[MITgcm-devel] changes in pkg/layers

[Ryan Abernathey]

Yes, sounds like a good plan.
Thanks,
Ryan

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150610/dd7dec1e/attachment.htm>