[MITgcm-devel] following on verif_basic

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Martin (& Ed),

Ed proposed to remove the 2 CVS modules:
 MITgcm_verif_atmos
 MITgcm_verif_ocean
And to keep an updated version of:
 MITgcm_verif_basic

If we agree on a small number of small (let's say, below 10.M)
experiments in verif_basic (that will always remain independent),
the way we use "prepare_run" is no longer an issue.

Regarding the modification of MITgcm_verif_basic, the current list 
of experiments is:
global_ocean.90x40x15
  <- keep it for now, until we switch to tutorial_global_oce_latlon
     (without the input.qshyd and result_ad*, size will go down, below 10.M)
aim.5l_cs   <- too big ?
hs94.128x64x5 <- ?
      I would keep those 2 atmospheric set-up (one on Lat-Long,
      the other on CS grid), since aim.5l_cs is testing plenty of AIM
        / Land / thsice stuff.
      alternatively, we can put insead aim.5l_LatLon & tutorial_held_suarez_cs,
      but these 2 together take more space than aim.5l_cs + hs94.128x64x5);
front_relax
 <- quiet simple, would prefer ideal_2D_oce (test diagnostics,
    mnc, all gmredi options not already tested in global_ocean.90x40x15)
tutorial_barotropic_gyre
  <- so simple that I am ready to remove it
tutorial_plume_on_slope
  <- keep it (test NH, variable dX, AdvScheme=33)
tutorial_global_oce_biogeo
  <- far too big

I would add 2 small tests (removing tutorial_barotropic_gyre &
 tutorial_global_oce_biogeo, the total number would be unchanged).
lab_sea
  <- test sea-ice, exf
rotating_tank
  <- test cylindrical grid & NH

Now, in term of disk space (& data to download),
we will go from (currently):
13504   aim.5l_cs/
492     front_relax/
21460   global_ocean.90x40x15/
660     hs94.128x64x5/
332     tutorial_barotropic_gyre/
26244   tutorial_global_oce_biogeo/
720     tutorial_plume_on_slope/
63468   .

to (what I propose):
13504   aim.5l_cs/
21460   global_ocean.90x40x15/
660     hs94.128x64x5/
528     ideal_2D_oce/
6664    lab_sea/
820     rotating_tank/
720     tutorial_plume_on_slope/
44392   .

What do you (and anyone who use those CVS alias) think of this ?

Cheers,
Jean-Michel