[MITgcm-devel] ice/snow pdf

[Martin Losch]

Exactly, see Karel’s paper <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JC009342/abstract> for an application of this.

Martin

On Jan 23, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Torge Martin <torge.martin at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel