[MITgcm-devel] changes in pkg/layers

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Ryan,

Yes, I am done with my changes and you can check-in your fix when you want.

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:28:32AM -0500, Ryan Abernathey wrote:
> Jean-Michel,
> 
> I found another small bug in layers_diapycnal that I need to fix. I see
> that you just made the changes we discussed above regarding the
> organization of the variables. Would now be a good time for me to add my
> fix?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ryan
> 
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Ryan Abernathey <ryan.abernathey at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > One comment:
> > It might be good to add a check that complains if layers_bounds are
> > assigned to phro values > 1000. This change will break many people's
> > data.layers. I don't know if you want to wait until after the checkpoint or
> > not...
> > -Ryan
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Ryan Abernathey <
> > ryan.abernathey at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >

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