<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Michael and Yoshi, do you have any advice to give for question below?</div><div class="">What decision did you make for your hi-res simulations, e.g., for:</div><div class=""><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53190-6" class="">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53190-6</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks, Dimitris<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 18, 2020, at 6:47 AM, Pochini, Enrico <<a href="mailto:epochini@inogs.it" class="">epochini@inogs.it</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Dear community,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I have a question for the polar oceanographers:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I have noticed that in bathymetric reconstructions available for Antarctica (e.g. Bedmap2, RTopo-2) there are regions corresponding to the grounding zone of the biggest ice shelves where the water column thickness (resulting from the subtraction draft - bathy) equates exactly 1m.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For my simulations I work in the Ross Sea at 5km resolution and vertical layers of a few tens of metres at the depth of the grounding zone. I am wondering whether this region should be cut out directly as non-resolvable in my vertical discretization, or whether, in a less conservative approach, the bathymetry should be deepened in order to resolve the region in at least one layer.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Employing a preprocessing algorithm (<a href="https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/knaughten/mitgcm_python__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!bWCWtDMcJoVTIrR5IAjyeN1eGS1eXJVRuH3eFS2l_JFJ3IhWUV5BBvLC7nnfv5WjG2XalrUIZ7A$" class="">https://github.com/knaughten/mitgcm_python</a>) I obtain a grounding-zone water-thickness of ~ 50-80 m, enough to fit ~1-2 layers.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am uncertain about which way to take, so I'm curious to hear how you treat such thin cavities in high resolution models in other Antarctic seas, whether you cut them or keep them, and how you make them resolvable without affecting too much the overall setup.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Enrico P.<br class=""></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">MITgcm-support mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:MITgcm-support@mitgcm.org" class="">MITgcm-support@mitgcm.org</a><br class="">https://urldefense.us/v3/__http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!bWCWtDMcJoVTIrR5IAjyeN1eGS1eXJVRuH3eFS2l_JFJ3IhWUV5BBvLC7nnfv5WjG2XakE4dloY$ <br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>