[MITgcm-devel] obcs and passive

[Samar Khatiwala]

Hi Jean-Michel. A few comments:

On Oct 9, 2005, at 8:12 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:

> An other issue is that it might be difficult to get a diagnostics
> of the amount of tracer that is added or removed, which is something
> that some users would like to have.

This does not seem like a well defined or useful quantity with  
prescribed BCs. So
anyone using this option will probably not care about this  
diagnostic. Its not
unreasonable to assume that people who use this model know what they
are doing (not applicable to me of course!).

> Now, in many applications, a strong relaxation term would produce
> a similar effect, can still be considered as a forcing term
> (the model continue to solve for the tracer concentration
> everywhere, including the surface level), is easy to diagnose,
> and does not suffer from any ambiguity.

Possibly, but why do it this way if you can design a cleaner solution
that avoids all the problems of treating certain source terms  
implicitly, etc.

Samar

> Simply, when the time step is long (as I understand, Samar, this
> is your case ?), this restoring term needs to be treated implicitly
> (inside implidiff or the others S/R that also deal with implicit
> vertical advection).
>
> And to Martin:
>
>> My question: Should I create a new tag (checkpoint57u_post) after
>> checking in my code? I am asking because I no longer see a clear
>> pattern in when a tag should be created and I don't want to interfere
>> with a policy that I maybe should know (but don't) (o:
>>
> Yes, it's a good idea.
>
> Jean-Michel
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
>