[MITgcm-support] online calculation of energy flux (Remi Tailleux)
Remi Tailleux
r.g.j.tailleux at reading.ac.uk
Mon Feb 3 05:02:54 EST 2014
Hi all,
for those interested in diagnosing local energy budgets with a locally
defined APE
density, you might be interested in the following paper.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9057671
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2013.509
One of the key point is to show how to compute relatively accurate APE
budgets just
from using horizontally averaged density field modified at the surface
and bottom .
I have also developed with
Juan Saenz a cheap and computationally efficient way to compute the
reference state,
which will be detailed in a paper to be submitted shortly. Contact me if
you are interested.
cheers,
Remi.
On 01/31/14 22:33, mitgcm-support-request at mitgcm.org wrote:
> 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. Re: online calculation of energy flux (Jody Klymak)
> 2. Re: online calculation of energy flux (Robert Nazarian)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 12:57:17 -0800
> From: Jody Klymak<jklymak at uvic.ca>
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Subject: Re: [MITgcm-support] online calculation of energy flux
> Message-ID:<B83EA672-056B-47BE-A78D-B7C1FADEEA44 at uvic.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Ryan Abernathey<ryan.abernathey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wow, great! I didn't know this existed. Thanks Jody.
> Well, it only exists as an attempt. Its not numerically robust, and it is really very tailored for internal wave baroclinic/barotropic problems.
>
> I should have also said that for the calculation of APE it assumes that the derivative of N^2 is small, and that it assumes a constant background N^2 in time that density perturbations are working against. This is good for internal waves for short process study runs. Its unlikely to be good for long-term studies where N^2 should be allowed to evolve freely. i.e. it doesn't close a APE/background PE in any intelligent way.
>
> Having background PE in the energy equations is a real nuisance.....
>
>
> Cheers, Jody
>
>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jody Klymak<jklymak at uvic.ca> wrote:
>> Hi Robert and Sonya,
>>
>> My online energy diagnostic is at:
>>
>> https://github.com/jklymak/MITgcmcode
>>
>> It is after Kang and Fringer, and Kang's thesis, and does a barotropic/baroclinic decomposition for the linear terms. The non-linear terms are not formally separable, and so I don't separate them! I think I have most of the terms correct, but bugs wouldnt surprise me. Its not well documented, but hopefully largely self-explanatory.
>>
>> It certainly does not attempt to deal w/ model discretization issues or calculate explicit dissipation from general dissipative terms. I would suggest that folks who write viscosity submodules should consider calculating dissipation for their users!
>>
>> If anyone uses this, or in particular finds bugs, I'd love to hear about it.
>>
>> Thanks, Jody
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Ryan Abernathey<ryan.abernathey at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert and Sonya,
>>>
>>> This is an issue that came up at the recent ECCO meeting. Many people would probably like to have such kinetic energy diagnostics from MITgcm. Although the energy equation is easy to write down, diagnosing all of the terms in a way that is consistent with the model discretization can be very difficult. Many people have probably tackled it in the past and come up with a "good enough" solution, no standard solution has emerged.
>>>
>>> Peng's suggestion is correct, but the problem is that mean(up) is not currently an available diagnostic. That would be fairly trivial to add, especially if you already know how to diagnose it from offline output. The current pressure diagnostics are filled in model/src/dynamics.F, which could be modified to include the pressure flux term.
>>>
>>> More generally, if you want a complete energy budget, you will also want the advective transport of kinetic energy, which involves tracking "triple correlation" terms such as mean(uv^2). This is similar to the problem encountered in the diagnosis of tracer variance budgets. Several people (including Jean Michel, myself, and Liam Brannigan) have recently become interested in adding such diagnostics to the model. Nonlinear advection schemes can make this difficult for tracers, but perhaps the momentum advection is actually simpler.
>>>
>>> The biggest issue I see in closing the kinetic energy budget is the dissipation term (epsilon). If you are doing energy budgets for internal waves, presumably this term is a leading order one for you. A robust method for diagnosing dissipation (consistent with the numerics and LES options such as Smagorinsky) would be a great contribution.
>>>
>>> I personally wish the MITgcm community could come together to produce a definitive answer to this problem. But of course, it is not a high priority for most people, and it is a very difficult numerical problem. Plus it is possible that the necessarily diagnostics would significantly slow down the code execution. Whatever solution you come up with, you should definitely share it with the community, perhaps through the MITgcm_contrib repository, for the benefit of the next grad student who is faced with this simple sounding but actually very deep task.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Sonya Legg<sonya.legg at noaa.gov> wrote:
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> You should state that it's the product u'p' that you want, and you want to do it online so that you can calculate time-averages. Otherwise you might get a response that u is already output, as is p, so why do you need to add anything?
>>>
>>> Sonya
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/31/2014 11:39 AM, Robert Nazarian wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I?m trying to add an online evaluation of u? and p? to the source code to calculate the energy flux. Is there a particular diagnostic that would be best to do this in? If not, is there a particular subroutine that?s ideal to write such a diagnostic? Previously, I did these calculations offline but am hoping to incorporate it into the code itself.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> Robert Nazarian
>>>>
>>>> Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
>>>>
>>>> Princeton University
>>>>
>>>> rn2 at princeton.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MITgcm-support mailing list
>> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:<http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/attachments/20140131/f8942abe/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 22:33:17 +0000
> From: Robert Nazarian<rn2 at Princeton.EDU>
> To: "mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org"<mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org>
> Subject: Re: [MITgcm-support] online calculation of energy flux
> Message-ID:
> <C8167B1020BFE34DAA0DC61E43E3C16050A31F38 at CSGMBX202W.pu.win.princeton.edu>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear Peng, Ryan and Jody,
>
> Thanks very much for your help!
>
> Jody, I'll look into your online energy diagnostic this weekend.
>
> Thanks again,
> Rob
>
>
> Robert Nazarian
>
> Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
>
> Princeton University
>
> rn2 at princeton.edu<mailto:rn2 at princeton.edu>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jody Klymak [jklymak at uvic.ca]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 3:57 PM
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Subject: Re: [MITgcm-support] online calculation of energy flux
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Ryan Abernathey<ryan.abernathey at gmail.com<mailto:ryan.abernathey at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Wow, great! I didn't know this existed. Thanks Jody.
>
> Well, it only exists as an attempt. Its not numerically robust, and it is really very tailored for internal wave baroclinic/barotropic problems.
>
> I should have also said that for the calculation of APE it assumes that the derivative of N^2 is small, and that it assumes a constant background N^2 in time that density perturbations are working against. This is good for internal waves for short process study runs. Its unlikely to be good for long-term studies where N^2 should be allowed to evolve freely. i.e. it doesn't close a APE/background PE in any intelligent way.
>
> Having background PE in the energy equations is a real nuisance.....
>
>
> Cheers, Jody
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jody Klymak<jklymak at uvic.ca<mailto:jklymak at uvic.ca>> wrote:
> Hi Robert and Sonya,
>
> My online energy diagnostic is at:
>
> https://github.com/jklymak/MITgcmcode
>
> It is after Kang and Fringer, and Kang's thesis, and does a barotropic/baroclinic decomposition for the linear terms. The non-linear terms are not formally separable, and so I don't separate them! I think I have most of the terms correct, but bugs wouldnt surprise me. Its not well documented, but hopefully largely self-explanatory.
>
> It certainly does not attempt to deal w/ model discretization issues or calculate explicit dissipation from general dissipative terms. I would suggest that folks who write viscosity submodules should consider calculating dissipation for their users!
>
> If anyone uses this, or in particular finds bugs, I'd love to hear about it.
>
> Thanks, Jody
>
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Ryan Abernathey<ryan.abernathey at gmail.com<mailto:ryan.abernathey at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Robert and Sonya,
>
> This is an issue that came up at the recent ECCO meeting. Many people would probably like to have such kinetic energy diagnostics from MITgcm. Although the energy equation is easy to write down, diagnosing all of the terms in a way that is consistent with the model discretization can be very difficult. Many people have probably tackled it in the past and come up with a "good enough" solution, no standard solution has emerged.
>
> Peng's suggestion is correct, but the problem is that mean(up) is not currently an available diagnostic. That would be fairly trivial to add, especially if you already know how to diagnose it from offline output. The current pressure diagnostics are filled in model/src/dynamics.F, which could be modified to include the pressure flux term.
>
> More generally, if you want a complete energy budget, you will also want the advective transport of kinetic energy, which involves tracking "triple correlation" terms such as mean(uv^2). This is similar to the problem encountered in the diagnosis of tracer variance budgets. Several people (including Jean Michel, myself, and Liam Brannigan) have recently become interested in adding such diagnostics to the model. Nonlinear advection schemes can make this difficult for tracers, but perhaps the momentum advection is actually simpler.
>
> The biggest issue I see in closing the kinetic energy budget is the dissipation term (epsilon). If you are doing energy budgets for internal waves, presumably this term is a leading order one for you. A robust method for diagnosing dissipation (consistent with the numerics and LES options such as Smagorinsky) would be a great contribution.
>
> I personally wish the MITgcm community could come together to produce a definitive answer to this problem. But of course, it is not a high priority for most people, and it is a very difficult numerical problem. Plus it is possible that the necessarily diagnostics would significantly slow down the code execution. Whatever solution you come up with, you should definitely share it with the community, perhaps through the MITgcm_contrib repository, for the benefit of the next grad student who is faced with this simple sounding but actually very deep task.
>
> Best,
> Ryan
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Sonya Legg<sonya.legg at noaa.gov<mailto:sonya.legg at noaa.gov>> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> You should state that it's the product u'p' that you want, and you want to do it online so that you can calculate time-averages. Otherwise you might get a response that u is already output, as is p, so why do you need to add anything?
>
> Sonya
>
>
> On 1/31/2014 11:39 AM, Robert Nazarian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I?m trying to add an online evaluation of u? and p? to the source code to calculate the energy flux. Is there a particular diagnostic that would be best to do this in? If not, is there a particular subroutine that?s ideal to write such a diagnostic? Previously, I did these calculations offline but am hoping to incorporate it into the code itself.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> Robert Nazarian
>
> Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
>
> Princeton University
>
> rn2 at princeton.edu<mailto:rn2 at princeton.edu>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org<mailto:MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org>
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org<mailto:MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org>
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org<mailto:MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org>
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org<mailto:MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org>
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org<mailto:MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org>
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:<http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/attachments/20140131/196c920b/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
> End of MITgcm-support Digest, Vol 127, Issue 32
> ***********************************************
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Remi Tailleux - Lecturer in Oceanography
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading
Early Gate, PO BOX 243, READING RG6 6BB, United Kingdom
Ph: +44(0)118 378 8328/ Fax: +44(0)118 378 8316
Email: R.G.J.Tailleux at reading.ac.uk
www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~remi | Personal web page
www.cgam.nerc.ac.uk/rapidthcmip | UK THC MIP Web page
www.met.rdg.ac.uk/ocean | Ocean group webpage
www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~remi/work/readingocean.html | Ocean Talk's webpage
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More information about the MITgcm-support
mailing list