[MITgcm-support] advection scheme for T/S

[Martin Losch]

Samar,

my experience with DST3 and the flux limited 2nd order scheme (77) is 
similar. Starting from a stable stratification with some noise to start 
an eddy field in zonal channel with zonal wind forcing and meridional 
buoyancy flux gradient, I get a solution, in which the isopycnal slowly 
rise and out-crop according to wind and buoyancy forcing, when I use 
the default 2n order scheme (2). With DST3 with flux limiting (33) and 
2n order with flux limiting (77), the first thing that happens is that 
the channel gets homogenized vertically and then the expected solution 
starts to develop. But of course, because of the initial mixing, the 
steady state is very different from the case with the default advection 
scheme. I have refrained from using 33 or 77 for temperature and 
salinity since. (o:

Martin

On Sep 17, 2004, at 2:36 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:

> Hi Samar,
>
> The results could be significantly different between Centered, 2nd 
> order
> with AB2, and DST3.
> For a passive tracer, the differences will be larger at high CFL
> number, more diffuve with DST3 and more dispersive with 2nd.O.
> Now, when you allow feedbacks to the dynamics (an active tracer
> like temperature), you can get different results even at small CFL,
> but in this case, it might be mainly due to vertical advection.
>
> This is all I can say at this point.
>
> See you,
>
> Jean-Michel
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://dev.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support