[MITgcm-devel] _if merge completion

Gael Forget gforget at MIT.EDU
Mon Feb 14 19:08:21 EST 2011


Dear Ian,

I believe I have completed your codes check-in (as of seaice_growth.F rev
1.112).

I attach a slightly edited version of your routine (try diffing the two), to
facilitate comparisons with the latest pkg/seaice. The edits I made were:
	- remove the QSW term you added to QNET (was breaking heat conservation)
	- fix the d_HEFFbyATMonICE stuff (was breaking global_ocean.cs32x15)
	- replace '*AREApreTH(I,J)/heff_star' with '/heffActual(I,J)' (no need for
extra var)
	- replace my SEAICE_DO_OPEN_WATER_GROWTH block with yours (as done in rev1.111)
	- define SEAICE_OCN_MELT_ACT_ON_AREA (since I removed the undef case in
rev1.112)
Nothing that needs much discussion I believe. Right?

Then, I did a series of global_ocean.cs32x15 forward runs to make sure that the
latest pkg/seaice
and your latest contrib routine (with the above edits) give the same results,
for the following
sets of CCP options:
	- FENTY_DELTA_HEFF_OPEN_WATER_FLUXES alone (default of global_ocean.cs32x15).
	- FENTY_AREA_EXPANSION_CONTRACTION alone (i.e. SEAICEareaFormula=3)
	- MCPHEE_OCEAN_ICE_HEAT_FLUX alone
	- all three + SEAICE_OCN_MELT_ACT_ON_AREA (i.e. SEAICE_DO_OPEN_WATER_MELT)

As far as verification experiments are concerned, here is where we are:
	- in rev1.111 I substituted my SEAICE_DO_OPEN_WATER_GROWTH block with your
	FENTY_DELTA_HEFF_OPEN_WATER_FLUXES block, which is thus already tested
	as part of global_ocea.cs32x15. I have not yet examined the actual effect
	of this change in details, but I trust your code is correct.
	- I intend to switch MCPHEE_OCEAN_ICE_HEAT_FLUX on and set SEAICEareaFormula=3
shortly,
	so that all of your contributions would be tested in this global set up. I will
wait until
	I find the time to examine what the various changes do to the ECCO v4 setup
runs though.
Also, I plan to send an email regarding diagnostics to the devel list in a few
days.

I hope I did not forget to mention anything of importance. It would be great
if you could re-run some of the tests you documented a couple weeks ago, and
let us know if you are unhappy with the results. Thanks for your help.

Cheers,
Gael



More information about the MITgcm-devel mailing list