[MITgcm-devel] [MITgcm-cvs] MITgcm/pkg/exf CVS Commit

[Dimitris Menemenlis]

Jean-Michel, thanks for pointing out the numerous mistakes and bugs
in RUNOFTEMP addition and sorry for long delay getting back.
I have fixed so that runoftemp is compatible with Energy Reference
Level temp_EvPrRn and sign and comment are correct.

Is it OK to add a runoftempfile in one of the verification experiments,
both as a usage example as well as for testing?
 Specifically, could I add runoftempfile to
verification/global_ocean.cs32x15/input.seaice
or
verification/global_ocean.cs32x15/input.icedyn
?

Dimitris Menemenlis

On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:

> Hi Dimitris,
> 
> I have 2 comments related to thi new feature (ALLOW_RUNOFTEMP) you added:
> 1) it would have been nice to make it compatible with what I addeed
>  recently (when setting temp_EvPrRn to use an Energy Reference Level).
>  From what I see in exf_mapfields.F, the treatment of the case 
>> IF ( temp_EvPrRn .NE. UNSET_RL )
>  is ignored when ALLOW_RUNOFTEMP is defined.
>  I would recommand, if you leave exf_mapfields.F as it is now,
>  to add a stop in exf_check.F:
>> #ifdef ALLOW_RUNOFTEMP 
>> IF ( temp_EvPrRn .NE. UNSET_RL ) STOP
>> #endif
> 
>  And from my point of view, I don't really like the updated comment:
> C     4) By default, RunOff comes at the temp of surface water (with same Cp);
> C        ifdef ALLOW_RUNOFTEMP, RunOff temp can be specified in runoftempfile.
> since I have the impression that it does not apply to the case
> where temp_EvPrRn is defined (as opposed to comments 1,2,3 & 5)
> 2) I am comfused with the sign of the term you added to Qnet.
> Could you check again ?
> 
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel