[MITgcm-support] MITgcm-support Digest, Vol 139, Issue 30

[Matthew Mazloff]

Hi Marco

I don't know your setup, but if your term from Eta vanishes then I don't think my comment pertains to you.

What I was referring to is the fact that in calculus
P_{xy} - P_{yx} = 0

But when discretized such that DX is a function of y this will not equal to zero. This can be a lowest order term for coarse resolution spherical coordinate models.

I have argued to myself that given the pressure solver method of the model, it makes sense to group this contribution into the stretching term. I tell myself that as resolution increases and DX goes to zero this error will be reduced, and W will be larger… I am very interested to hear other thoughts on how to attribute this term.

Matt



On Jan 31, 2015, at 9:05 AM, marco reale <reale.marco82 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi matt,
> 
> thanks a lot for the suggestion : my method computes correctly the stretching, diffusion and advection term : the term from the gradient of Eta vanishes  . I have only some problems with baroclinicity term : Do you refer to it when you talk about to pressure term?
> 
> cheers
> 
> Marco
> 
> 
> 
>> Il giorno 31/gen/2015, alle ore 18:00, mitgcm-support-request at mitgcm.org ha scritto:
>> 
>>  note that if you are using spherical coordinates the discretization will cause the pressure term to not vanish, so you need to account for tha
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150131/57b7f735/attachment.htm>