[MITgcm-support] bug in exf_bulkformulae.F ?
Patrick Heimbach
heimbach at MIT.EDU
Mon Jun 27 12:28:04 EDT 2005
Hi Eli,
you are right, there's a bracket missing,
which makes the the -2*ATAN(x) + pi/2 term
be added to both stable and unstable case.
I'll check in corrected code in a minute.
I'll try to assess later this week how computed
fluxes differ for some NCEP atmospheric data sets.
Thanks for checking and pointing this out!
-Patrick
On Sunday 26 June 2005 06:45, eliyahu biton wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> I tried to follow the calculation of the turbulent heat fluxes, as they
> appear within the subroutine 'exf_bulkformulae.F' at the 'exf' pkg and I
> think that there is a problem with the calculation of the term 'psimh'
> (line 394).
> psimh = -psim_fac*huol*stable +
> & (exf_one - stable)*
> & log((exf_one + x*(exf_two + x))*
> & (exf_one + xsq)/8.) - exf_two*atan(x) +
> & pi*exf_half
> According to Large & Pond paper from 1981 (eq 7) it should be (the last
> two arguments should be included within the unstable case) ;
> psimh = -psim_fac*huol*stable +
> & (exf_one - stable)*
> & (log((exf_one + x*(exf_two + x))*
> & (exf_one + xsq)/8.) - exf_two*atan(x) +
> & pi*exf_half)
> I checked how this term calculated at subroutine bulkf_formula_lanl.F
> (line 159 ) in 'bulk_force' pkg, and there it looks o.k. ( the last
> two argument are included within the unstable case).
> psimh = -5. _d 0*huol*stable + (1. _d 0-stable)*
> & (2. _d 0*log(5. _d -1*(1. _d 0+x)) +
> & 2. _d 0*log(5. _d -1*(1. _d 0+xsq)) -
> & 2. _d 0*atan(x) + pi*.5 _d 0)
>
>
> Eli
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Heimbach Massachusetts Institute of Technology
FON: +1/617/253-5259 EAPS, Room 54-1518
FAX: +1/617/253-4464 77 Massachusetts Avenue
mailto:heimbach at mit.edu Cambridge MA 02139
http://www.mit.edu/~heimbach/ USA
More information about the MITgcm-support
mailing list