[MITgcm-devel] Unrealistic low SST with SEAICE_GROWTH_LEGACY undef

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Dimitris,

You convince me regarding pkg naming, but not regarding units:
I suggest that you try to see how to do when using a different
time-step for each level (in this case, the scheme should not
conserve heat but in the limit where the model reach a perfect
equilibrium, should be as close as possible to a uniform deltaTtracer).
Also, regarding this case:
> with sub-cycling time steps within one of the ice packages.
we need to pass a flux (in Watts) to get the right effect.

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:16:44PM -0800, Menemenlis, Dimitris (3248) wrote:
> Jean-Michel, I talked about package naming with a local
> ice expert (Ala Khazendar) and he also prefers "frazil".
> He point out that "frazil" is a noun (not an adjective) and
> that it only has one meaning, i.e., "ice crystals", so that
> there is no need to follow "frazil" with "_ice".
> 
> Regarding units, I thought that Joules not Watts is the safer way
> to go when dealing with a different time step at each level
> (especially if pkg/frazil evolves to do fancier depth-dependent
> transport/storage manipulations) or with sub-cycling time steps
> within one of the ice packages.  The energy (in Joules) released
> by the freezing of a given mass of sea water does not depend on
> model time step, but the rate of energy conversion
> (in Joules per second or Watts) does depend on the length of the
> model time step.  So my preference (unless you have a strong objection)
> is to use Joules inside pkg/frazil and to convert to W/m^2 only when
> handing things off to Qnet or to diagnostic variables.
> 
> Dimitris Menemenlis
> cell: 818-625-6498
> 
> On Feb 15, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
> 
> > Hi Dimitris,
> > 
> >> ??? What should this package be called: pkg/ifreeze, pkg/frazil, other suggestions?
> > My vote on the new pkg name (among the 2 you proposed): "pkg/frazil" ?
> > or outside your list "pkg/frazil_ice" (with variable short name "frazil" ?)
> > 
> > And regarding this:
> >> A 2D array containing negative heat in "Joules" will be generated,
> > I think it's better in Watts (and even more convenient in W/m^2),
> > so that when using a different ime-step for each level, we have 
> > a better chance to do it right. And the division by rAc (to have it
> > in W/m^2) would be more convenient since all the current 2-D heat-related 
> > fluxes are in W/m^2.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel