[MITgcm-devel] question regarding seaice_solve4temp.F

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Ian,

Thanks for your input.
I understand that it's not so easy to look at piece
of code that are quite old, so I apreciate your answer.

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 07:10:19PM -0800, Ian Fenty wrote:
> J-M,
> I believe you are correct, with the new SVP formulation the check
> you mention is not necessary.
> 
> Now, lowering ice surface temperature will always cause a net
> decrease to ice surface heat flux divergence (increased latent,
> sensible, and conductive heat flux convergence and decreased
> Stefan-Boltzmann divergence).
> 
> Ergo, the gradient of d(heat flux residual)/d (ice surface
> temperature) should always single-signed and there isn't another
> solution to the energy balance equation at very low ice surface
> temperatures.
> 
> That block of code can (probably) be safely removed!
> 
> -Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went through my notes and can't find the example that led me to
> add this check.
> On 1/30/2012 10:34 AM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
> >Hi Ian,
> >
> >I have a question regarding this part of the code, formerly in
> >seaice_budget_ice_if.F and now in seaice_solve4temp.F (non-legacy):
> >>c    If the search falls below 50 Kelvin then kick the search back up to
> >>c    TMELT.  Note that a solution to the equation is for a large negative
> >>c    value of ice surface temperature since the longwave outgoing radiation
> >>c    goes as the fourth power of temperature.
> >>           IF (tsurfLoc(I,J) .LT. 50.0 ) THEN
> >>                tsurfLoc(I,J) = TMELT
> It seems to me that with the new (SVP), the search for tsurf looks
> quite safe, with always dFiDTs1 > 0. May be I am missing something ?
> If you could provide an example where this problem show-up, it would
> be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel