[MITgcm-devel] changes in seaice with OBCS

[Martin Losch]

Hi Jean-Michel,

yes, that was the point: with OBCS_SEAICE_COMPUTE_UVICE defined there should not be any files for open boundaries for ice velocities. I had suggested something about these tests some time ago <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-devel/2009-February/003602.html>, but I didn't follow up on that.

Martin

On Nov 10, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:

> Hi Martin,
> 
> I did not think of changing obcs_apply_uvice.F now (just obcs_apply_seaice.F).
> But, naively, looks like removing the test for non empty OBN,Svicefile and
> OBE,Wuicefile in obcs_apply_uvice.F would make your data.obcs more 
> staighforward (no need to specify OBW,Eu,viceFile when OBCS_SEAICE_COMPUTE_UVICE
> is defined).
> Or am I missing something ?
> 
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
> 
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:38:47PM +0100, Martin Losch wrote:
>> Hi Jean-Michel,
>> 
>> I actually use some of this in an awkward way. What I want is that all ice that reaches the boundary, disappears. Not sure if it really works, but the ice does not pile up against the boundary, so I am happy. Here an excerpt from my data.obcs. aaomip_heff.obce contains only zeros.
>>> # all zeros
>>> OBEhFile='../input/aaomip_heff.obce'
>>> OBWhFile='../input/aaomip_heff.obce'
>>> OBEaFile='../input/aaomip_heff.obce'
>>> OBWaFile='../input/aaomip_heff.obce'
>>> OBEsnFile='../input/aaomip_heff.obce'
>>> OBWsnFile='../input/aaomip_heff.obce'
>>> # this is very counterintuitive: we need to specify
>>> # an input field for the code to do anything, even
>>> # though with the current CPP Flag settings
>>> # (OBCS_SEAICE_COMPUTE_UVICE defined), these values
>>> # have no effect whatsoever
>>> OBWuiceFile='../input/aaomip_heff.obce'
>>> OBWviceFile='../input/aaomip_heff.obce'
>>> OBEuiceFile='../input/aaomip_heff.obce'
>>> OBEviceFile='../input/aaomip_heff.obce'
>> 
>> I agree with you that this is not very practice, and something more straightforward would be nice (like defining or computing the values in obcs_calc.F).
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On Nov 10, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Dimitris,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for doing this. I made the checkpoint62n tag yesterday.
>>> 
>>> I have an other question related to obcs_apply_seaice.F:
>>> I would like to remove all the conditions on non-empty 
>>> file-name when applying OBC to seaice fieds:
>>>>         IF ( SEAICEadvHeff .AND. OBNhfile .NE. ' ' )
>>>>   &          HEFF(I,J,bi,bj)  = OBNh (I,bi,bj)
>>>>         IF ( SEAICEadvArea .AND. OBNafile .NE. ' ' )
>>>>   &          AREA(I,J,bi,bj)  = OBNa (I,bi,bj)
>>> In fact, I don't know how the seaice model will deal with OB 
>>> when only part of the fields are specified in OB regions.
>>> I expect some funny things when the ice-field is advected.
>>> And in the case where the ice field is not advected, I really
>>> don't know. I would be tempted to remove also the test
>>> "IF ( SEAICEadvHeff )", and to always apply what has been 
>>> set in obcs_calc, to make seaice-obcs like ptracer,T,S,
>>> and momentum (all the other obcs_apply S/R).
>>> 
>>> But may be a more basic question, is this feature (not to 
>>> apply OBC to some seaice-fields when it's done for other
>>> fields) used and for what purpose ?
>>> If this is really a feature we want to maintain, I am afraid
>>> this might be broken after my recent changes.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jean-Michel
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 01:37:52PM -0800, Menemenlis, Dimitris (3248) wrote:
>>>> JM, I will revert back to 1.50 plus your 1.52 changes.
>>>> will check it in in a few minutes, after I test make sure I didn't
>>>> break seaice_obcs
>>>> 
>>>> D.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 8, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Dimitris,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I made some changes in OBCS for T & S, also ptracers,
>>>>> and did similar changes in pkg/seaice.
>>>>> If you see something strange, let me know.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I was going to make a checkpoint sometime this week
>>>>> (may be tomorrow), and was wondering about your changes in
>>>>> seaice mask with OBCS (in seaice_init_varia): Do prefer to change 
>>>>> it back ? Anyway, it would be better to fix it
>>>>> before the checkpoint (62n).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel