gcmpack/MITgcm/pkg/gchem
>> In directory forge:/tmp/cvs-serv24517/pkg/gchem
>> 
>> Modified Files:
>> 	gchem_forcing_sep.F
>> Log Message:
>> o set imin,imax,jmin,jmax to include overlap points
> why is it necessary to include the overlap regions? I think we had this 
> discussion long ago, and I could convince you that they weren't necessary.
> As far as I can see there are no horizontal averages or gradients involved in 
> any of the bgc-models that I know of (I don't know too many, I have to 
> admit), and right after gchem_forcing_sep, we call do_blocking_exchanges, so 
> the calculating the bgc-fluxes/tendencies on the overlaps is just a waste of 
> computer time (not a big waste, but unecessary, and these bgc-models can 
> become expensive, at least mine is). I would prefer a solution, in which the 
> overlaps, should they really be needed, are hardwired in the corresponding 
> subroutines (as you did, e.g. in dic/carbon_chem.F and dic/fe_chem.F, 
> although I don't see why: I couldn't find any instances of i-1,i+1,j-1,j+1 or 
> the like in the directory dic), or included in model-specfic ifdef's.
>
> What have I overlooked?
>
> Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
>