[MITgcm-devel] another diagnostics puzzle

[Martin Losch]

Hi Andrea and  others,

the if statement is only there for SIsigI,SIsigII,SIpress,SIzeta,SIeta.
All others don't have one. I have put an if-statement before the  
SIhsnow call, but that does not change anything.

the diagnostics_status-files don't tell me much, except that the  
three fields in question are the first three fields in my list of  
diagnostics, but the order doesn't matter (I tried with a different  
order and the result is the same).

Oh, and an important detail was missing: I use a negative frequency  
(that is -1 in my test case by before I was trying much longer  
intervals, eg. frequency = -21600) to get snap shots. for averaging,  
the output is OK.

Martin
PS I'll attach the two diagnostics_status files, maybe you can see  
something there:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: diagnostics_status.0000000001.txt.gz
Type: application/x-gzip
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-devel/attachments/20070606/70960eba/attachment.gz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: diagnostics_status.0000000002.txt.gz
Type: application/x-gzip
Size: 497 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-devel/attachments/20070606/70960eba/attachment-0001.gz>
-------------- next part --------------

On 6 Jun 2007, at 17:13, Andrea Molod wrote:

> hi martin,
>
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Martin Losch wrote:
>
>> I am seeing a strange behavior of the diagnostics package for seaice:
>> When I use averaging (only) the first field that is written (both  
>> by mnc and mdsio) is wrong (by a factor of 2, I only noticed  
>> because my AREA was suddenly 2 instead of 1=max(AREA)). This is  
>> true for Siarea,SIheff,SIhsnow, but not for SIuice,SIvice,SIpress,  
>> etc. I don't recognize a pattern in this, do you?
>
> the ones that are ok have an if-loop around the 'fill' sequence  
> (call diagnostics_fill....) checking whether 'diagnostics_is_on',  
> the ones that
> are not ok don't. i don't know about your configuration, etc... but  
> there
> are a few reasons why the diagnostics gets turned 'off' temporarily  
> during
> the run. i bet if you put that call (if diagnostics_is_on(...)  )  
> in there
> the behavior will be ok.
>
> my 2 cents.
>
> andrea
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel