[MITgcm-devel] changes in pkg/layers

[Ryan Abernathey]

Yes, no problem!

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> Would this work to just make the 1rst mofification (prho shifted by
> -1000), which involves very few lines of code, and leave the 2 other
> modifs for later, after you sort out your changes ?
>
> The reason beeing that, since there is this new diagnostics, changing
> prho now seems a good time.
>
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:29:20AM -0400, Ryan Abernathey wrote:
> > Jean-Michel,
> >
> > These all sound like good suggestions. The problem is that I have made
> some
> > major modifications and feature enhancements to layers which I have not
> yet
> > managed to check in. (A few months ago I emailed you about the CVS
> problems
> > I encountered, but I haven't managed to get around this yet.)
> >
> > Can I ask you to wait a few days to do these changes to allow me to first
> > (finally) merge the changes I have been working on? What would be the
> best
> > way to deal with this situation?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > 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/20150512/e13b2b84/attachment.htm>