Last edited Timestamp?

Author : Laurent Brodeau, (commit done by Gurvan Madec)

ticket : 1348

Branch : 2014/dev_CNRS0_blk_core

WP2014 Action : CNRS-0


Description

simplification and optimization of the CORE bulk formulae (sbcblk_core.F90)

The CORE bulk formulae has been modified by Laurent Brodeau (brodeau@…) in the following way:

  • removed "ln_2m" and "ln_bulk2z" from namelist (&namsbc_core), not really needed information, rn_zqt and rn_zu are enough!
  • ONLY 1 routine for computing bulk transfer coefficients: TURB_CORE_2Z now handles both cases zt=zu and zt/=zu
    ⇒ removed routine TURB_CORE_1Z
  • ONLY one call to TURB_CORE_2Z
  • improved and slightly optimized TURB_CORE_2Z by decreasing the number of 2D allocated arrays and number of operations
  • better first guess of stability by checking air-sea difference of virtual temperature rather than temperature difference only…
  • added function "cd_neutral_10m" that uses the improved parametrization of Large & Yeager 2008, including the drag coefficient reduction for Cyclone conditions (i.e. V10m ≥ 33m/s).

Changes

code : new version of the sbcblk_core.F90 module

namelist : suppression of "ln_2m" and "ln_bulk2z" in the namsbc_core


Testing

The new sbcblk_core.F90 has been tested in both ORCA2_LIM2 and ORCA1_LIM2. Not significant changes have been found (but obviously for analytical tropical cyclones).

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……….
Last modified 6 years ago Last modified on 2014-06-18T15:15:48+02:00