[MITgcm-devel] depressed Eta and sIceLoad

[mlosch at awi-bremerhaven.de]

Hi,
I agree with Dimitris, although my idea of ice physics is poor. Naively I would assume that sublimation of ice into vapor is 
negligible. But we may want to add the (1-area) term only #if defined ALLOW_EXF && !defined EXF_READ_EVAP

M.

Martin Losch
Alfred Wegener Institute 
Postfach 120161, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany; 
Tel./Fax: ++49(0471)4831-1872/1797



----- Original Message -----
From: Dimitris Menemenlis <menemenlis at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: [MITgcm-devel] depressed Eta and sIceLoad

> Hi Jinlun,
> 
> > I don't think this was a bug since evap occurs in ice covered 
> area too.
> 
> I am assuming you mean evaporation from "top" of ice so the physics 
> would be 
> completely different to evaporation from "open water".  As 
> presently coded, 
> evaporation under ice is a bug for two reasons: first because the 
> water is 
> removed from the wrong medium, from the water rather than from the 
> ice, and 
> second because when evaporation is not explicitly specified it is 
> computed based 
> on bulk formulae for open water (my contribution to this bug).  So 
> I definitely 
> think that evap needs to be masked by (1-area) without "if" or 
> "#ifdef"
> How significant is evaporation from top of ice?  If it is important 
> for ice and 
> thermodynamic budget computations then we will eventually need to 
> add it in, but 
> correctly.
> 
> Cheers, Dimitris
> 
> -- 
> Dimitris Menemenlis <menemenlis at jpl.nasa.gov>
> Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology
> MS 300-323, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena CA 91109-8099
> tel: 818-354-1656;  fax: 818-393-6720
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
>