[MITgcm-devel] Re: downslope pkg

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Martin,

In summary, we agree on:
* split of shelfice_init in 2: init_fixed & init_varia is a good thing
* not good to have those 2 (hidden) S/R : 
  SHELFICE_INI_DEPTH & SHELFICE_UPDATE_MASKS
  in file shelfice_init_varia.F

Remaining question: what to do with those 2 subroutines:
given that they don't fit into "standard" pkg initialisation 
(read_params/init_fixed/init_varia)
a) keep 2 separate S/R. or 
b) move SHELFICE_INI_DEPTH (reading of SHELFICEtopoFile into R_shelfIce array)
 at the beggining of SHELFICE_UPDATE_MASKS, so that we end up with only 1 S/R.

I prefer option (b):
- it minimizes the number of non-standard shelfice entry in the
  initialisation part.
- don't see the upper BC (ice-shelf base) as being so much related to ini_depth
  (dealing with fixed lower BC). In fact, from a dynamical point of view,         
  it's more the mass of the ice-shelf which would be the upper BC. And would
  probably have to deal with mass if a dynamical ice-shelf component
  was considered.
  The code is not ready for that, but since the link to ini_depth is not 
  so clear, the simpler (just 1 call) might be better.
- none of those S/R is very long, sothat it's little bit easier to follow
  what's going on all together in 1 S/R.
but if you insist on having 2 S/R (in the same file or not), it's not a
big deal (as long as they are not hidden with a 3rd S/R, it's fine with me).

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 06:09:19PM +0200, Martin Losch wrote:
> I agree, that putting the new subroutines all into shelfice_init_varia.F 
> is a bit stupid and I am willing to change that, but in the end I felt it 
> was more consistent to read the topography, where all topographies are 
> read, and modify the hfacs in a different routine. Maybe we talk about 
> this some more tomorrow, need to mow the lawn now ...
>
> Martin
>