[MITgcm-devel] EOS_CHECK

[Martin Losch]

O-Oh, I should have waited at least a day before checking in crap.  
The good news is, that everything is OK, and that I just screwed up  
the meaning of the check values.
I will correct this now in ini_eos.F (by modifying the just  
introduced comments).

Martin

On 21 Aug 2008, at 15:51, Martin Losch wrote:

> Hi Jean-Michel,
>
> we got ourselves a problem:
> - for JMD95Z/P the values are correct only for the surface (p=0),  
> and you can easily see why: the values for the bulk modulus are wrong.
> - for MDJWF the check pass except for the first one (and I don't  
> see why this is so, could be round off)
> Note that the first 5 check values are for MDJWF and the remaining  
> ones for JMD95 (both from the respective papers), I have included a  
> line in the output that makes this clearer.
>
> Now, why is the bulk modulus wrong in these checks? Probably  
> because there is an issue with the way pressure is computed?
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 11 Aug 2008, at 04:10, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> I've just check-in some fixes for the EOS-check, so that it
>> compiles and writes something.
>> When you have time, could you check that what is written
>> with various eosType is right ?
>> (was not sure about this bulkMod thing).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jean-Michel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel