[MITgcm-support] problem of open boundary

[Martin Losch]

Hi Tongya,

this makes sense. With a restoring time scale of 1day, you almost impose the relaxation fields exactly in the interior, but not on the open boundary so that there can be very strong gradients across the boundary leading to the tangential current that you observed.

Generally, you’ll have to play with your parameters to tune the model. According to simple barotropic and laminar theory, i.e. Munk and Stommel gyres, the with of the western boundary current is determined by horizonal friction (viscAh/viscA4 and all the variants) and bottom friction. I would start with those. But I wonder (I am no expert on the Kuroshio), if at your resolution a narrow, undulating current should be expected, and the apparent width come about by temporal averaging?

Martin



> On 11 Apr 2015, at 07:20, Tongya Liu <liutongya13 at mails.ucas.ac.cn> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> Thanks for your reply! I have found the reason. It is the climsssTauRelax and climsstTauRelax that cause the problem. I set the two parameters equal to 1 day before, then there is strange flow aruond the boundary. But If set them to 1 month, the flow is normal. I guess that the interpolation causes the conflict. 
> 
> I have another question. In my model, the width of western boundary current(Kuroshio) is narrow. I wonder which variables influence the width of western boundary current.
> 
> Any advice is highly appreciated!
> 
> Tongya Liu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support