<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Hi Martin,</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Thanks for your response. Good to know that rStar should work with cavities. I suppose the differences between rStar and no-rStar could be that the "surf adjustment" the nonlinear free surface scheme is doing in the absence
of rStar, i.e. adding water to the model in regions which violate hFacInf, is changing the tracer properties and/or circulation. I have a few patches of very thick sea ice which are depressing the sea surface and causing those hFacInf errors. So maybe rStar
is actually more accurate than nonlinear free surface without rStar. I am trying a run now with the linear free surface for comparison.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Many thanks,</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Kaitlin</p>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> MITgcm-support <mitgcm-support-bounces@mitgcm.org> on behalf of Martin Losch <Martin.Losch@awi.de><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 12 October 2018 16:15:24<br>
<b>To:</b> MITgcm Support<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [MITgcm-support] rStar with cavities</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi Kaitlin,<br>
<br>
I think they should work together. <br>
I have once (in the very beginning of this in 2006 or so) tried to use the rStar coordinates as surface (topography) following coordinates for better near surface resolution in the cavities, but because we don’t have a decent formulation for the pressure gradient
for the case of strongly sloping vertical layer interfaces, this leads to too much pressure gradient error.<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<br>
> On 10. Oct 2018, at 12:54, Naughten, Kaitlin A. <kaight@bas.ac.uk> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Hi everyone,<br>
> <br>
> Is it okay to use rStar with the SHELFICE package? Looking at some old messages I can't figure out whether or not there is a problem with this. I ran with and without rStar and can see some non-negligible differences in the cavity, which is a bit concerning.
Is it confirmed whether or not they work together?<br>
> <br>
> Many thanks,<br>
> Kaitlin<br>
> 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.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> MITgcm-support mailing list<br>
> MITgcm-support@mitgcm.org<br>
> <a href="http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support">http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
MITgcm-support mailing list<br>
MITgcm-support@mitgcm.org<br>
<a href="http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support">http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
<hr>
<small>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</small>.
<hr>
</body>
</html>