[MITgcm-support] funky ice dynamics in doubly periodic domain

[Jean Mensa]

OK, I found the problem. In EXF, useRelativeWind has to be set to TRUE.
This keeps the ice from flying away...
thank you for the help!
j


On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Dimitris Menemenlis <dmenemenlis at gmail.com>
wrote:

> looking at available_diagnostics.log, the following surface stress
> variables are available:
>
>     79 |oceTAUX |  1 |    80 |UU      U1|N/m^2           |zonal surface
> wind stress, >0 increases uVel
>     80 |oceTAUY |  1 |    79 |VV      U1|N/m^2           |meridional surf.
> wind stress, >0 increases vVel
>    179 |EXFtaux |  1 |       |UM      U1|N/m^2           |zonal surface
> wind stress, >0 increases uVel
>    180 |EXFtauy |  1 |       |VM      U1|N/m^2           |meridional
> surface wind stress, >0 increases vVel
>    227 |SIfu    |  1 |   228 |UU      U1|N/m^2           |SEAICE zonal
> surface wind stress, >0 increases uVel
>    228 |SIfv    |  1 |   227 |VV      U1|N/m^2           |SEAICE merid.
> surface wind stress, >0 increases vVel
>
> and from seaice_diagnostics_init.F
>
> C     pkg/diagnostics SIfu and oceTAUX, dumpfreq FU, and tavefreq FUtave
> C     are identical but they differ from pkg/diagnostics EXFtaux, which
> C     is stress before impact of ice.  Also when using exf bulk
> C     formulae, EXFtaux is defined on tracer rather than uvel points.
>
> C     pkg/diagnostics SIfv and oceTAUY, dumpfreq FV, and tavefreq FVtave
> C     are identical but they differ from pkg/diagnostics EXFtauy, which
> C     is stress before impact of ice.  Also when using exf bulk
> C     formulae, EXFtauy is defined on tracer rather than vvel points.
>
> meaning that if siAREA=1, all of the above are identical and denote stress
> from ice to ocean,
> except that EXFtaux and EXFtauy are defined at the tracer point instead of
> the velocity
> points on the SouthWest C-grid.
>
> we don’t appear to have a diagnostic for air-ice stress, but that can be
> inferred
> from 10-m wind SEAICE_drag, and SEAICE_rhoAir
>
> since you have no shear in the surface forcing, I am assuming the internal
> stress will be negligible,
> so if you add the components of stress at top and bottom of the ice, you
> should be able to estimate
> expected acceleration of the sea ice, and that number should be much
> smaller than my 3 m/s/day
> back-of-the-envelope estimate from earlier today that neglected bottom
> friction.
>
> > On Feb 23, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Jean Mensa <jean.mensa at yale.edu> wrote:
> >
> > ok, for oceTAUX/oceTAUY I will have to rerun but I have KE series at
> surface. Velocities decay with depth. Ice velocity is not anomalously large
> and features seem reasonable.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mitgcm.org_mailman_listinfo_mitgcm-2Dsupport&d=AwIGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=5oFkuOCa8D2MEaB0wBLw8HmmtUZ0uoNntNFgQ9b_kVE&m=9kFa5U0NT4xR7lY6dvKOuQUO3n0I5ButKe8wIYC4D5U&s=QCopWjF-yiA7cZwNWDln90DaD19bTt9sb3vv3yFf0Lo&e=
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/attachments/20160306/85b0559b/attachment.htm>