<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Solved. I realize that my surface heating is not enough at the early stage. Once the leads close, it’s hard to melt the ice below. So it’s probably not an ITD problem, although the difference in ice strength parameterization can change the open water area. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Yilang <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='color:black'>MITgcm-support <mitgcm-support-bounces@mitgcm.org> on behalf of Yilang Xu <yxu@whoi.edu><br><b>Reply-To: </b><mitgcm-support@mitgcm.org><br><b>Date: </b>Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 11:12<br><b>To: </b><mitgcm-support@mitgcm.org><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [MITgcm-support] Seaice ITD ice strength choice<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I’ll refine my question since my result shows me that R75 gives me a lot more ice than H79, which is consistent with [Ungermann et al., 2017]. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>During the melting period, when I use a non-ITD model, ice will decrease fast when swdown and air temp increases. However, once the ITD model is turned on, the decrease of ice concentration and thickness is very small (barely noticeable), especially at areas where concentration=1. Does anyone have any suggestions to improve melting with ITD turned on? </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Yilang </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='color:black'>MITgcm-support <mitgcm-support-bounces@mitgcm.org> on behalf of Yilang Xu <yxu@whoi.edu><br><b>Reply-To: </b><mitgcm-support@mitgcm.org><br><b>Date: </b>Monday, February 24, 2020 at 23:36<br><b>To: </b>"mitgcm-support@mitgcm.org" <mitgcm-support@mitgcm.org><br><b>Subject: </b>[MITgcm-support] Seaice ITD ice strength choice</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Hi everyone, </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I am modeling sea ice at ~1km resolution. For ice strength parameterization with ITD, the model has options [Hibler 1979] (H79) or [Rothrock 1975] (R75). </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>In paper [Ungermann et al., 2017], it seems that R75 is depreciated. However, the paper does not show comparisons at high resolutions. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>So I am wondering if anyone has any experience with ITD models. Any suggestions would be appreciated. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Yilang </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>_______________________________________________ MITgcm-support mailing list MITgcm-support@mitgcm.org http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>_______________________________________________ MITgcm-support mailing list MITgcm-support@mitgcm.org http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>