[MITgcm-support] Effect of 'vectorInvariantMomentum' flag on first order circulation

Wed Mar 8 20:36:39 EST 2017

Hi Jean-Michel and everyone,

Thanks a lot for getting to the heart of the problem. I am glad that
choosing that right combinations flags leads to the appropriate answers. I
hope this point (I am sure there are other similar ones) can be
highlighted/noted somewhere on the MITgcm manual.

One point I want to mention is that I changed the flags for my run based on
the llc simulations. Here is their data file
http://wwwcvs.mitgcm.org/viewvc/MITgcm/MITgcm_contrib/llc_hires/llc_4320/input/data?revision=1.14&view=markup

I am wondering if their solutions are being effected by this problem? They
don't have the useJamartWetPoints=.TRUE., set.

Best,
Dhruv

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at mit.edu> wrote:

> Hi Dave & Andrea,
>
> I did a quick test running Dhruv's set-up with:
>  vectorInvariantMomentum=.TRUE.,
>  highOrderVorticity=.TRUE.,
>  useJamartWetPoints=.TRUE.,
> and it looks fine, does not develop the "strange" velocity field.
>
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 08:48:48AM +0000, Munday, Dave wrote:
> > I've been using useJamartWetPoints too, which I found helps with the
> noisy vertical velocity. Although I never saw the extreme problems with
> Coriolis seen in Jamart & Ozer.
> >
> > I???ve also been using useJamartMomAdv. Although looking at the code it
> looks like this one doesn???t do anything with highOrderViscosity.
> >
> > D
> >
> > > On 8 Mar 2017, at 19:01, Andrea Cimatoribus <
> andrea.cimatoribus at epfl.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have also been using:
> > > vectorInvariantMomentum=.TRUE.,
> > > highOrderVorticity=.TRUE.,
> > > to reduce noise similarly to DM, and never noticed any issue, with
> model comparing generally very well to observations (however, my setup is
> completely different from the ACC case). I was wondering if the option:
> > > usejamartwetpoints=.TRUE.,
> > > may change (fix?) the results you are having. I remember there was a
> reason why I set this to true but, embarrassingly, I cannot recall it now.
> > > Best,
> > > Andrea
> > >
> > > Andrea Cimatoribus
> > > postdoctoral researcher
> > > EPFL ENAC IIE ECOL
> > > https://people.epfl.ch/andrea.cimatoribus
> > >
> > > On 07/03/17 22:54, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
> > >> i Dhruv,
> > >>
> > >> An update on your set-up behavior:
> > >> 1) I think I was able to reproduce the problem, running the 2 cases
> > >> (vectorInvariantMomentum =T vs =F) for 1 yr each, labeled 'v01' and
> 'f01' respectively.
> > >> 2) I also run the vectorInvariantMomentum=T case (label='v02') for
> just 6 months,
> > >> starting from pickup from the other run (vectorInvariantMomentum=F)
> at t=6.month.
> > >> This was useful because the flow is already eddying (@ t= 6.month)
> > >> but the model also switch to this "strange" behavior after less than
> 1 month.
> > >> 3) The only test I did afterward (v03) was like previous test (2) but
> commenting out:
> > >> highOrderVorticity=.TRUE.,
> > >> I've attached a plot of KE evolution from the monitor output.
> > >>
> > >> I have the impression that the reason of this strange behavior is a
> bad boundary
> > >> conditions (i.e., wrong land/ocean masking or some missing partial
> cell factor in
> > >> pkg/mom_vecinv/mom_vi_v_coriolis_c4.F) in the 4th Order
> discretization
> > >> of (in this case, relative) vorticity that positively feeds back
> > >> on the flow field to generate very strong meridional currents
> (northward east
> > >> of the ridge and southward west of the ridge), much larger (> 4.m/s)
> than anywhere
> > >> else in the domain, at least early on. This can clearly be seen on
> V.component plot
> > >> at t=7.month in my experiment "v02", starting to develop along the
> northern part
> > >> of the ridge just above the bottom cell rows (2nd wet cell above the
> bottom).
> > >>
> > >> Will need to figure out how this positive feedback works (I
> personally rarely
> > >> use this option highOrderVorticity=T) ; also, little bit surprised
> that the
> > >> model did not blow up, but few factors -- bottom drag + KPP +
> horizontal
> > >> viscC4leith with large viscA4GridMax -- might help to stabilize ?
> > >>
> > >> One last thing: highOrderVorticity is specific to pkg/mom_vecinv;
> > >> there is no equivalent in pkg/mom_fluxform (only centered 2nd Order
> > >> advection scheme there) and setting highOrderVorticity=T has no effect
> > >> when vectorInvariantMomentum=F.
> > >> I would expect smaller differences, in the interior, between the 2
> mom pkgs
> > >> when highOrderVorticity is not used (especially given the masking
> problem !)
> > >> and
> > >> 1) vectorInvariantMomentum=T
> > >>  with  useAbsVorticity=T
> > >>  and   selectVortScheme=2
> > >> is compared to:
> > >> 2) vectorInvariantMomentum=F
> > >>  with  useEnergyConservingCoriolis=T
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Jean-Michel
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 12:34:35AM -0500, Dhruv Balwada wrote:
> > >>> Hi Bruno,
> > >>>
> > >>> Removing the topography made the solutions for the two cases be the
> same.
> > >>> This is crazy interesting, I think I need to understand your paper
> better.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>> Dhruv
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Dhruv Balwada <db194 at nyu.edu> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Bruno,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I haven't removed the topography. I will set that up now. I did try
> to do
> > >>>> the run with no-slip and free-slip walls. The solution was the same
> in
> > >>>> both.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best,
> > >>>> Dhruv
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Dhruv Balwada <db194 at nyu.edu>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Jean-Michel,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The experiment setup is now available at -
> https://github.com/dhruvbalw
> > >>>>> ada/channel_run_20km
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I am using a version of the MITgcm that I downloaded in the
> beginning of
> > >>>>> February.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The difference between two runs appears in a matter of 1 year of
> the run.
> > >>>>> I would probably run it for 2-3 years to see it clearly. On the
> computers
> > >>>>> here with 25 cores it took about 1 hour to run. So, its very fast.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Let me know if you need any other files, and I can add them to the
> git
> > >>>>> directory.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> Dhruv
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at mit.edu>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Dhruv,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> OK, this is a good start.
> > >>>>>> Could you provide me (off the list since there is some strict
> size limit
> > >>>>>> there)
> > >>>>>> a complete copy of the set up, including the customized/modified
> "code"
> > >>>>>> directory,
> > >>>>>> the input parameter files ( data*, eedata) and the binary input
> files
> > >>>>>> needed
> > >>>>>> to run the set-up.
> > >>>>>> Also, if you are not using the latest MITgcm code, which version
> is it ?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> And finally, how long would I need to run it to see some
> significant
> > >>>>>> differences
> > >>>>>> (this was part of my earlier email, but not clearly expressed).
> > >>>>>> May be a pickup file could allow to reduce the length of these
> tests ?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>> Jean-Michel
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:47:25PM -0500, Dhruv Balwada wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Hi Jean-Michel,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I tried the test you suggested by turning off all optimization,
> and
> > >>>>>> nothing
> > >>>>>>> changed. Here are the outputs in prints of python notebooks. I
> have
> > >>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>> attached the opt and data file. The data file for both runs
> point to
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> exact same forcing files on the hard drive.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>> Dhruv
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Dhruv Balwada <db194 at nyu.edu>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the quick responses.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> @ Jean-Michel I will follow your suggestions and report back on
> them
> > >>>>>> soon.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>> Dhruv
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Jean-Michel Campin <
> jmc at mit.edu>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Dhruv,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> It's a strange results. Both pkgs (mom_fluxform and mom_vecinv)
> > >>>>>> have been
> > >>>>>>>>> tested and used in many different configs, and no significant
> recent
> > >>>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>> that would be suspicious.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I suggest to try to work on a short test run:
> > >>>>>>>>> 1) long enough to detect some significant differences between
> the 2
> > >>>>>> cases:
> > >>>>>>>>>  vectorInvariantMomentum=T and = F
> > >>>>>>>>> 2) short enough so that the same 2 runs could be repeated with
> zero
> > >>>>>>>>> compiler
> > >>>>>>>>> optimization (-ieee or -devel with many standard optfile).
> > >>>>>>>>> And from there, we could work on trying to reproduce the
> problem on
> > >>>>>>>>> different machine/compiler ... etc.
> > >>>>>>>>> Once we are able to reproduce the problem, should not take too
> long
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> fix.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>> Jean-Michel
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 02:58:53PM -0500, Dhruv Balwada wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi MITgcm community,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I have recently been stumped an issue with the MITgcm
> > >>>>>>>>> vectorInvariantMomentum
> > >>>>>>>>>> flag.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> **The model setup** is meant to be an ideal representation of
> the
> > >>>>>> ACC
> > >>>>>>>>>> (following Abernathey and Cessi 2014). It has the following
> > >>>>>> components -
> > >>>>>>>>>> a) Linear temperature relaxation at the surface
> > >>>>>>>>>> b) Zonal wind with sinusoidal structure
> > >>>>>>>>>> c) Initial temp field is zonally symmetric and the thermocline
> > >>>>>> shoals
> > >>>>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>>> north to south (similar to the ACC).
> > >>>>>>>>>> d) Resolution is 20km, and domain size is 2000km * 2000km.
> > >>>>>>>>>> e) Zonally periodic and meridional walls
> > >>>>>>>>>> f) A zonal gaussian bump is the topographic feature, which is
> > >>>>>>>>> meridionaly
> > >>>>>>>>>> independent.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> **The issue** I am facing is that the circulation pattern
> > >>>>>> completely
> > >>>>>>>>>> changes when I change the "vectorInvariantMomentum" flag.
> > >>>>>>>>>> When the flag is set to false (default), the model recreates
> an
> > >>>>>> ACC like
> > >>>>>>>>>> flow. Flow is from west to east and strongly perturbed by the
> > >>>>>> presence
> > >>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>> topography.
> > >>>>>>>>>> When the flag is set to true (default), the model does
> something
> > >>>>>> else.
> > >>>>>>>>> Flow
> > >>>>>>>>>> is from east to west, with a strong boundary flow from the
> west
> > >>>>>> to east
> > >>>>>>>>>> near the southern boundary.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Any help would be appreciated.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I have posted some visualizations and data file here -
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://sites.google.com/site/dhruvbalwada/blog/mitgcmissuew
> > >>>>>>>>> ithvectorinvariantmomentumflag
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Here is the data file (obviously the vectorinvariantmomentum
> flag
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>> changed between two runs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> &PARM01
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # viscosity
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> viscAr=5.6614E-04,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> viscC4Leith=2.15,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> viscC4Leithd=2.15,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> viscA4GridMax=0.8,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> useAreaViscLength=.TRUE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> highOrderVorticity=.TRUE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # diffusivity
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> tempAdvScheme=7,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> diffKrT=5.44e-7,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> saltStepping=.FALSE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> staggerTimeStep=.TRUE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # multiDimAdvection=.TRUE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> vectorInvariantMomentum=.TRUE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # initial vertical profiles of T and S
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> sRef=30*35.0000,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # equation of state
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> eosType='LINEAR',
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> tAlpha=2.0E-04,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> sBeta=0.0,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # boundary conditions
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> no_slip_sides=.FALSE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> no_slip_bottom=.TRUE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # bottomDragLinear=1.1E-03,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> bottomDragQuadratic=0.0021,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # physical parameters
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> f0=-0.9E-04,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> beta=1.0E-11,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> gravity=9.81,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # implicit diffusion and convective adjustment
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> implicitDiffusion=.TRUE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> implicitViscosity=.TRUE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # exact volume conservation
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> exactConserv=.TRUE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # C-V scheme for Coriolis term
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> useCDscheme=.FALSE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # partial cells for smooth topography
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> hFacMin=5.0E-02,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> # file IO stuff
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> readBinaryPrec=64,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> useSingleCpuIO=.TRUE.,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> debugLevel=1,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> &
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this
> email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt
> from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in
> an electronic records management system.
> > ________________________________
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20170308/97416125/attachment-0001.htm>