Changes between Version 17 and Version 18 of user/clem/Heat_Flux_air-ice-ocean_interface

Timestamp:

2016-05-26T16:58:04+02:00 (8 years ago)

Author:

clem

Comment:

--

user/clem/Heat_Flux_air-ice-ocean_interface

@@ -1 +1 @@
 == Decision? (Update 2016/05/19) ==
-If the atm sends to the ocean/ice: {{{Qsnow = Cp(snow) * Tsnow}}}, and {{{Qrain = Cp(rain) * Train}}}, and {{{Qevap(ice) = Cp(ice) * Tice}}}, and {{{Qevap(ocean) = Cp(ocean) * Toce}}}, then heat is conserved and the differences between atm. physical constants and ocean/ice physical constants are unimportant.
+If the atm sends to the ocean/ice: {{{Qsnow = Cp(snow) * Tsnow}}}, and {{{Qrain = Cp(rain) * Train}}}, and {{{Qevap(ice) = Cp(ice) * Tice}}}, and {{{Qevap(ocean) = Cp(ocean) * Toce}}}, then heat is conserved and the differences between atm. physical constants and ocean/ice physical constants are mostly unimportant (except maybe for the snow falling onto the ice).
 If the atm does not provide these fluxes, then we will make a guess and we have to make sure to have the same constants between Atm. models and NEMO. This is not yet the case.
 
 >''Klaus'': shouldn't it read {{{Qsnow = sprecip * Cp(snow) * Tsnow}}}, etc ?
->>''C Rousset'': yes indeed with Tsnow in degC.
+>>''C Rousset'': yes indeed with Temperature in degC.
 >''Klaus:'' Let's assume we can send these fluxes from IFS to NEMO. Who takes care of the coupling interface in NEMO? It would be stupid if we had one solution for IFS and a different solution for IPSL and yet another one for Arpege. When could such an updated coupling interface be in place?
 >>''C Rousset'': we just had a meeting today with IPSL and it has been decided that the fluxes will be integrated in the coupler soon (by the beginning of June). Then I will take care of the interface with NEMO. We will let you know asap what are the fields, names, conventions adopted.