Version 7 (modified by gm, 10 years ago) (diff)

Last edited Timestamp?

Author : Gurvan Madec, Yevgeny Aksenov, Matthieu Leclair

ticket : #665

Branch : DEV_r1837_mass_heat_salt_fluxes


Revisit the formulation of the fluxes between ocean, ice and atmosphere : an exchange of water (mass exchange) is now explicitly associated with an exchange of heat and salt content. This modification simplifies the implementation of a fully embedded sea-ice.

This update is the NOCS.4 task (Revisit of mass and salt fluxes) due by 2nd July 2010

The main modifications concern OPA, LIM2 and LIM3. They are:

(0) stylistic modification

style change only (results identical) with in particular the suppression of 'thd_ice(_2)' (merged in the 'ice(_2)' module) in order to have in a single line the declaration of a 2D ice array and its associated 1d array

For example: in thd_ice_2.F90 you have:

  REAL(wp), PUBLIC, DIMENSION(jpij) ::   qldif_1d    !: corresponding to the 2D var  qldif

and in ice_2 :

   REAL(wp), PUBLIC, DIMENSION(jpi,jpj) ::   qldif         !: heat balance of the lead (or of the open ocean)

becomes simply in ice_2.F90

   REAL(wp), PUBLIC ::   qldif(jpi,jpj), qldif_1d(jpij)   !: heat balance of the lead (or of the open ocean)

CAUTION : r1855 : this has been done for LIM-2, the LIM-3 case will come later on

CAUTION : the changes have to be tested with NVTK

N.B. : define in ice_2.F90 one for all rone=1.e0 ; rzero=0.e0 ; epsi20=1.e-20 ; epsi13=1.e-13 ; epsi06=1.e-06, … and suppress their local definition almost every where in LIM-2

(1) heat content of Freezing/Melting? ice.

In both LIM2 and LIM3, the computation of the heat content of F/M ice is added.

LIM2 : the modules involved in the change are ….

  • ice_2.F90 : add arrays to describe the heat content associated with both snow and ice changes :
       REAL(wp), PUBLIC ::   rdqsnif(jpi,jpj), rdqsnif_1d(jpij)   !: heat content associated to rdqsnif           [J/m2]
       REAL(wp), PUBLIC ::   rdqicif(jpi,jpj), rdqicif_1d(jpij)   !: heat content associated to rdmicif           [J/m2]

LIM3 : the modules involved in the change are ….

(2) introduction of a explicit a salt flux

The emps field is suppress by introducing fsalt, the salt flux at the ocean surface (only non zero below sea-ice)

A symmetric name is chosen for the emp : fmass. Indeed emp is a mass flux expressed in Kg/m2/s. its name emp is miss leading: emp does not only represent the Evaporation minus Precipitation budget, as it also include the freezing or melting of sea-ice, and also sometime the runoff. Therefore using fmass appears more meaningful.

in case of linear free surface (no key_vvl defined), the salt flux take into account the concentration/dilution term

(3) Non-solar flux including the heat content of mass exchanges

the definition of qns is modified as follows: the non solar part of the surface heat flux takes now also into account the heat content changes due to the change in volume associated with evaporation, precipitation, ice freezing and ice melting.

(4) Update ocean and ice forcing

the modification of trasbc and limsbc modules in order to take into account the above changes (heat content of water exchanges and explicit salt flux)


  • Philosophical change: in near future it appears that the use of key_vvl should be replaced by key_linssh. In other words, the defaut option of NEMO will be a non-linear free surface (and thus variable volume for the model levels). This has to be discussed prior to its implementation.


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

(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/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
,,''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. ''

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/NO '''
Does your change require a change in compiler options?'''YES/NO '''

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


''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/ NO '''

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……….