[MITgcm-devel] ice/snow pdf

[Torge Martin]

Martin,

just to clarify: you will add the option to replace the uniform
distribution assumed for the thermodynamic flux calculations by an observed
ice thickness distribution, right?

Thanks,
Torge

------------------------------

*Dr. Torge Martin*Research Associate
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel
- Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics / Marine Meteorology -
Düsternbrookerweg 20  |  24105 Kiel  |  Germany
+49 431 600-4055  |  torge.martin at gmail.com  |
http://sites.google.com/site/torgemartin


On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Martin Losch <Martin.Losch at awi.de> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> thanks for the feedback, I can wait for the next checkpoint, no problem.
> Let me know.
>
> Just to be clear, this is nothing fancy, it only modifies the
> multi-category part of the code. The ITD code is unaffected by this,
> although one can easily use such a PDF to initialize HEFFITD. I can add
> that, if necessary (later).
>
> Martin
>
> On Jan 22, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > 14-11 digits is not too bad; so it should not prevent you to add this
> new feature.
> > will still need to update some output.
> > One question: It's time to make a new checkpoint (but have still few
> fixes
> > related to pkg/atm_phys to check-in). Do you want to wait few days and
> > make changes after the checkpoint (might be better ?) or do you prefer
> to add
> > them now ?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jean-Michel
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:10:47PM +0000, Menemenlis, Dimitris (329D)
> wrote:
> >> It would be great to have capability to prescribe arbitrary ice
> thickness distributions.
> >> My vote is to include.
> >>
> >>> On Jan 22, 2015, at 7:06 AM, Martin Losch <Martin.Losch at awi.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Jean-Michel and others,
> >>>
> >>> I am trying to recover an implementation that allows prescribing a ice
> thickness distribution instead of the simple 1/seaice_multDim one (effects
> are described here:
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JC009342/abstract).
> Unfortunately, results change from 16 to 14-11 digits of aggreement for
> basically all experiments that use SEAICE_multDim=7. The reason is, that
> Fortran doesn’t know that 7/7=1, but 0.9999999999978 or so. Do we care? Or
> do we care enough about prescribing an observed ice thickness distribution
> that we don’t care about these small difference? If not, I’ll just scrap
> this effort.
> >>>
> >>> what do you think?
> >>>
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> >>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> >>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> >> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> >> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-devel mailing list
> > MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> > http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150123/6a2b08a6/attachment-0001.htm>