[MITgcm-support] exf interp

[Chris Hill]

Hi matt

can you put your wind fields, grid etc... Somewhere @ MIT. I have code
to fix this offline, but have never found a real setup where it
mattered!

Chris

On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, Matthew Mazloff <mmazloff at mit.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry, I do not have good news.  I ran the model and the time-mean gradient of both wind stress (e.g. EXFtaux) and wind speed (e.g. EXFuwind) reveal the original NCEP grid.  Basically the plot of the curl of wind velocity looks the same as the plot I sent you previously of wind-stress curl.  lThe problem appears not to be the bilinear interpolation of the buoyancy forcing terms; it appears that the bicubic interpolation of the wind velocity is not smooth enough to yield a smooth gradient.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> -Matt
>
> ps> this calculation was done on an optimized solution -- I still need to verify to make sure this feature has not been introduced by controls -- but I am doubtful that the ctrl fields are the cause as these are smoothed with Gael's package (100km length scale) and the jump at the half-degrees are quite sharp
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Dimitris Menemenlis wrote:
>
>
> The issue was mainly one of negative rain
> (and perhaps also negative downward radiations and humidity).
> These will probably not be a problem in your limited domain.
>
> When you run your test on Monday, could you also save the wind velocity fields:
>
> 179 |EXFuwind|  1 |SM      U1      |m/s             |zonal 10-m wind speed, >0 increases uVel
> 180 |EXFvwind|  1 |SM      U1      |m/s             |meridional 10-m wind speed, >0 increases uVel
> 181 |EXFwspee|  1 |SM      U1      |m/s             |10-m wind speed modulus ( >= 0 )
>
> to see if there are any discontinuities are in the curl of the wind velocity.
> If Chris' hypothesis is correct you will not see a rectangular pattern in
> the curl of the wind.  if you do, then we will need to use Chris'
> interpolation scheme.
>
> D.
>
> On Oct 17, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Matthew Mazloff wrote:
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Yeah, its relatively easy to test.  I'll give it a try on monday and
> let you know
>
> -Matt
>
> Dimitris, what issues arose when using bicubic before for buoyancy
> terms -- anything specific I should look out for?
>
> -Matt
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
>
>
> Matt,
>
> I think the bicubic is worth trying. As I understand Benny's code it
> is meant to be c1 continuous
> which should help.
> My hope is that the bilinear temps are affecting the wind stress
> (because atemp/SST feature in static stability calcs in bulk formula
> and in turbulent mixing calcs and so affect momentum flux).
> Is it quick(ish) to run a test?
>
> If this doesn't work I have a couple of other things that would be
> kind of interesting to try. They involve doing stuff offline
> initially.
>
> Chris
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Mazloff <mmazloff at mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
> Are the surface data sets 1/2 degree res?
>
>
> 1 degree res -- starting at the half degree:
> uwind_lon0         = 229.5D0,
> uwind_lon_inc      = 1.D0,
> uwind_lat0         = 26.5D0,
> uwind_lat_inc      = 15*1.D0,
>
>
> My guess is it is the piecewise constant in the aTemp/aQ/radiation?
>
>
> I'm confused, I'm plotting windstress curl, and the wind speed uses
> bicubic
> interpolation already.
> Do you think this is a feedback from buoyancy forcing be linearly
> interploated?  I can check the wind speed to ensure the signal is
> not coming
> from the (ocean) relative speed in the stress calculation.
>
>
> If the spline is done right
> the overshoots should be small in a limited area domain, so you
> could try
> that.
>
>
> You mean trying bicubic for buoyancy components?
>
>
> Thanks for the help!
> -Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> Chris
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Matthew Mazloff <mmazloff at mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Dimitris,
>
> See the lines at X.5 degrees.  Its not very noticeable in
> snapshots, but
> really stands out in the mean as the signal is accumulated
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2009, at 7:42 AM, Dimitris Menemenlis wrote:
>
>
> Matt, could you send an example figure of problem?
>
> On Oct 17, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Matthew Mazloff wrote:
>
>
> Hi Dimitris,
>
> Ah yes, I see this now.  Very nice.  Unfortunately the gridding
> is
> still noticeable in my plots of wind speed gradient.  I am able
> to
> pick out the exact locals where the forcing is prescribed --
> meaning
> the interpolation is not smooth.  This is not good for plotting
> wind-
> stress curl. Have you noticed this on your high-res set-ups?
> Do you
> think this is a problem?  Should we (can we) try a smoother
> interp
> method?
>
> -