[MITgcm-support] Smagorinsky 3D tendency diagnostics
jmc at ocean.mit.edu
Mon Dec 8 22:56:57 EST 2014
Thanks for reporting the problem.
I don't think there is any diagnostics for Smag-3D and we might
want to add some.
But regarding Um_Diss,Vm_Diss on one side and Wm_Diss on the other,
I agree that this asymmetry should be fixed.
I propose to add the Smag-3D contribution to Um_Diss,Vm_Diss
the same way the vertical momentum contribution is already
part of Wm_Diss.
Also one thing to keep in mind (I forgot if it has already be
mentionned on this list): there are known problems in Smag-3D
with no-slip BC (either no_slip_sides=T or no_slip_bottom=T)
but I don't remember exactly which line of code is wrong !
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 03:02:12PM -0800, Ruth Musgrave wrote:
> I am running internal wave type simulations using the Smagorinsky 3D
> turbulence closure, however I think that there might be some
> inconsistencies in the momentum dissipation diagnostics when Smag 3D is
> turned on.
> Looking in dynamics.F, it seems like Um_Diss and Vm_Diss are filled as
> diagnostics in mom_fluxform before mom_uv_smag_3d is called, which means
> that they don't include the smag3D contribution to the tendency.
> However, Wm_Diss is filled in gw_calc after a call to mom_w_smag_3d,
> which means it does include the smag 3d contribution. I can't find any
> specific diagnostics relating to 3D Smagorinsky to disentangle all this.
> I have tried "fixing" the above by adding more diagnostics specifically
> for the Smag 3D terms, but my energy budgets still don't close, so I'm
> probably totally off track, or doing it wrong. Any thoughts/guidance
> would be greatly appreciated.
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
More information about the MITgcm-support