[MITgcm-devel] ICE workshop - recap and homework!

[Menemenlis, Dimitris (3248)]

Martin, Gael, Ian, and Patrick, we also find that the new ice code (checkpoint63j) creates more ice than our previous integrations (also with non-legacy code but circa checkpoint63c).  We are trying to understand what is principal cause of this additional sea ice, so that we don't have to readjust everything from scratch.  Any advice on where to look would be appreciated.

Hong has summarized his results here:
http://ecco2.jpl.nasa.gov/data1/meeting/2012/03_28/hzhang_SO_seaice.ppt
http://ecco2.jpl.nasa.gov/data1/meeting/2012/03_28/SO_seaice.tar
Compare only JSO24 and JSO30 - ignore JSO29, which attempted to use SItracer instead of HSALT for salinity.

The differences between JSO24 and JSO30 are as follows:

JSO24:
SEAICE_OPTIONS.h
#define MCPHEE_OCEAN_ICE_HEAT_FLUX
#define GRADIENT_MIXED_LAYER_TURBULENCE_FACTOR
#define SEAICE_DO_OPEN_WATER_GROWTH
#define SEAICE_DO_OPEN_WATER_MELT
#define FENTY_AREA_EXPANSION_CONTRACTION
#define SEAICE_ADD_SUBLIMATION_TO_FWBUDGET
#define ALLOW_SEAICE_FLOODING
#define SEAICE_CAP_HEFF

JSO30:
EXF_OPTIONS.h
# define EXF_LWDOWN_WITH_EMISSIVITY
data.sea	ice
  SEAICE_no_slip     = .TRUE.,
  SEAICE_wetAlbTemp  = 0.0,
  SIsal0             = 4.0,
  SEAICE_mcPheePiston= 0.0008333,
  SEAICE_frazilFrac  = 0.1,
  SEAICE_mcPheeTaper=0.92,

Would really appreciate some advice on which of above differences is likely to cause the thicker ice in JSO30.

Thanks

Dimitris Menemenlis

On Mar 30, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Martin Losch wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> please find my summary here
> <http://http://mitgcm.org/~mlosch/cmp_legacy.pdf>
> 
> Basically, the non-legacy ice creates more ice in my configuration, but 
> parameter choices are not what I would use in this configuration.
> 
> Martin