Opened 4 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
#2573 closed Defect (fixed)
SI3: number of snow layers is limited to 1
| Reported by: | clem | Owned by: | systeam |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | low | Milestone: | |
| Component: | SI3 | Version: | |
| Severity: | minor | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
Context
In SI3, the number of snow layers is limited to 1 for pratical reasons. It means that snow has only one temperature and cannot sustain vertical temperature profiles. It is clearly a limitation (at least) for some process studies
Recommendation
Release this constrain. It implies to modify 2 routines: icethd_zdf_bl99.F90 (slightly) and icethd_dh.F90 (more heavily). I did the job and in the process I corrected a couple of bugs. Sette tests have passed (with several snow layers). ORCA2 results with 1 snow layer are not exactly the same as before because of the bugs that I found but it is quite close.
I will probably proceed to the commits soon except if someone disapproves.
Commit History (2)
| Changeset | Author | Time | ChangeLog |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14026 | clem | 2020-12-03T09:48:10+01:00 | 4.0-HEAD: fix bugs and defects related to tickets #2573 #2575 #2576 #2578. Sette passed and those fixes are now in the trunk, so unless there is a tricky trick somewhere, everything should be fine. |
| 13959 | clem | 2020-12-01T23:47:44+01:00 | multiple adds refering to tickets #2573 #2575 #2576. It concerns small bugs corrections for having a perfectly conservative sea-ice system, plus the removal of restriction on snow layers (one can have several layers in the snow now), plus a bug fix in very peculiar situation where ocean is always supercool |
Change History (5)
comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by smasson
comment:2 Changed 4 years ago by clem
all right. I'll be reasonable for once.
comment:3 Changed 4 years ago by clem
In 13959:
comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by clem
In 14026:
comment:5 Changed 4 years ago by clem
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
also in the trunk at r14005
the merge is in 2 weeks, maybe it would be better to wait until this date to proceed, no?