Version 8 (modified by mathiot, 9 years ago) (diff) |
---|
Last edited Timestamp?
Author : Pierre Mathiot
ticket : #1495
Branch : dev_r5151_UKMO_ISF
Description
- Improvement of zgr_isf: one block change coastline every where => done
- Improvement of sbc_isf: CALL statement in a 2d loop
- Improvement of zpshde_isf: too much variable compute => done
- Improvement of hpg_isf: can we used one as simple as for the bottom => done
- Bug in zdfbfr: top friction initialisation missing => done (already reported in the trunk)
- Change definition of mixed layer depth beneath ice shelf => done
- Bug if ice shelf in ldfslp + change according to previous point => done
- umask_i is not an interior mask, change it to ssumask (same on v, f)=> done
- cleaning sbcisf => done
- improve conservation (based on work of Jerome on runoff) => done
- remove option rn_divisf in the namelist. Always apply on volume. => done
- define ln_isf in namsbc as ln_rnf. Move nn_isf to namsbc_isf. => done
At this stage:
- no change in result without ice shelf.
- result of ISOMIP configuration changed due to bug correction bug ISOMIP result similar to the previous one and to Losch 2008 (after 28 years of simulation)
- Validation with PERIANT025 underway
Testing
Testing could consider (where appropriate) other configurations in addition to NVTK]. All the validation test are done with the version 3.6_STABLE at revision r5554.
NVTK Tested | YES |
Other model configurations | YES (ePERIANT025) |
Processor configurations tested | 37/35/836 |
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 (except for ISOMIP) |
Does this change bit compare across various processor configurations. (1xM, Nx1 and MxN are recommended) | YES |
Is this change expected to preserve answers in all possible model configurations? | YES (for untested possible configuration a flag is set up to flase to stop the model) |
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? | NO |
If any of these apply, please document the changes required here.......
!----------------------------------------------------------------------- &namsbc ! Surface Boundary Condition (surface module) !----------------------------------------------------------------------- ... ln_rnf = .true. ! runoffs (T => fill namsbc_rnf) ln_isf = .false. ! ice shelf (T => fill namsbc_isf) ...
!----------------------------------------------------------------------- &namsbc_isf ! Top boundary layer (ISF) !----------------------------------------------------------------------- ... ! for all case nn_isf = 1 ! ice shelf melting/freezing ! 1 = presence of ISF 2 = bg03 parametrisation ! 3 = rnf file for isf 4 = ISF fwf specified ! option 1 and 4 need ln_isfcav = .true. (domzgr) ...
and in namsbc_isf ln_divisf was removed and in namsbc nn_isf was moved to namsbc_isf.
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..........
SVN command (merge)
merge at revision 5554 svn merge svn+ssh://mathiot@forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/ipsl/forge/projets/nemo/svn/branches/2015/nemo_v3_6_STABLE