/[MITgcm]/MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice/ceaice_forward.tex
ViewVC logotype

Diff of /MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice/ceaice_forward.tex

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log | View Revision Graph Revision Graph | View Patch Patch

revision 1.2 by dimitri, Wed Feb 27 21:50:42 2008 UTC revision 1.13 by mlosch, Fri Mar 14 23:05:34 2008 UTC
# Line 6  ice simulations that exercise various ca Line 6  ice simulations that exercise various ca
6  model.  The first set of results is from a global, eddy-permitting, ocean and  model.  The first set of results is from a global, eddy-permitting, ocean and
7  sea ice configuration.  The second set of results is from a regional Arctic  sea ice configuration.  The second set of results is from a regional Arctic
8  configuration, which is used to compare the B-grid and C-grid dynamic solvers  configuration, which is used to compare the B-grid and C-grid dynamic solvers
9  and various other capabilities of the MITgcm sea ice model.  The third set of  and various other capabilities of the MITgcm sea ice model.  
10    %
11    \ml{[do we really want to do this?:] The third set of
12  results is from a yet smaller regional domain, which is used to illustrate  results is from a yet smaller regional domain, which is used to illustrate
13  treatment of sea ice open boundary condition sin the MITgcm.  treatment of sea ice open boundary condition in the MITgcm.}
14    
15  \subsection{Global Ocean and Sea Ice Simulation}  \subsection{Global Ocean and Sea Ice Simulation}
16  \label{sec:global}  \label{sec:global}
# Line 36  variables. In the ocean, the non-linear Line 38  variables. In the ocean, the non-linear
38  used.  used.
39    
40  The ocean model is coupled to the sea-ice model discussed in  The ocean model is coupled to the sea-ice model discussed in
41  Section~\ref{sec:model} with the following specific options.  The  \refsec{model} using the following specific options.  The
42  zero-heat-capacity thermodynamics formulation of \citet{hib80} is used to  zero-heat-capacity thermodynamics formulation of \citet{hibler80} is
43  compute sea ice thickness and concentration.  Snow cover and sea ice salinity  used to compute sea ice thickness and concentration.  Snow cover and
44  are prognostic.    sea ice salinity are prognostic.  Open water, dry ice, wet ice, dry
45    snow, and wet snow albedo are, respectively, 0.15, 0.88, 0.79, 0.97,
46  Ice mechanics follow the viscous plastic rheology of  and 0.83. Ice mechanics follow the viscous plastic rheology of
47  \citet{hibler79} and the ice momentum equation is solved numerically using the  \citet{hibler79} and the ice momentum equation is solved numerically
48  C-grid implementation of the \citet{zha97} LSR dyanmics model discussed  using the C-grid implementation of the \citet{zhang97}'s LSOR dynamics
49  hereinabove.  model discussed hereinabove.  The ice is coupled to the ocean using
50    the rescaled vertical coordinate system, z$^\ast$, of \citet{cam08},
51  Open water, dry  that is, sea ice does not float above the ocean model but rather
52  ice, wet ice, dry snow, and wet snow albedo are, respectively, 0.15, 0.85,  deforms the ocean's model surface level.
53  0.76, 0.94, and 0.8.  
54    This particular ECCO2 simulation is initialized from temperature and salinity
55  \subsection{Arctic Domain with Open Boundaries}  fields derived from the Polar science center Hydrographic Climatology (PHC)
56  \label{sec:arctic}  3.0 \citep{ste01a}. Surface boundary conditions for the period January 1979 to
57    July 2002 are derived from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
58    Forecasts (ECMWF) 40 year re-analysis (ERA-40) \citep{upp05}.  Surface
59    boundary conditions after September 2002 are derived from the ECMWF
60    operational analysis.  There is a one month transition period, August 2002,
61    during which the ERA-40 contribution decreases linearly from 1 to 0 and the
62    ECMWF analysis contribution increases linearly from 0 to 1.  Six-hourly
63    surface winds, temperature, humidity, downward short- and long-wave
64    radiations, and precipitation are converted to heat, freshwater, and wind
65    stress fluxes using the \citet{large81,large82} bulk formulae.  Shortwave
66    radiation decays exponentially as per \citet{pau77}.  Low frequency
67    precipitation has been adjusted using the pentad (5-day) data from the Global
68    Precipitation Climatology Project \citep[GPCP][]{huf01}.  The time-mean river
69    run-off from \citet{lar01} is applied globally, except in the Arctic Ocean
70    where monthly mean river runoff based on the Arctic Runoff Data Base (ARDB)
71    and prepared by P. Winsor (personnal communication, 2007) is specificied.
72    Additionally, there is a relaxation to the monthly-mean climatological sea
73    surface salinity values from PHC 3.0, a relaxation time scale of 101 days.
74    
75    Vertical mixing follows \citet{lar94} but with meridionally and vertically
76    varying background vertical diffusivity; at the surface, vertical diffusivity
77    is $4.4\times 10^{-6}$~m$^2$~s$^{-1}$ at the Equator, $3.6\times
78    10^{-6}$~m$^2$~s$^{-1}$ north of 70$^\circ$N, and $1.9\times
79    10^{-5}$~m$^2$~s$^{-1}$ south of 30$^\circ$S and between 30$^\circ$N and
80    60$^\circ$N , with sinusoidally varying values in between these latitudes;
81    vertically, diffusivity increases to $1.1\times 10^{-4}$~m$^2$~s$^{-1}$ at a a
82    depth of 6150 m as per \citet{bry79}.  A high order monotonicity-preserving
83    advection scheme \citep{dar04} is employed and there is no explicit horizontal
84    diffusivity.  Horizontal viscosity follows \citet{lei96} but modified to sense
85    the divergent flow as per \citet{kem08}.
86    
87    \ml{[Dimitris, here you need to either provide figures, so that I can
88      write text, or you can provide both figures and text. I guess, one
89      figure, showing the northern and southern hemisphere in summer and
90      winter is fine (four panels), as we are showing so many figures in
91      the next section.]}
92    
93    
94  \subsection{Arctic Domain with Open Boundaries}  \subsection{Arctic Domain with Open Boundaries}
95  \label{sec:arctic}  \label{sec:arctic}
96    
97  A second series of forward sensitivity experiments have been carried out on an  A series of forward sensitivity experiments have been carried out on
98  Arctic Ocean domain with open boundaries.  Once again the objective is to  an Arctic Ocean domain with open boundaries.  The objective is to
99  compare the old B-grid LSR dynamic solver with the new C-grid LSR and EVP  compare the old B-grid LSR dynamic solver with the new C-grid LSR and
100  solvers.  One additional experiment is carried out to illustrate the  EVP solvers.  Additional experiments are is carried out to illustrate
101  differences between the two main options for sea ice thermodynamics in the MITgcm.  the differences between different ice advection schemes, ocean-ice
102    stress formulations and the two main options for sea ice
103  The Arctic domain of integration is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:arctic1}.  It  thermodynamics in the MITgcm.
104  is carved out from, and obtains open boundary conditions from, the  
105  global cubed-sphere configuration of the Estimating the Circulation  The Arctic domain of integration is illustrated in
106  and Climate of the Ocean, Phase II (ECCO2) project  \reffig{arctic_topog}.  It is carved out from, and obtains open
107  \citet{menemenlis05}.  The domain size is 420 by 384 grid boxes  boundary conditions from, the global cubed-sphere configuration
108  horizontally with mean horizontal grid spacing of 18 km.  described above.  The horizontal domain size is 420 by 384 grid boxes.
109    \begin{figure*}
110    \includegraphics*[width=0.44\linewidth]{\fpath/topography}
111    \includegraphics*[width=0.46\linewidth]{\fpath/archipelago}
112    \caption{Left: Bathymetry and domain boudaries of Arctic
113      Domain; the dashed line marks the boundaries of the inset on the
114      right hand side. The letters in the inset label sections in the
115      Canadian Archipelago, where ice transport is evaluated:
116      A: Nares Strait; %
117      B: \ml{Meighen Island}; %
118      C: Prince Gustaf Adolf Sea; %
119      D: \ml{Brock Island}; %
120      E: McClure Strait; %
121      F: Amundsen Gulf; %
122      G: Lancaster Sound; %
123      H: Barrow Strait \ml{W.}; %
124      I: Barrow Strait \ml{E.}; %
125      J: Barrow Strait \ml{N.}. %
126      \label{fig:arctic_topog}}
127    \end{figure*}
128    
129    The main dynamic difference from cube sphere is that it does not use
130    rescaled vertical coordinates (z$^\ast$) and the surface boundary
131    conditions for freshwater input are different, because those features
132    are not supported by the open boundary code.
133    
134    Open water, dry ice, wet ice, dry snow, and wet snow albedo are,
135    respectively, 0.15, 0.85, 0.76, 0.94, and 0.8.
136    
137    The model is integrated from January, 1992 to March \ml{[???]}, 2000,
138    with three different dynamical solvers and two different boundary
139    conditions:
140    \begin{description}
141    \item[B-LSR-ns:] the original LSOR solver of \citet{zhang97} on an
142      Arakawa B-grid, implying no-slip lateral boundary conditions
143      ($\vek{u}=0$ exactly);
144    \item[C-LSR-ns:] the LSOR solver discretized on a C-grid with no-slip lateral
145      boundary conditions (implemented via ghost-points);
146    \item[C-LSR-fs:] the LSOR solver on a C-grid with free-slip lateral boundary
147      conditions;
148    \item[C-EVP-ns:] the EVP solver of \citet{hunke01} on a C-grid with
149      no-slip lateral boundary conditions; and
150    \item[C-EVP-fs:] the EVP solver on a C-grid with free-slip lateral
151      boundary conditions.
152    \end{description}
153    Both LSOR and EVP solvers solve the same viscous-plastic rheology, so
154    that differences between runs B-LSR-ns, C-LSR-ns, and C-EVP-ns can be
155    interpreted as pure model error. Lateral boundary conditions on a
156    coarse grid (compared to the roughness of the true coast line) are
157    unclear, so that comparing the no-slip solutions to the free-slip
158    solutions gives another measure of uncertainty in sea ice modeling.
159    
160    A principle difficulty in comparing the solutions obtained with
161    different variants of the dynamics solver lies in the non-linear
162    feedback of the ice dynamics and thermodynamics. Already after a few
163    months the solutions have diverged so far from each other that
164    comparing velocities only makes sense within the first 3~months of the
165    integration while the ice distribution is still close to the initial
166    conditions. At the end of the integration, the differences between the
167    model solutions can be interpreted as cumulated model uncertainties.
168    
169    \reffig{iceveloc} shows ice velocities averaged over Janunary,
170    February, and March (JFM) of 1992 for the C-LSR-ns solution; also
171    shown are the differences between B-grid and C-grid, LSR and EVP, and
172    no-slip and free-slip solution. The velocity field of the C-LSR-ns
173    solution (\reffig{iceveloc}a) roughly resembles the drift velocities
174    of some of the AOMIP (Arctic Ocean Model Intercomparison Project)
175    models in an cyclonic circulation regime (CCR) \citep[their
176    Figure\,6]{martin07} with a Beaufort Gyre and a transpolar drift
177    shifted eastwards towards Alaska.
178    
179    The difference beween runs C-LSR-ns and B-LSR-ns (\reffig{iceveloc}b)
180    is most pronounced along the coastlines, where the discretization
181    differs most between B and C-grids: On a B-grid the tangential
182    velocity lies on the boundary (and thus zero per the no-slip boundary
183    conditions), whereas on the C-grid the its half a cell width away from
184    the boundary, thus allowing more flow. The B-LSR-ns solution has less
185    ice drift through the Fram Strait and especially the along Greenland's
186    east coast; also, the flow through Baffin Bay and Davis Strait into
187    the Labrador Sea is reduced with respect the C-LSR-ns solution.
188    \ml{[Do we expect this? Say something about that]}
189    %
190    Compared to the differences between B and C-grid solutions,the
191    C-LSR-fs ice drift field differs much less from the C-LSR-ns solution
192    (\reffig{iceveloc}c).  As expected the differences are largest along
193    coastlines: because of the free-slip boundary conditions, flow is
194    faster in the C-LSR-fs solution, for example, along the east coast
195    of Greenland, the north coast of Alaska, and the east Coast of Baffin
196    Island.
197    \begin{figure}[htbp]
198      \centering
199      \subfigure[{\footnotesize C-LSR-ns}]
200      {\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{\fpath/JFMuv_lsr_noslip}}
201      \subfigure[{\footnotesize B-LSR-ns $-$ C-LSR-ns}]
202      {\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{\fpath/JFMuv_bgrid-lsr_noslip}}\\
203      \subfigure[{\footnotesize C-LSR-fs $-$ C-LSR-ns}]
204      {\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{\fpath/JFMuv_lsr_slip-lsr_noslip}}
205      \subfigure[{\footnotesize C-EVP-ns $-$ C-LSR-ns}]
206      {\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{\fpath/JFMuv_evp_noslip-lsr_noslip}}
207      \caption{(a) Ice drift velocity of the C-LSR-ns solution averaged
208        over the first 3 months of integration [cm/s]; (b)-(d) difference
209        between B-LSR-ns, C-LSR-fs, C-EVP-ns, and C-LSR-ns solutions
210        [cm/s]; color indicates speed (or differences of speed), vectors
211        indicate direction only.}
212      \label{fig:iceveloc}
213    \end{figure}
214    
215    The C-EVP-ns solution is very different from the C-LSR-ns solution
216    (\reffig{iceveloc}d). The EVP-approximation of the VP-dynamics allows
217    for increased drift by over 2\,cm/s in the Beaufort Gyre and the
218    transarctic drift. \ml{Also the Beaufort Gyre is moved towards Alaska
219      in the C-EVP-ns solution. [Really?]} In general, drift velocities are
220    biased towards higher values in the EVP solutions as can be seen from
221    a histogram of the differences in \reffig{drifthist}.
222    \begin{figure}[htbp]
223      \centering
224      \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{\fpath/drifthist_evp_noslip-lsr_noslip}
225      \caption{Histogram of drift velocity differences for C-LSR-ns and
226        C-EVP-ns solution [cm/s].}
227      \label{fig:drifthist}
228    \end{figure}
229    
230    \reffig{icethick}a shows the effective thickness (volume per unit
231    area) of the C-LSR-ns solution, averaged over January, February, March
232    of year 2000. By this time of the integration, the differences in the
233    ice drift velocities have led to the evolution of very different ice
234    thickness distributions, which are shown in \reffig{icethick}b--d, and
235    area distributions (not shown).  \ml{Compared to other solutions, for
236      example, AOMIP the ice thickness distribution blablabal}
237    \begin{figure}[htbp]
238      \centering
239      \subfigure[{\footnotesize C-LSR-ns}]
240      {\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{\fpath/JFMheff2000_lsr_noslip}}
241      \subfigure[{\footnotesize B-LSR-ns $-$ C-LSR-ns}]
242      {\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{\fpath/JFMheff2000_bgrid-lsr_noslip}}\\
243      \subfigure[{\footnotesize C-LSR-fs $-$ C-LSR-ns}]
244      {\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{\fpath/JFMheff2000_lsr_slip-lsr_noslip}}
245      \subfigure[{\footnotesize C-EVP-ns $-$ C-LSR-ns}]
246      {\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{\fpath/JFMheff2000_evp_noslip-lsr_noslip}}
247      \caption{(a) Effective thickness (volume per unit area) of the
248        C-LSR-ns solution, averaged over the months Janurary through March
249        2000 [m]; (b)-(d) difference between B-LSR-ns, C-LSR-fs, C-EVP-ns,
250        and C-LSR-ns solutions [cm/s].}
251      \label{fig:icethick}
252    \end{figure}
253    %
254    The generally weaker ice drift velocities in the B-LSR-ns solution,
255    when compared to the C-LSR-ns solution, in particular through the
256    narrow passages in the Canadian Archipelago, lead to a larger build-up
257    of ice north of Greenland and the Archipelago by 2\,m effective
258    thickness and more in the B-grid solution (\reffig{icethick}b). But
259    the ice volume in not larger everywhere: further west, there are
260    patches of smaller ice volume in the B-grid solution, most likely
261    because the Beaufort Gyre is weaker and hence not as effective in
262    transporting ice westwards. There are also dipoles of ice volume
263    differences with more ice on the \ml{luv [what is this in English?,
264      upstream]} and less ice in the the lee of island groups, such as
265    Franz-Josef-Land and \ml{IDONTKNOW}, because ice tends to flow along
266    coasts less easily in the B-LSR-ns solution.
267    
268    Imposing a free-slip boundary condition in C-LSR-fs leads to a much
269    smaller differences to C-LSR-ns than the transition from the B-grid to
270    the C-grid (\reffig{icethick}c), but in the Canadian Archipelago it
271    still reduces the effective ice thickness by up to 2\,m where the ice
272    is thick and the straits are narrow. Dipoles of ice thickness
273    differences can also be observed around islands, because the free-slip
274    solution allows more flow around islands than the no-slip solution.
275    Everywhere else the ice volume is affected only slightly by the
276    different boundary condition.
277    %
278    The C-EVP-ns solution has generally stronger drift velocities than the
279    C-LSR-ns solution. Consequently, more ice can be moved from the eastern
280    part of the Arctic, where ice volumes are smaller, to the western
281    Arctic where ice piles up along the coast (\reffig{icethick}d). Within
282    the Canadian Archipelago, more drift leads to faster ice export and
283    reduced effective ice thickness.
284    
285    The difference in ice volume and ice drift velocities between the
286    different experiments has consequences for the ice transport out of
287    the Arctic. Although the most exported ice drifts through the Fram
288    Strait (approximately $2300\pm610\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$), a
289    considerable amount (order $160\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$) ice is
290    exported through the Canadian Archipelago \citep[and references
291    therein]{serreze06}.  \reffig{archipelago} shows a time series of
292    \ml{[maybe smooth to different time scales:] daily averaged, smoothed
293      with monthly running means,} ice transports through various straits
294    in the Canadian Archipelago and the Fram Strait for the different
295    model solutions. The export through Fram Strait is too high in all
296    model (annual averages ranges from $3324$ to
297    $3931\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$) solutions, while the export through
298    Lancaster Sound is lower (annual averages are $41$ to
299    $201\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$) than compared to observations.
300    Generally, the C-EVP solutions have highest maximum (export out of the
301    Artic) and minimum (import into the Artic) fluxes as the drift
302    velocities are largest in this solution. In the extreme, both B- and
303    C-grid LSOR solvers have practically no ice transport through the
304    Nares Strait, which is only a few grid points wide, while the C-EVP
305    solutions allow up to 500\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$ in summer.
306  \begin{figure}  \begin{figure}
307  %\centerline{{\includegraphics*[width=0.44\linewidth]{\fpath/arctic1.eps}}}  %\centerline{{\includegraphics*[width=0.6\linewidth]{\fpath/Jan1992xport}}}
308  \caption{Bathymetry of Arctic Domain.\label{fig:arctic1}}  \centerline{{\includegraphics*[width=0.6\linewidth]{\fpath/ice_export}}}
309    \caption{Transport through Canadian Archipelago for different solver
310      flavors. The letters refer to the labels of the sections in
311      \reffig{arctic_topog}; positive values are flux out of the Arctic.
312    \label{fig:archipelago}}
313  \end{figure}  \end{figure}
314    
315  There are 50 vertical levels ranging in thickness from 10 m near the surface  \ml{[Transport to narrow straits, area?, more runs, TEM, advection
316  to approximately 450 m at a maximum model depth of 6150 m. Bathymetry is from    schemes, Winton TD, discussion about differences in terms of model
317  the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) 2-minute gridded global relief    error? that's tricky as it means refering to Tremblay, thus our ice
318  data (ETOPO2) and the model employs the partial-cell formulation of    models are all erroneous!]}
319  \citet{adcroft97:_shaved_cells}, which permits accurate representation of the bathymetry. The  
320  model is integrated in a volume-conserving configuration using a finite volume  In summary, we find that different dynamical solvers can yield very
321  discretization with C-grid staggering of the prognostic variables. In the  different solutions. In contrast, the differences between free-slip
322  ocean, the non-linear equation of state of \citet{jackett95}.  The ocean model is  and no-slip solutions \emph{with the same solver} are considerably
323  coupled to a sea-ice model described hereinabove.    smaller (the difference for the EVP solver is not shown, but similar
324    to that for the LSOR solver). Albeit smaller, the differences between
325  This particular ECCO2 simulation is initialized from rest using the  free and no-slip solutions in ice drift can lead to large differences
326  January temperature and salinity distribution from the World Ocean  in ice volume over the integration time. At first, this observation
327  Atlas 2001 (WOA01) [Conkright et al., 2002] and it is integrated for  seems counterintuitive, as we expect that the solution
328  32 years prior to the 1996--2001 period discussed in the study. Surface  \emph{technique} should not affect the \emph{solution} to a higher
329  boundary conditions are from the National Centers for Environmental  degree than actually modifying the equations. A more detailed study on
330  Prediction and the National Center for Atmospheric Research  these differences is beyond the scope of this paper, but at this point
331  (NCEP/NCAR) atmospheric reanalysis [Kistler et al., 2001]. Six-hourly  we may speculate, that the large difference between B-grid, C-grid,
332  surface winds, temperature, humidity, downward short- and long-wave  LSOR, and EVP solutions stem from incomplete convergence of the
333  radiations, and precipitation are converted to heat, freshwater, and  solvers due to linearization and due to different methods of
334  wind stress fluxes using the \citet{large81, large82} bulk formulae.  linearization \citep[and Bruno Tremblay, personal
335  Shortwave radiation decays exponentially as per Paulson and Simpson  communication]{hunke01}: if the convergence of the non-linear momentum
336  [1977]. Additionally the time-mean river run-off from Large and Nurser  equations is not complete for all linearized solvers, then one can
337  [2001] is applied and there is a relaxation to the monthly-mean  imagine that each solver stops at a different point in velocity-space
338  climatological sea surface salinity values from WOA01 with a  thus leading to different solutions for the ice drift velocities. If
339  relaxation time scale of 3 months. Vertical mixing follows  this were true, this tantalizing circumstance had a dramatic impact on
340  \citet{large94} with background vertical diffusivity of  sea-ice modeling in general, and we would need to improve the solution
341  $1.5\times10^{-5}\text{\,m$^{2}$\,s$^{-1}$}$ and viscosity of  technique of dynamic sea ice model, most likely at a very high
342  $10^{-3}\text{\,m$^{2}$\,s$^{-1}$}$. A third order, direct-space-time  compuational cost (Bruno Tremblay, personal communication).
343  advection scheme with flux limiter is employed \citep{hundsdorfer94}  
344  and there is no explicit horizontal diffusivity. Horizontal viscosity  
 follows \citet{lei96} but  
 modified to sense the divergent flow as per Fox-Kemper and Menemenlis  
 [in press].  Shortwave radiation decays exponentially as per Paulson  
 and Simpson [1977].  Additionally, the time-mean runoff of Large and  
 Nurser [2001] is applied near the coastline and, where there is open  
 water, there is a relaxation to monthly-mean WOA01 sea surface  
 salinity with a time constant of 45 days.  
   
 Open water, dry  
 ice, wet ice, dry snow, and wet snow albedo are, respectively, 0.15, 0.85,  
 0.76, 0.94, and 0.8.  
345    
346  \begin{itemize}  \begin{itemize}
347  \item Configuration  \item Configuration
# Line 135  ice, wet ice, dry snow, and wet snow alb Line 361  ice, wet ice, dry snow, and wet snow alb
361  \end{itemize}  \end{itemize}
362    
363  \begin{itemize}  \begin{itemize}
364  \item B-grid LSR no-slip  \item B-grid LSR no-slip: B-LSR-ns
365  \item C-grid LSR no-slip  \item C-grid LSR no-slip: C-LSR-ns
366  \item C-grid LSR slip  \item C-grid LSR slip:    C-LSR-fs
367  \item C-grid EVP no-slip  \item C-grid EVP no-slip: C-EVP-ns
368  \item C-grid EVP slip  \item C-grid EVP slip:    C-EVP-fs
369  \item C-grid LSR + TEM (truncated ellipse method, no tensile stress, new flag)  \item C-grid LSR + TEM (truncated ellipse method, no tensile stress,
370  \item C-grid LSR no-slip + Winton    new flag): C-LSR-ns+TEM
371    \item C-grid LSR with different advection scheme: 33 vs 77, vs. default?
372    \item C-grid LSR no-slip + Winton:
373  \item  speed-performance-accuracy (small)  \item  speed-performance-accuracy (small)
374    ice transport through Canadian Archipelago differences    ice transport through Canadian Archipelago differences
375    thickness distribution differences    thickness distribution differences
# Line 157  We anticipate small differences between Line 385  We anticipate small differences between
385  \item VP vs.\ EVP: speed performance, accuracy?  \item VP vs.\ EVP: speed performance, accuracy?
386  \item ocean stress: different water mass properties beneath the ice  \item ocean stress: different water mass properties beneath the ice
387  \end{itemize}  \end{itemize}
388    
389    %\begin{figure}
390    %\centerline{{\includegraphics*[width=0.6\linewidth]{\fpath/JFM1992uvice}}}
391    %\caption{Surface sea ice velocity for different solver flavors.
392    %\label{fig:iceveloc}}
393    %\end{figure}
394    
395    %\begin{figure}
396    %\centerline{{\includegraphics*[width=0.6\linewidth]{\fpath/JFM2000heff}}}
397    %\caption{Sea ice thickness for different solver flavors.
398    %\label{fig:icethick}}
399    %\end{figure}
400    
401    %%% Local Variables:
402    %%% mode: latex
403    %%% TeX-master: "ceaice"
404    %%% End:
Legend:
Removed from v.1.2  
changed lines
  Added in v.1.13
  ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.22