[MITgcm-devel] Re: [MITgcm-support] obcs_apply_ptracer

[Martin Losch]

Dimitris,

I am trying to write code for the check of topography as suggested on  
the support list. Basically the check works better than expected:
verification/seaice_obcs is set up as a bad example with non-zero  
topography across the open boundaries. (also is has some advection/ 
timestepping options that lead to a warning, also not a good example,  
unless you want to test this check).

Do you want to fix this experiment, or would you like me to do it?  
Having said that, I'd rather not, because I am very likely to miss  
important points of this experiment.

Or is this entire effort stupid and we don't need this check?

Martin
PS. I am sending you the modified obcs_check as an attachment, in  
case you want to fix the experiment.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: obcs_check.F.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 1837 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-devel/attachments/20080411/2f01262d/attachment.zip>
-------------- next part --------------


PPS. exp4 is also failing my test, bummer, but I can take care of that.

On 9 Apr 2008, at 17:18, Taka Ito wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> I do agree that the wet points right next to topography in open  
> boundaries are unlikely to affect interior solution.  Would it make  
> sense to do one of the following?
> (1) As you suggest, the obcs code can check if there is any  
> topographic gradient at the beginning, and warn users saying they  
> must prepare topography file which has no gradients at open  
> boundaries.
> (2) Use maskC instead of maskW/S when applying obcs to tracers.  Is  
> there any particular reason for not using maskC?
> Taka
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support