[MITgcm-support] futureiter
Martin Losch
Martin.Losch at awi.de
Thu Feb 15 03:13:46 EST 2007
Hi Rima,
futureTime (REAL) = startTime + futureIter (INTEGER) *deltaT
basically the same as myTime and myIter, but incremented by 1, see
do_ocean_physics.F:
CALL OBCS_CALC( bi, bj, myTime+deltaTclock, myIter+1,
I uVel, vVel, wVel, theta, salt,
I myThid )
I have to pass on the cvelTimeScale, but this velocity should
probably be based on some propagation speed of gravity waves, right?
Martin
On 15 Feb 2007, at 04:39, Riema Rachmayani wrote:
> hi, all
> what the different between futureIter and futureTime??
> futureIter =myiter*deltaT ?
> futureTime=mytime*deltaT ?
>
> any formula for cvelTimeScale in orlanski??
>
> thank you,
> -rima-
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "mitgcm-support-request at mitgcm.org" <mitgcm-support-
> request at mitgcm.org>
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:00:06 AM
> Subject: MITgcm-support Digest, Vol 44, Issue 8
>
> Send MITgcm-support mailing list submissions to
> mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> mitgcm-support-request at mitgcm.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> mitgcm-support-owner at mitgcm.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MITgcm-support digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. advective fluxes and transports (Paola Cessi)
> 2. Re: advective fluxes and transports (Baylor Fox-Kemper)
> 3. Re: advective fluxes and transports (Dimitris Menemenlis)
> 4. Re: advective fluxes and transports (Baylor Fox-Kemper)
> 5. Re: advective fluxes and transports (Baylor Fox-Kemper)
> 6. exf: river temperature? (Dmitri Leonov)
> 7. Re: exf: river temperature? (Dimitris Menemenlis)
> 8. Re: exf: river temperature? (Jean-Michel Campin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:02:20 -0800 (PST)
> From: Paola Cessi <pcessi at ucsd.edu>
> Subject: [MITgcm-support] advective fluxes and transports
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0702130958280.7967 at the.ucsd.edu>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> What, if any, is the difference between the triplet of diagnostics
> (UVELTH,VVELTH,WVELTH) and (ADVx_TH,ADVy_TH,ADVr_TH) for a Boussinesq
> case, using flux-limited schemes?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Paola
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> Paola Cessi Tel: +1 858 534 0622
> Scripps Institution of Oceanography Fax: +1 858 534 8045
> 9500 Gilman Drive #0213 e-mail: pcessi at ucsd.edu
> La Jolla, CA 92093-0213
> USA Web: http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~pcessi
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:32:15 -0500
> From: Baylor Fox-Kemper <baylor at MIT.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [MITgcm-support] advective fluxes and transports
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Message-ID: <8035603D-773F-46D5-8B7A-70C66F6E00A2 at mit.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Hi Paola,
> UVELTH is just the correlation of the U and theta fields, with
> temperature appropriate interpolated. ADVx_TH is the advective flux,
> which can include things like the variable grid box size with
> nonlinear free surface, shaved cells, etc, as well as the flux-
> limiting corrections. UVELTH will be equivalent to ADVx_TH only with
> centered 2nd-order advection and simple vertical discretization/
> boundary conditions.
> Cheers,
> -Baylor
>
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Paola Cessi wrote:
>
> > What, if any, is the difference between the triplet of diagnostics
> > (UVELTH,VVELTH,WVELTH) and (ADVx_TH,ADVy_TH,ADVr_TH) for a
> > Boussinesq case, using flux-limited schemes?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Paola
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---
> > Paola Cessi Tel: +1 858 534 0622
> > Scripps Institution of Oceanography Fax: +1 858 534 8045
> > 9500 Gilman Drive #0213 e-mail: pcessi at ucsd.edu
> > La Jolla, CA 92093-0213
> > USA Web: http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~pcessi
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-support mailing list
> > MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> > http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:44:27 -0800
> From: Dimitris Menemenlis <menemenlis at jpl.nasa.gov>
> Subject: Re: [MITgcm-support] advective fluxes and transports
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Message-ID: <45D2151B.2020204 at jpl.nasa.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Baylor, for computation of transports, which diagnostic should one
> use: ADVx_TH,
> UTHMASS, or UVELTH? To date I have been using UTHMASS but from
> your description
> below it sounds like it would be more accurate to use ADVx_TH ? D.
>
>
> > Hi Paola, UVELTH is just the correlation of the U and theta
> fields, with
> > temperature appropriate interpolated. ADVx_TH is the advective
> flux, which
> > can include things like the variable grid box size with nonlinear
> free
> > surface, shaved cells, etc, as well as the flux-limiting
> corrections. UVELTH
> > will be equivalent to ADVx_TH only with centered 2nd-order
> advection and
> > simple vertical discretization/boundary conditions. Cheers, -Baylor
>
>
> --
> Dimitris Menemenlis <menemenlis at jpl.nasa.gov>
> Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology
> MS 300-323, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena CA 91109-8099
> tel: 818-354-1656; fax: 818-393-6720
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:18:37 -0500
> From: Baylor Fox-Kemper <baylor at MIT.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [MITgcm-support] advective fluxes and transports
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Message-ID: <BBDFF6AE-6B6B-41C2-A1CD-0D8C336201BA at mit.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Hi Dimitris (and Paola),
> A bit more:
> 1) UVELTH is just the correlation between U and T.
> 2) UTHMASS is the correlation between U and T, weighted by 'mass', or
> HFac, which gives free-surface corrections.
> 3) ADVx_TH is the 'effect of advection'. It includes flux-limiting
> and diffusion from the numerical scheme.
>
> So,
> 1) for statistics, UVELTH is probably best, because other
> complexities are just messing things up.
> 2) for transports that are 'advective', i.e., no explicit or overt
> implicit diffusive fluxes UTHMASS is good.
> 3) for closing budgets, or for diagnosing the full effect of the
> advection operator (which is, when flux-limiting, partly 'diffusive'
> in nature) use ADVx_TH. You will not, for example, be able to easily
> account for all the terms leading to dT/dt at a given gridcell unless
> you use ADVx_TH.
>
> If you really want to get fancy, you could save all three and see
> what the differences are... This allows you to break things down
> into, e.g., Stokes drift at the surface due to free surface effects
> (UVELTH vs UTHMASS), or how much of ADVx_TH is 'diffusive' versus
> 'advective'.
> -Baylor
>
> P.S. Keep in mind that second-order centered is not totally without
> 'diffusive' discretization errors, just that no effort is made to
> exploit the diffusive errors to our advantage. The discretization
> errors in second order centered appear as a hyperdiffusion: \nabla^4
> T. Fourth-order centered is less 'diffusive', with discretization
> errors appearing only at \nabla^6 T.
>
> Upwinding and flux-limiting exploit the fact that errors can be
> steered toward monotonicity and stability by messing around with
> diffusive errors at the cost of lower order accuracy. So, for
> example, first order upwinding can be thought of as adding an
> automatic \nabla^2 T diffusion to a second-ordered centered scheme.
> Third-order upwinding can be thought of as adding an automatic
> \nabla^4 T hyperdiffusion to a fourth-order centered scheme, etc.
> But, the amount of diffusivity added is dependent on velocity, e.g.,
> the "effective kappa" added is proportional gridscale*|U| in the
> first-order upwind versus second-order centered. Thus, it is hard to
> diagnose after the fact. Comparing ADVx and UTHMASS allows one to
> quickly do so.
>
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Dimitris Menemenlis wrote:
>
> > Baylor, for computation of transports, which diagnostic should one
> > use: ADVx_TH, UTHMASS, or UVELTH? To date I have been using
> > UTHMASS but from your description below it sounds like it would be
> > more accurate to use ADVx_TH ? D.
> >
> >
> >> Hi Paola, UVELTH is just the correlation of the U and theta
> >> fields, with
> >> temperature appropriate interpolated. ADVx_TH is the advective
> >> flux, which
> >> can include things like the variable grid box size with nonlinear
> >> free
> >> surface, shaved cells, etc, as well as the flux-limiting
> >> corrections. UVELTH
> >> will be equivalent to ADVx_TH only with centered 2nd-order
> >> advection and
> >> simple vertical discretization/boundary conditions. Cheers, -Baylor
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dimitris Menemenlis <menemenlis at jpl.nasa.gov>
> > Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology
> > MS 300-323, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena CA 91109-8099
> > tel: 818-354-1656; fax: 818-393-6720
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-support mailing list
> > MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> > http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:40:36 -0500
> From: Baylor Fox-Kemper <baylor at MIT.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [MITgcm-support] advective fluxes and transports
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Message-ID: <52D55129-E3BE-45F8-8A8F-56A9C0F12053 at mit.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Small correction:
> > P.S. Keep in mind that second-order centered is not totally without
> > 'diffusive' discretization errors, just that no effort is made to
> > exploit the diffusive errors to our advantage. The discretization
> > errors in second order centered appear as a hyperdiffusion:
> > \nabla^4 T. Fourth-order centered is less 'diffusive', with
> > discretization errors appearing only at \nabla^6 T.
> This should say the 'diffusive' discretization errors in second order
> centered appear as a hyperdiffusion: \nabla^4 T. Fourth-order
> centered is less 'diffusive', with 'diffusive' discretization errors
> appearing only at \nabla^6 T.
>
> There are also dispersive advection errors appearing at \nabla^3 T
> and \nabla^5 levels respectively...
>
> >
> > Upwinding and flux-limiting exploit the fact that errors can be
> > steered toward monotonicity and stability by messing around with
> > diffusive errors at the cost of lower order accuracy. So, for
> > example, first order upwinding can be thought of as adding an
> > automatic \nabla^2 T diffusion to a second-ordered centered
> > scheme. Third-order upwinding can be thought of as adding an
> > automatic \nabla^4 T hyperdiffusion to a fourth-order centered
> > scheme, etc. But, the amount of diffusivity added is dependent on
> > velocity, e.g., the "effective kappa" added is proportional
> > gridscale*|U| in the first-order upwind versus second-order
> > centered. Thus, it is hard to diagnose after the fact. Comparing
> > ADVx and UTHMASS allows one to quickly do so.
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Dimitris Menemenlis wrote:
> >
> >> Baylor, for computation of transports, which diagnostic should one
> >> use: ADVx_TH, UTHMASS, or UVELTH? To date I have been using
> >> UTHMASS but from your description below it sounds like it would be
> >> more accurate to use ADVx_TH ? D.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Paola, UVELTH is just the correlation of the U and theta
> >>> fields, with
> >>> temperature appropriate interpolated. ADVx_TH is the advective
> >>> flux, which
> >>> can include things like the variable grid box size with nonlinear
> >>> free
> >>> surface, shaved cells, etc, as well as the flux-limiting
> >>> corrections. UVELTH
> >>> will be equivalent to ADVx_TH only with centered 2nd-order
> >>> advection and
> >>> simple vertical discretization/boundary conditions. Cheers, -
> Baylor
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dimitris Menemenlis <menemenlis at jpl.nasa.gov>
> >> Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology
> >> MS 300-323, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena CA 91109-8099
> >> tel: 818-354-1656; fax: 818-393-6720
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MITgcm-support mailing list
> >> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> >> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-support mailing list
> > MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> > http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:55:43 -0800
> From: Dmitri Leonov <dleonov at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: [MITgcm-support] exf: river temperature?
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Message-ID: <45D241EF.90603 at u.washington.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm using exf package to specify river runoff. What would be the
> easiest
> way to account for a time-dependent river temperature?
> I'd prefer not to use an open boundary. If I use hflux* parameters,
> will
> I be able to add bulk formulae to that for atmospheric forcing?
>
> I'd appreciate any suggestions.
> Thanks.
>
> Dmitri
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dmitri A. Leonov
> Research Associate, Postdoctoral
> University of Washington, School of Oceanography
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:59:12 -0800
> From: Dimitris Menemenlis <menemenlis at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [MITgcm-support] exf: river temperature?
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Message-ID: <45D26CF0.8000701 at sbcglobal.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> > I'm using exf package to specify river runoff. What would be the
> easiest way
> > to account for a time-dependent river temperature? I'd prefer not
> to use an
> > open boundary. If I use hflux* parameters, will I be able to add
> bulk
> > formulae to that for atmospheric forcing?
>
> If you want to use bulk formulae, maybe you could add the flux
> to long-wave radiation, lwdown or lwflux, instead?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:00:15 -0500
> From: Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [MITgcm-support] exf: river temperature?
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Message-ID: <20070214020015.GA20031 at ocean.mit.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi Dimitri.
>
> When I run a coupled set-up, time dependent river temperature
> is accounted for by using, for the ocean:
> exactConserv=.TRUE.,
> select_rStar=2,
> nonlinFreeSurf=4,
> useRealFreshWaterFlux=.TRUE.,
> temp_EvPrRn=0.,
> (see MITgcm/verification/cpl_aim+ocn/input_ocn/data)
> And in addition, in the atmospheric model, the heat content of EmPmR
> is added separately to the net surface heat flux.
>
> Regarding an ocean only set-up (using, e.g., EXF package),
> I don't remember of a specific entry for this heat flux in the EXF
> package. May be the simplest thing to do would be to add this heat
> flux contribution to one of the fixed EXF forcing fields (and files).
>
> Jean-Michel
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:55:43PM -0800, Dmitri Leonov wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm using exf package to specify river runoff. What would be the
> easiest
> > way to account for a time-dependent river temperature?
> > I'd prefer not to use an open boundary. If I use hflux*
> parameters, will
> > I be able to add bulk formulae to that for atmospheric forcing?
> >
> > I'd appreciate any suggestions.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Dmitri
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > Dmitri A. Leonov
> > Research Associate, Postdoctoral
> > University of Washington, School of Oceanography
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-support mailing list
> > MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> > http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
> End of MITgcm-support Digest, Vol 44, Issue 8
> *********************************************
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://
> uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
More information about the MITgcm-support
mailing list