[MITgcm-devel] surface wave model package

[Matthew Mazloff]

Hello

Thanks for this feedback! 

The reason I initially picked SWAN is that there are several people here at SIO running it (including setups where it is coupled to ROMS), and local expertise is priceless. Also the adjoint model of SWAN has apparently been derived before, which makes me think it is feasible to do so again. But I am really not sold on any particular model. My impression is that the primary difference is that SWAN solves the spectral energy balance implicitly while WAVEWATCH III does so explicitly. My thought is that this is somewhat analogous to choosing LSOR or EVP for the sea ice model. And yes, you have shown the solver can make a big difference. So maybe I am being naive in not strongly considering that aspect. I admit I am very new to this field. And Dimitris, the UMWM looks very attractive too -- thanks for that link!

I am very very pleased to get a response to this inquiry. I think the way to proceed is that if we are funded we should have a telecon with interested parties (Dimitris, Chris, Patrick, etc.) where I give the apparent pros and cons of each model and we can decide what everyone thinks is best. 

While the proposed setup will just be for the Santa Barbara Channel, I want to make sure this work benefits the MITgcm community as much as possible.

In the meantime, any more feedback is greatly appreciated!

Thanks!
Matt






On May 6, 2015, at 3:23 PM, Patrick Heimbach <heimbach at mit.edu> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> very briefly, SWAN seems to be geared/tuned for coastal applications (relevant for dissipation term), might make more approximation for nonlinear wave-wave interaction (i.e. swell generation). WAVEWATCH III more geared toward global-scale applications. That’s at least as of many years ago.
> Also from the SWAN documentation:
> “It must be pointed out that the application of SWAN on ocean scales is not recommended from an efficiency point of view. The WAM model and the WAVEWATCH III model, which have been designed specifically for ocean applications, are probably one order of magnitude more efficient than SWAN. SWAN can be run on large scales (much larger than coastal scales) but this option is mainly intended for the transition from ocean scales to coastal scales (transitions where nonstationarity is an issue and spherical coordinates are convenient for nesting)."
> 
> And just to be clear: these are spectral energy balance models, i.e. they solve the action equation of a statistical wave field, producing local 2D surface wave spectra. I.e. need to formulate how these surface wave affect ocean circulation.
> 
> p.
> 
> On May 6, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Dimitris Menemenlis <dmenemenlis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Matt, Chris and I briefly discussed adding the
>> University of Miami Wave Model (Donelan et al. 2012)
>> for the llc4320 simulations - but never got around to it.
>> Here is a presentation that makes use of this model:
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40292774/presentations/Chen_JPL_29Sept2014.pdf
>> Do you know what the differences are between SWAN and UMWM?
>> 
>> To your second question, I for one would find this super interested!
>> I would love to run the llc4320 with a wave model on top, as a
>> sensitivity experiment, to see how it modifies upper-ocean energetics.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Dimitris Menemenlis
>> 
>>> On May 6, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Matthew Mazloff <mmazloff at ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello
>>> 
>>> I am proposing to add a surface wave model package to the MITgcm. This will likely be based on the SWAN model (http://swanmodel.sourceforge.net/), but I am open to suggestions. My basic plan would be to follow the template of the sea ice package (and mypackage...). And, of course, I would ensure compatibility with TAF. I am wondering if anyone has an ever thought about this or tried it and has any advice for me? 
>>> 
>>> (I am alos curious if anyone else would find this useful?)
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Patrick Heimbach, Ph.D. | http://heimbach.wordpress.com
> 
> * The University of Texas at Austin *
> The Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences
> Institute for Geophysics | Jackson School of Geosciences
> 201 East 24th Street, POB 4.232 | Austin, TX 78712 | USA
> FON: +1-512-232-7694 | Email: heimbach at utexas.edu
> 
> * Massachusetts Institute of Technology *
> Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
> 77 Massachusetts Ave, 54-1420 | Cambridge MA 02139 | USA
> FON: +1-617-253-5259 | Email: heimbach at mit.edu
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel