[MITgcm-devel] pkg/layers verification exp.

[Ryan Abernathey]

I am not super familiar with these experiments, but I think the cfc_example
is a better choice. What would really be ideal is an eddying experiment,
but this is probably not practical for the daily test reports. Certainly an
experiment with a realistic stratification and overturning is a necessity.
Someone else (Martin / David / Ross / Jean-Michel) would probably be better
than me at setting this up. The fact is that I don't run realistic global
models. I am still stuck in a channel with no salinity! Layers has evolved
quite a bit beyond my original setup.

A nice accompaniment to this would be some real documentation. I have
promised to work on this for quite some time, but it's one of those things
that is hard to prioritize. ;)

I have many ambitions for the future of layers. For example, I would love
to be able to accumulate all the tracer-budget diagnostics that are filled
in gad_advection.F in layer space. This would permit, for example, the
online calculation of water mass transformation with an unprecedented level
of precision. I am very glad that all you numerical wizards are getting
involved because I will need your help to go down that road! The final
step, the momentum budget in layer space, is pretty intimidating. And at
that point you are probably better off just running GOLD. ;)

Cheers,
Ryan







On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu>wrote:

> Hi Ryan, David, Martin and others,
>
> In response to Martin's concern about having an example that uses
> pkg/layers,
> I would propose to turn it on in one of the verification experiment.
>
> Right now, it's already compiled in exp4, but given the simple
> T,S structure (+ only 8 levels) of this experiment, I was wondering
> if we should rather pick an other experiment, may be a realistic set-up ?
>
> In term of realistic set-up, I would propose cfc_example, 2.8 x 2.8 global
> with 15 levels, starting from a pickup.
> It is not too complicated (does not test too many critical features),
> and also adding pkg/layers will not make it less clear the "cfc example"
> part,
> I think.
>
> But if exp4 is good enough to test pkg/layers, could just go with this one.
>
> What do you think ?
>
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130108/34bdc5c9/attachment.htm>