Version 5 (modified by sga, 9 years ago) (diff)

Last edited Timestamp?


Author : Steven Alderson

ticket : #932

Branch : dev_r3322_NOCS09_SAS


NOCS.09 — Stand alone surface module

Motivation: A standalone surface module is proposed which will allow surface elements such as sea-ice, iceberg drift and surface fluxes to be run using prescribed model state fields. For example, it can be used to inter-compare different bulk formulae or adjust the parameters of a given bulk formula
Status: Branch created
Main task (3 wk)

(1) Create new NEMO sub-directory (SAS_SRC) which will contain a cut down set of routines to read in or interpolate ocean state at any time and then run all surface routines required.
(2) Write new version of nemogcm for initialising required modules and time-stepping through them
(3) Write new routine to read in ocean state
(4) Look at most convenient form for input data and see if fldread can be modified accordingly
(5) Validation and Documentation

Deadline : September 2012
Priority: High
Science Reviewer : Gurvan Madec
System Reviewer : INGV
Principal Investigator : Steven Alderson (sga@…)


Detail of the implementation


Comments / idea


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/NO/NA'''

(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. ''
'''YES/NO'''

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…….


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/ 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……….

Attachments (4)

Download all attachments as: .zip