[MITgcm-support] heat budget associated with shelfice

[Daniel Goldberg]

HI Malte

Thanks for that. Yes I do believe SHIForcT is the variable to close it,
since this is what is directly applied to the forcing arrays.. but this is
calculated somewhat differently than ShelficeHeatFlux and I wanted to get a
better understanding of exactly what ShelficeHeatFlux accounts for. As you
say it may be related to mass flux.

Thanks
Dan

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Malte Jansen <mfj at uchicago.edu> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> I recently used a similar(ish) setup and seemed to be able to close the
> heat budget. I only looked at the (statistically) steady state though (so
> there was no column heat budget tendency to speak off, but an accurate
> balance between heat sources and sinks), and I had
> SHELFICEboundaryLayer=.false..
>
> The one thing I can think off is that the mass flux associated with
> melting makes this budget a bit complicated in your case - but I’m not sure
> how to do it right. Maybe SHlForcT is what you want to compare to?
>
> -Malte
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 7:29 AM, Daniel Goldberg <dngoldberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello --
>
> I am trying (unsuccessfully) to close the heat budget associated with
> shelfice melt rates, and am trying to understand what is accounted for in
> the diagnostic array ShelficeHeatFlux. I think it might be purely
> diagnostic, is it possible the calculation is out of date?
>
> I have a simplified setting so there are not too many things to take
> account of. I have constant ice thickness and depth, uniform initial
> temperature and salinity (that instigates melting, not freezing) and i have
> set shelficeGammaFrict = .false. so that melting can occur with zero
> velocity. additionally i have
>
> useRealFreshWaterFlux = .true,
> exactConserv=.true.,
> SHELFICEconserve = .true.,
>
> I am checking changes over a timestep of a column integral of
>
> heatcapacity_cp * rhoconst * theta
>
> and comparing against
>
> shelficeheatflux*deltaT
>
> for the same column. With  "SHELFICEboundaryLayer=.true.", the agreement
> is initially very good (on the order of 1 in 10,000). It then steadily
> diverges though.
>
> (With  "SHELFICEboundaryLayer=.false." the agreement is bad, even in the
> first few time steps.)
>
> Many thanks
> Dan
>
> --
>
> Daniel Goldberg, PhD
> Lecturer in Glaciology
> School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh
> Geography Building, Drummond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9XP
>
>
> em: D <dgoldber at mit.edu>an.Goldberg at ed.ac.uk
> web: http://ocean.mit.edu/~dgoldberg
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 

Daniel Goldberg, PhD
Lecturer in Glaciology
School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh
Geography Building, Drummond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9XP


em: D <dgoldber at mit.edu>an.Goldberg at ed.ac.uk
web: http://ocean.mit.edu/~dgoldberg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/attachments/20151001/59352c86/attachment.htm>