[MITgcm-devel] inconsistencies with density conversion

[Ian Fenty]

Hi Jean-Michel,

You are right, I left debugging output statements in my code when I 
generated the output*txt files and I didn't actually check in my 
comments to tag-index.

As you can tell, I'm still getting the hang of checking in code changes 
instead of working in my own private universe, please be patient while I 
figure it all out!

Step 2 is completed.  seaice_growth.F is updated and several 
verification output*txt files needed updating.

I'll do the variable renaming in Step 3, once Step 2 comes back as working.

-Ian

On 4/26/2011 8:45 AM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> I've made checkpoint62w half an hour ago (11.am EST) after updating
> tag-index.
>
> I had to check-in new output*.txt, see e.g.:
> http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-cvs/2011-April/022714.html
> because it seems you did not use a standard version of MITgcm,
> and those funny lines in the output*.txt were making
> few files bigger than they should be. e.g., in
> verification/offline_exf_seaice/results, with 11520 funny lines:
> -rw-r--r--. 1 jmc 964425 04-25 17:20 output.seaicetd.txt
> and with standard code:
> -rw-r--r--. 1 jmc 250162 04-26 11:39 output.seaicetd.txt
>
> I did not see this (and I've checked):
>> I documented the change in tag-index.
> so I added my own words before the tag (so that it's
> part of checkpoint62w).
>
> You can go for step.2
>
> Jean-Michel
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:08:43AM -0700, Ian Fenty wrote:
>> Jean-Michel,
>>
>> Step 1 is complete and the testing passed last night and I
>> documented the change in tag-index.  Shall I proceed to step 2 or
>> would you like to checkpoint first?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> On Mon, Jean-Michel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I prefer to group in step.1 the changes in data (rhoConstFresh)
>>> and data.seaice (ICE2WATR + SEAICE_X values),
>>> because this is all about getting better constants with the same code.
>>>
>>> Then in step.2, changes in pkg/seaice/seaice_growth.F (to fix what
>>> you spotted);
>>>
>>> And renaming SEAICE_salinity (and/or SEAICE_VARIABLE_SALINITY) can be
>>> put in setp.3, because it's always anoying to rename parameters which
>>> are set in namelist (need to put them in "retired" list and
>>> stop if they are found in data.seaice), and would need also to
>>> stop if the old OPTION "SEAICE_SALINITY" is found to be defined.
>>>
>>> But I don't know precisely when to do the checkpoint (I though
>>> I would do it after step.1, but might see how thing are going).
>>>
>>> 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