[MITgcm-devel] Re: Large & Yeager 2004

[Martin Losch]

Patrick,

I have just put a run with large+yeager bulk formulae into the queue.  
Would it make more sense to stop that job and do, what you suggest  
(ocean_emissivity = 1)?

Martin

On 18 Dec 2006, at 20:52, Patrick Heimbach wrote:

>
> Dimitris,
>
> an update on this.
> Different people seem to understand different things
> when they talk about "bulk formulae".
> I undetstood the derivation of buoyancy and momentum fluxes
> from atmos. state involving the parameterization of the neutral
> transfer coefficients, their stability corrections and the like,
> thus deriving, taux & tauy, sensible & latent heat fluxes,  
> evaporation.
> The treatment of radiation is somewhat separate, since completely
> decoupled from these "bulk formulae".
>
> However, in fact it seems that this minor detail might be
> the only relevant part that distinguishes our current
> exf implementation from the Large & Yeager 2004 recommendations,
> i.e. they suggest ocean_emissivity to be set to 1,
> whereas exf has a default of 0.97
> (and bulkf_force a default of 0.985).
>
> So I'll conduct another run with changed emissivity
> (the 3% difference should in fact have a discernable impact).
>
> -Patrick
>
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Dimitris Menemenlis wrote:
>
>> Patrick, thank you for info re bulk formulae.
>> This is indeed very useful information.
>> Dimitris
>
> ---
> Dr Patrick Heimbach | heimbach at mit.edu | http://www.mit.edu/~heimbach
> MIT | EAPS, 54-1518 | 77 Massachusetts Ave | Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
> FON: +1-617-253-5259 | FAX: +1-617-253-4464 | SKYPE: patrick.heimbach
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel