[MITgcm-devel] changing offline_exf_seaice

[Gael Forget]

> Hi Gael,
> 
> I did some plots (at the time I was working on this set-up) 
> of the norm of the oceanic velocity (constant in time here), 
> not very noisy, just feeling the cost-line.
> I guess this re-enforce my 1rst comment:
>>> Would be good to talk about this when you pass by MIT.
I asked a specific question and you gave me the answer. I thanked you for that. 

Aside from this exchange, I understand you want to talk about the experiment 
more generally and I also want too. You dont specify what you want to talk about (my 
question was answered), and I dont care to guess. I want to talk about a couple 
revisions to the thermodynamics only experiment, that I think make sense : 1) remove
the complicating initial velocity field structure 2) add an edge to the ice cover (in the 
northern part of the domain) to readily test open water and partial ice cover conditions.
I will be happy to look at your plots, and have a couple to show you too.

Cheers,
Gael


> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
> 
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 05:04:56PM -0500, Gael Forget wrote:
>> Cool. That was it. The results look
>> Much simpler when I remove those
>> Highly heterogeous ocean velocities.
>> I guess those were meant for dyn test.
>> Cheers,
>> Gael
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 15:40, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Gael,
>>> 
>>> Would be good to talk about this when you pass by MIT.
>>> Did not look at our plots yet (but I did many previously),
>>> and likely related to ocean current which influence
>>> the exchange coeff between ice and sea-water.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jean-Michel
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 02:06:46PM -0500, Gael Forget wrote:
>>>> Hi Jean Michel,
>>>> 
>>>> the input.thermo experiment is getting there. 
>>>> 
>>>> I am a little puzzled by the input.thsice experiment results though. 
>>>> They turn out much more complicated than expected, given 
>>>> our simple experiment design. I dont understand why 
>>>> the viscinity of the coast influences the result as it does. 
>>>> See e.g. the ocean temperature at day 5 (bottom right 
>>>> panel in attached plot). There should be no horizontal 
>>>> flux in our simple problem design, right? So where 
>>>> is that behavior coming from? Is there an implied 
>>>> diffusion of some sort in the thsice thermodynamics?
>>>> 
>>>> I looked a little at thsice parameters and codes but I dont get it. 
>>>> The input.thermo results are much more homogeneous in y.
>>>> I must be missing something.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Gael
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 6, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to change the test experiment "offline_exf_seaice",
>>>>> to use a re-entrant channel with idealized costline (based on the
>>>>> set-up I put few weeks ago in http://mitgcm.org/~jmc/icedyn_v02.tar.gz)
>>>>> If things go well, would like to start the changes tomorrow (Friday)
>>>>> with only the forward set-up for now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I propose the following forward tests:
>>>>> (1) input        : seaice-dynamics + thermodynamics and SST relaxation
>>>>>                 (to replace current offline_exf_seaice/input.seaice)
>>>>> (2) input.thsice : thermodynamics(pkg/thsice) and SST relaxation
>>>>> (3) input.thermo : thermodynamics(pkg/seaice) and SST relaxation
>>>>> (4) input.fixedSST : thermodynamics(pkg/seaice) and fixed SST
>>>>>                 (to replace current offline_exf_seaice/input.seaicetd)
>>>>> (5) input.dyn_lsr  : seaice-dynamics, using LSR
>>>>> (6) input.dyn_jfnk : seaice-dynamics, using JFNK
>>>>> (7) input.exf_bulk : no seaice, just bulk-formulae
>>>>>                 (to replace current offline_exf_seaice/input)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think I have 2 & 5 ready to go. I need to put something for (1)
>>>>> (otherwise the other will not be tested), and as a temporary test,
>>>>> I was going to use thsice and LSR (as in 2 + 5) but this could be changed 
>>>>> later on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Martin, when you have time, if you can take care of (6), it would be nice.
>>>>> One thing we could try is to test both pkg/seaice advection and 
>>>>> pkg/thsice advection in 5 & 6 (e.g., thsice in 5 ?).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Gael, I made several changes to the thermodynamic forcing you sent me,
>>>>> so that it fits thsice, it's also a stronger forcing (but once I add 
>>>>> the dynamics, it's still dominated by advection vs thermodynamic forcing),
>>>>> and I get immediately some places with surface melting and other places
>>>>> with melting and freezing from below.
>>>>> When you are back, we could talk about (3) and (4), and from there
>>>>> it should be easy to get (7) (+ update (1) ?).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Comments and suggestions are welcome (specially for dir name, since
>>>>> it's a pain to changed them with CVS).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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