[MITgcm-support] heat and salt budget with nonlinear free surface

[Cerovecki, Ivana]

Many thanks Patrick!!!! Let me look,
cheers,
Ivana

________________________________________
From: MITgcm-support [mitgcm-support-bounces at mitgcm.org] on behalf of Patrick Heimbach [heimbach at mit.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 5:59 PM
To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
Cc: George Krokos; Ibrahim Hoteit
Subject: Re: [MITgcm-support] heat and salt budget with nonlinear free surface

Hi Ivana,

Chris Piecuch wrote a nice detailed memo that applies to the NLFS (and ECCO v4).
It can be found at
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/111094

Cheers
Patrick

> On Oct 2, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Cerovecki, Ivana <icerovecki at ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> We are trying to close heat and salt budget for a run with nonlinear free surface. I was able
> to close budgets with linear free surface, using diagnostics as described in:
>
> http://wwwcvs.mitgcm.org/viewvc/MITgcm/MITgcm/doc/Heat_Salt_Budget_MITgcm.pdf?view=co&revision=1.1
>
> However, I am not able to close the budgets with nonlinear free surface. In old mitgcm-support emails I found
> Martha's comment:
>> The TOTTEND term only works with a linear free surface.  Otherwise, you
>> should output snapshots of ETAN and THETA and use these to calculate the
>> tendency term yourself.
>> Martha
>
> So, this is one difference. What else is different? Looking at Abhisek and Jean-Michel's document
> it is clear that with linear free surface one needs to use "Surf_corr_tend":
>
> Surf_corr_tend = (tsurfcor- WTHMASS(ix,iy)) / (DRF(1) * hFacC(ix,iy,1))
>
> What is the case with nonlinear free surface? Do I need such a correction with nonlinear free surface?
>
> I would very much appreciate your help,
> many thanks,
> Ivana
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support