[MITgcm-devel] Unrealistic low SST with SEAICE_GROWTH_LEGACY undef

[Gael Forget]

Dimitris,

I think we are on the same page. Just to be sure. What I care most about is :
delay your latest list's #2 until you have put a clean #1 & #3 (from your latest 
list) with the appropriate diagnostics in a new pkg. Agreed?

Then the need for doing #2, or not, in pkg/seaice is a point I hope we get 
a chance to discuss when we review the state of affairs in pkg/seaice after OS12.
I was under the impression that this is where Martin and I left this thread last week.
So it may be best to wait until after we meet for starting your list's #2   That could 
save us some back-pedalling. Not to mention the fact, that as you know, I do frequent
commits in pkg/seaice these days, and simultaneous commits often means more work.

Cheers,
Gael



On Feb 15, 2012, at 12:09 PM, Menemenlis, Dimitris (3248) wrote:

> Gael, thanks for comments.  Some answers below:
> 
> Regarding the name, I can use "pkg/interior_freeze" for package but need
> a shorter name (ifreeze?) for flags, variable names, and subroutine names.
> 
> I agree that this package need to work independently of the other ice packages.
> Modifying any of the sea ice packages is a separate step.
> What Ian and I envisioned is following sequence:
> 
> 1. Call iFREEZE_INTERIOR
>     to adjust interior temperature to freezing point and to compute negative heat anomaly that rises to surface.
> 
> 2. Call all the other ice package (freeze_surface, seaice, thsice, icefront, shelfice, ...)
>     which can (but do not have to) operate on this negative heat anomaly.
> 
> 3. Call iFREEZE_SURFACE
>     which will use any residual negative heat left over after the other ice packages are done,
>     to cool SST or sea water immediately below ice shelves.
> 
> The above sequence will achieve what you describe below, but it leave open the possibility for
> the ice packages to do fancier stuff with this negative heat anomaly, if they wish to do so.
> 
> Dimitris Menemenlis
> 
> On Feb 15, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Gael Forget wrote:
> 
>> Hi Dimitris,
>> 
>> I dont have a strong preference regarding names but interior_freeze may be 
>> just fine (item 1) and item 3 likely should be done before anything else.
>> 
>> As far as item 2 the new package should be made to work independently of pkg/thsice and pkg/seaice first (and of kpp please).
>> Basically I suggest you start with
>> 	=> A 2D array containing negative heat in "Joules" will be generated that will be added to Qnet.
>> 	=> allowFreezing rather than more complex ice models, and convective adjustement rather than kpp.
>> It would be nice to add a switch to decide whether the needed heat should be taken from the ocean first layer (as it is now I believe) 
>> or in the atmosphere (where your plan takes at least some of it). And it should be possible for the user to back out the
>> ocean conservation of heat (or the lack thereof) using pkg/diagnostics. Those points seem like obvious pre-requisites
>> to a discussion of whether a refined integration in ice models is worth it and of interest. If you decide to forego those intermediate steps, 
>> I would suggest you go all the way and start with pkg/thsice rather than pkg/seaice -- with the better ice conservation principle that is.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Gael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-devel/attachments/20120215/d8a2c636/attachment.htm>