Changes between Version 22 and Version 23 of ticket/1331_UKMO2_ice_shelves

Timestamp:

2014-07-15T11:40:03+02:00 (10 years ago)

Author:

mathiot

Comment:

--

ticket/1331_UKMO2_ice_shelves

@@ -37 +37 @@
 
 '''Questions:'''
-   - Has the test of the compatibility between bathy and iceshelf draft to be done in NEMO or as an offline tool ? From my experience, it is easier to be done offline because it need many hand edit, flood filling algorithm. This is especially true when the data set for bathy, ice shelf draft and grounding line are not from the same source (it means could be not compatible).
+   - Has the test of the compatibility between bathy and iceshelf draft to be done in NEMO or as an offline tool ? From my experience, it is easier to be done offline because it need many hand edits and also using flood filling algorithm to remove/spot closed "sea" inland or beneath ice shelves. This is especially true when the data set for bathy, ice shelf draft and grounding line are not from the same source (it means could be not compatible).
    - Has the tracer part of the ice shelf stuff (sbcisf.F90 and part of trasbc.F90) to be call traisf or sbcisf ? I ask this question, because if Losch 2008 parametrisation or BG03 are activated, we apply the fwf and the heat over more than the surface cell. During the merging with the trunk, I saw that the qsr flux is not put in the surface module but in the tra module, so it could be the same for the ice shelf.