[MITgcm-support] MITgcm-support Digest, Vol 126, Issue 13

[David Munday]

Hi Marco,

Um_HydroP isn't in my available_diagnostics, I can't find it anywhere in the documentation, and grepping the code turns up nothing. Is it the same as Um_dPHdx?

In general, I'd expect Um_Advec and Um_dPHdx to be similar in magnitude and of opposite sign, due to the dominance of geostrophic balance. Assuming Um_HydroP is Um_dPHdx by another name, then its magnitude is about right, but its sign is wrong (or Um_Advec's is). Taking the difference and adding Um_Diss gives me -4.3197E-9, so you're still missing a term.

Have you output every single Um_* diagnostic available, including the ones you think are zero, the implicit/explicit viscosity, and the gradient in SSH?

Best wishes,

Dave


On 4 Dec 2013, at 21:44, Marco Reale wrote:

Hi David,

and thanks a lot for your response: I followed your suggestion.

So finally  the equation will be :

TOTUTEND/86400=Um_Advec+Um_diss+Um_HydroP;

each of these members of the equation are 4D arrays : following a point to check the balance at t = 30, level=12, i=9, j=30 and I got the following results:

TOTUTEND/86400= -8.0561e-10
Um_Advec= 2.5398e-07
Um_diss= 7.7003e-09
Um_HydroP=2.4196e-07

the balance of this term is 5.0365e-07


So I have done something wrong: I’m working with rough data without taking into account volume of cells, etc.

Any suggestions?

Marco


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/attachments/20131205/89e69204/attachment.htm>