[MITgcm-devel] changes in pkg/layers

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Ryan,

I propose to switch on the pkg/layers CPP option: LAYERS_THERMODYNAMICS
in verification/cfc_example to have these pieces of code compiled there
(but without any output yet) and leave exp4 as it is (with default LAYERS_OPTIONS.h).
Have also few minor edit to add.
Then will wait a couple of days to get most of the automatic testreport output
and then will make a checkpoint (it's time) before making any new changes
in pkg/layers.
Do you agree with this ?

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 12:40:51PM -0400, Ryan Abernathey wrote:
> Jean-Michel,
> 
> Getting back to this original email which motivated me to finally get my
> layers changes checked in...
> 
> Now that that is done (as of just now with my latest commit), your items 2)
> and 3) should be good to go ahead. Regarding 3), yes, you are right, it
> seems that there is no reason why those layers diagnostic arrays need to be
> in the common blocks. Note that there are a lot more diagnostics now if
> LAYERS_THERMODYNAMICS is enabled.
> 
> Let me know how I can help with this.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ryan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to make little changes in pkg/layers:
> > 1) substract 1000 to "prho" = the potential density
> >   that pkg/layers uses as tracer field.
> >  motivation:
> >   a) when I output "prho" using 32-bit precision file,
> >     the -1000 shift would save at least 2 digits of precision.
> >   b) this is a common practise in oceanography to use rho-1000
> >     variable for potential density.
> >   c) since I've just added (yesterday) a diagnostics for this
> >     prho field (+ bring back the snap-shot output of prho that
> >     has been missing for long time when density-layers is not in
> >     first position in the "layers_num" list), this could be a good
> >     time to make this modification.
> > 2) add few check and stop regarding parameter settings, especially:
> >   a) checking for inconsistency between "layers_name" and layers_num
> >    value.
> >   b) if mixing old setting (LAYER_nb, layers_kref, layers_G, useBOLUS)
> >   and new settings (layers_num, layers_krho, layers_bounds, layers_bolus).
> > 3) move layer diagnostics array out of commom blocks and define them
> >   as local variables in layers_calc.F
> >  (outside common blocks, the missing re-init of layer non-weighted velocity
> >   and layer probability - fixed yesterday - would have be caught by some
> >   "-devel" compiler option).
> >
> > Comments ? suggestions ?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jean-Michel
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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