[MITgcm-devel] new verification experiment?

[Martin Losch]

OK, done with real*8
M.
On Oct 11, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> I still prefer real*8 input file, it makes easier to unterstand
> where differences come from when something change, and/or
> when doing comparaison between different compilers/platforms.
> And it should not take too much disk space (at least, compared to
> some other exp.).
> But all the other things are very good.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jean-Michel.
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 08:12:55AM +0200, Martin Losch wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I found that if I use real*8 input files the results don't  change at
>> all (on my Apple PowerBook).
>> However, I thought that I would at the same time add an open boundary
>> conditions for salinity, which is effectively a passive tracer as 
>> well,
>> this would change the results for salinity.
>>
>> Also, why not have real*4 input fields, even if they change the
>> results? Will the results be more fragile across different platforms? 
>> I
>> don't think so. But real*4 would decrease the download-size.
>>
>> My plan is to have the same open boundary condition for ptracer and
>> salinity at the western boundary and different conditions at the other
>> (salinity is set to sRef, while ptracer has this nearly homogeneous
>> v.Neumann condition.), just to show different options.
>>
>> I'll go ahead and modify exp4 soon (this afternoon).
>>
>> Martin
>>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel