Version 2 (modified by rfurner, 10 years ago) (diff)

Last edited Timestamp?


Author : Rachel Furner

ticket : #465

Branch : https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/branches/DEV_R1821_Rivers


Description


Testing

Testing could consider (where appropriate) other configurations in addition to NVTK].

NVTK Tested'''YES/NO'''
Other model configurations'''YES/NO'''
Processor configurations tested[ Enter processor configs tested here ]
If adding new functionality please confirm that the
New code doesn't change results when it is switched off
and ''works'' when switched on
'''YES

(Answering UNSURE is likely to generate further questions from reviewers.)

'Please add further summary details here'

  • Processor configurations tested
  • etc——

Bit Comparability

Does this change preserve answers in your tested standard configurations (to the last bit) ?'''YES/NO '''
Does this change bit compare across various processor configurations. (1xM, Nx1 and MxN are recommended)'''YES/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve answers in all possible model configurations?'''YES
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
,,''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. ''
'''YES

If you answered '''NO''' to any of the above, please provide further details:

  • Which routine(s) are causing the difference?
  • Why the changes are not protected by a logical switch or new section-version
  • What is needed to achieve regression with the previous model release (e.g. a regression branch, hand-edits etc). If this is not possible, explain why not.
  • What do you expect to see occur in the test harness jobs?
  • Which diagnostics have you altered and why have they changed?Please add details here……..

System Changes

Does your change alter namelists?'''YES
Does your change require a change in compiler options?'''YES

If any of these apply, please document the changes required here…….

The namelist must be amended so namsbc_rnf is:

!———————————————————————————————————-

&namsbc_rnf ! runoffs namelist surface boundary condition

!———————————————————————————————————-

! ! file name ! frequency (hours) ! variable ! time interpol. ! clim ! 'yearly'/ ! weights ! rotation !

! ! ! (if <0 months) ! name ! (logical) ! (T/F) ! 'monthly' ! filename ! pairing !

cn_dir = './' ! root directory for the location of the runoff files

ln_rnf_emp = .false. ! runoffs included into precipitation field (T) or into a file (F)

sn_rnf = 'AMM_rivers' , 24 , 'rorunoff' , .false. , .true. , 'daily' , ,

sn_cnf = 'runoff_1m_nomask' , 0 , 'socoefr' , .false. , .true. , 'yearly' , ,

sn_sal_rnf = 'AMM_rivers' , 24 , 'rosaline' , .false. , .true. , 'daily' , ,

sn_tmp_rnf = 'AMM_rivers' , 24 , 'rotemper' , .false. , .true. , 'daily' , ,

sn_dep_rnf = 'AMM_rivers' , 24 , 'rodepth' , .false. , .true. , 'daily' , ,

ln_rnf_mouth = .false. ! specific treatment at rivers mouths

rn_hrnf = 1000.e0 ! depth over which enhanced vertical mixing is used

rn_avt_rnf = 10.e0 ! value of the additional vertical mixing coef. [m2/s]

rn_rfact = 1.e0 ! multiplicative factor for runoff

ln_rnf_att = .true. ! read in salinity, temperature and depth information for runoff

/


Resources

''Please ''summarize'' any changes in runtime or memory use caused by this change……''


IPR issues

Has the code been wholly (100%) produced by NEMO developers staff working exclusively on NEMO?'''YES

If No:

  • Identify the collaboration agreement details
  • Ensure the code routine header is in accordance with the agreement, (Copyright/Redistribution? etc).Add further details here if required……….

Attachments (1)

Download all attachments as: .zip