[MITgcm-support] Surface gravity waves?

[Martin Losch]

Amato and Dimitris,

because of the implicit treatment of the free surface in any standard  
configuration will give you "inaccurate" surface waves (basically they  
are damped and have a slightly wrong phase, at least that's what  
happened when I tried to model a tsunami). The implicit treatment  
ensures numerical stability but not accuracy, and in principle  
reducing the time step increases accuracy. But you may want to try a  
different scheme, as in the verification/internal_wave example, where  
a Crank-Nicholson scheme is used; the important parameters are
implicSurfPress
implicDiv2Dflow

(and now Jean-Michel can tell me that I got it all wrong ... (o:)

Martin


On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Dimitris Menemenlis wrote:

> Amato, you don't need to explicitly resolve surface gravity waves in  
> order to simulate storm surges.
> For example in the this paper: http://ecco2.org/manuscripts/2007/gibraltar.pdf
> storm surges were simulated using typical MITgcm implicit free  
> surface settings.
>
> If you want to resolve surface gravity waves rather than treat them  
> implicitly,
> I am guessing that all you need to do is to reduce deltat, the model  
> time step.
>
> Dimitris
>
> On Jun 12, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Amato Evan wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Does anyone know if there is a combination of settings would permit
>> surface gravity waves?  I'm extremely new to the model, so please
>> forgive me if I don't use the correct jargon here.  Ultimately I'm
>> trying to figure out if the MITgcm can be used to simulate TC storm
>> surge.  Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Amato
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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