[MITgcm-devel] new verification experiment?

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Martin,

Personally, I don't have any problem with removing 
exp4/code/obcs_calc.F
Do you have an idea of how much the results change (cg2d_ini...) ?

Jean-Michel

On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 08:21:15AM +0200, Martin Losch wrote:
> Hi,
> now that I have checked in the OBCS-Ptracer code, I would like to have 
> the code tested.
> I could invent a new verification experiment, but I could also modify 
> an existing experiment:
> A hot candidate is "exp4" (channel flow over bump), where I could add a 
> ptracer and use the "prescribe option" (reading OBs from a file). 
> However, exp4 has it's own copy of obcs_calc.F, where time dependent 
> OBs for uVel are computed:
> >            OBEu(J,K,bi,bj)=Uinflow
> >     &       *cos(2.*PI*futureTime*recip_TimeScale)
> >     &       *max(futureTime*recip_TimeScale,1.0 _d 0)
> so that, unless I read an open boundary field every time step, I will 
> never be able to reproduce the exact results (because of futureTime). 
> But, recip_TimeScale is set to zero anyway, so that OBEu=UinFlow 
> always.
> If no-one objects, I would like to get rid of this local copy of 
> obcs_calc and read the OBs from file instead. However, this will 
> probably change the results slightly because of prescision. What do you 
> think? Or would you rather have a new experiment (not really necessary, 
> I believe)?
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel