Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#1633 closed Bug (fixed)
Wrong time stamp in tidal forcing update
| Reported by: | jchanut | Owned by: | nemo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | OCE | Version: | v3.6 |
| Severity: | Keywords: | tides | |
| Cc: |
Description
There are several bugs in the update of tidal forcing in sub barotropic loop. Noteworthy is a missing argument in the call to upd_tide (refreshment of tidal potential) in dynspg_ts that implies:
- No resfreshment of tidal potential during barotropic loop (value frozen at central time step, despite a call every barotropic step).
- If ln_bt_fw=.false., same problem as above but there's a very significant time lag of 2 * nn_baro * rdt seconds in the past !
Users using tides are stongly advised to track changes related to this ticket.
Commit History (3)
| Changeset | Author | Time | ChangeLog |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5914 | rfurner | 2015-11-24T15:18:12+01:00 | pulled over bug fix from trunk, see nemo ticket #1633 |
| 5913 | jchanut | 2015-11-24T14:57:12+01:00 | Correct time arguments for tidal forcing, ticket #1633 |
| 5912 | jchanut | 2015-11-24T14:42:04+01:00 | Correct time arguments for tidal forcing, ticket #1633 |
Change History (5)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by jchanut
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by nicolasmartin
Effectively results in AMM12 config has changed on Trusting:
Results : ocean.output solver.stat differ Restarts: AMM12_trust_00000576_restart_oce_out 1055 record(s) differ, 1037 of 1089 records differ more than 0.001
Diff in ocean.ouput
< ==>> time-step= 1 abs(U) max: 1.38831038620314 < ==>> time-step= 1 SSS min: 12.4065699691971 > ==>> time-step= 1 abs(U) max: 1.38831037651113 > ==>> time-step= 1 SSS min: 12.4065699499566 < ==>> time-step= 145 abs(U) max: 1.17996826451025 < ==>> time-step= 145 SSS min: 12.6914238396041 > ==>> time-step= 145 abs(U) max: 1.17995713752074 > ==>> time-step= 145 SSS min: 12.6894927993044 < ==>> time-step= 289 abs(U) max: 1.19398661109917 < ==>> time-step= 289 SSS min: 12.8698631513494 > ==>> time-step= 289 abs(U) max: 1.19198422837464 > ==>> time-step= 289 SSS min: 12.8662227283950 < ==>> time-step= 433 abs(U) max: 1.25394228156625 < ==>> time-step= 433 SSS min: 13.0251812235615 > ==>> time-step= 433 abs(U) max: 1.25155435873531 > ==>> time-step= 433 SSS min: 13.0174624101055
Is that what you expected ?
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by jchanut
Well, hard to predict. I am pretty sure things were wrong.
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by nicolasmartin
Ok, if nobody shows up, I will take these results as new benchmark for AMM12.
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by clevy
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
Corrected in NEMO_3_6_STABLE:
https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/changeset/5912/branches/2015/nemo_v3_6_STABLE
And in trunk:
https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/changeset/5913/trunk
Changes in AMM12 results are expected