[MITgcm-devel] cal_time2dump

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Martin,

I added the same type of condition in cal_time2dump.F
as ithe one in diff_phase_multiple.F for the case calendarDumps=F.
I did not checked (yet) that this fix the problem.
plese let me know if you find something strange.

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 02:03:40PM +0200, Martin Losch wrote:
> not so important, but it would be nice to fix it. Any comments?
> 
> M.
> > On 07 Jun 2016, at 10:20, Martin Losch <Martin.Losch at awi.de> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi there,
> > 
> > I think there is a bug in cal_time2dump.F
> > 
> > When I specify in data.diagnostics:
> > frequency = 1 month
> > timePhase = 99 years
> > I expect that the monthly averages start in year 100, ie. 99year + 1month would be the first monthly averagy that I get.
> > 
> > This does not work if calendarDumps=.True. in data.cal, because cal_time2dump computes
> >        shTime = myTime - phase
> >        prTime = shTime - step
> >        CALL CAL_GETDATE( myIter, shTime, thisDate, myThid )
> >        CALL CAL_GETDATE( myIter, prTime, prevDate, myThid )
> > and then evaluates the difference between thisDate and prevDate. But shTime and prTime both contain ???-phase???, so that the model starts writing averages in the first year. Since I don???t know these packages very well and I don???t want to break anything, I???d like to know what to do here. Is this intentional? If not, should it be fixed by adding something to the if-statement ( myTime.GE.phase )? Or should cal_getdate actuall return something special if shTime<0, and the problem is in that routine?
> > 
> > Martin
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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