--- manual/s_phys_pkgs/text/gmredi.tex	2001/09/28 14:09:56	1.2
+++ manual/s_phys_pkgs/text/gmredi.tex	2001/11/13 19:01:42	1.5
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@
 \end{array}
 \right)
 \end{equation}
-which differs from the variable laplacian diffusion tensor by only
+which differs from the variable Laplacian diffusion tensor by only
 two non-zero elements in the $z$-row.
 
 \fbox{ \begin{minipage}{4.75in}
@@ -218,7 +218,7 @@
 Experience with the GFDL model showed that the GM scheme has to be
 matched to the convective parameterization. This was originally
 expressed in connection with the introduction of the KPP boundary
-layer scheme (Large et al., 97) but infact, as subsequent experience
+layer scheme (Large et al., 97) but in fact, as subsequent experience
 with the MIT model has found, is necessary for any convective
 parameterization.
 
@@ -240,7 +240,7 @@
 \begin{center}
 \resizebox{5.0in}{3.0in}{\includegraphics{part6/tapers.eps}}
 \end{center}
-\caption{Taper functions used in GKW91 and DM95.}
+\caption{Taper functions used in GKW99 and DM95.}
 \label{fig:tapers}
 \end{figure}
 
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@
 such regions can be either infinite, very large with a sign reversal
 or simply very large. From a numerical point of view, large slopes
 lead to large variations in the tensor elements (implying large bolus
-flow) and can be numerically unstable. This was first reognized by
+flow) and can be numerically unstable. This was first recognized by
 Cox, 1987, who implemented ``slope clipping'' in the isopycnal mixing
 tensor. Here, the slope magnitude is simply restricted by an upper
 limit:
@@ -296,14 +296,14 @@
 diffusion). The classic result of dramatically reduced mixed layers is
 evident. Indeed, the deep convection sites to just one or two points
 each and are much shallower than we might prefer. This, it turns out,
-is due to the over zealous restratification due to the bolus transport
+is due to the over zealous re-stratification due to the bolus transport
 parameterization. Limiting the slopes also breaks the adiabatic nature
 of the GM/Redi parameterization, re-introducing diabatic fluxes in
 regions where the limiting is in effect.
 
 \subsubsection{Tapering: Gerdes, Koberle and Willebrand, Clim. Dyn. 1991}
 
-The tapering scheme used in Gerdes et al., 1991, (\cite{gkw91})
+The tapering scheme used in Gerdes et al., 1999, (\cite{gkw:99})
 addressed two issues with the clipping method: the introduction of
 large vertical fluxes in addition to convective adjustment fluxes is
 avoided by tapering the GM/Redi slopes back to zero in
@@ -328,7 +328,7 @@
 \subsection{Tapering: Danabasoglu and McWilliams, J. Clim. 1995}
 
 The tapering scheme used by Danabasoglu and McWilliams, 1995,
-\cite{DM95}, followed a similar procedure but used a different
+\cite{dm:95}, followed a similar procedure but used a different
 tapering function, $f_1(S)$:
 \begin{equation}
 f_1(S) = \frac{1}{2} \left( 1+\tanh \left[ \frac{S_c - |S|}{S_d} \right] \right)
@@ -344,7 +344,7 @@
 
 \subsection{Tapering: Large, Danabasoglu and Doney, JPO 1997}
 
-The tapering used in Large et al., 1997, \cite{ldd97}, is based on the
+The tapering used in Large et al., 1997, \cite{ldd:97}, is based on the
 DM95 tapering scheme, but also tapers the scheme with an additional
 function of height, $f_2(z)$, so that the GM/Redi SGS fluxes are
 reduced near the surface:
@@ -362,11 +362,14 @@
 
 
 \begin{figure}
+\begin{center}
 %\includegraphics{mixedlayer-cox.eps}
 %\includegraphics{mixedlayer-diff.eps}
+Figure missing.
+\end{center}
 \caption{Mixed layer depth using GM parameterization with a) Cox slope
 clipping and for comparison b) using horizontal constant diffusion.}
-\ref{fig-mixedlayer}
+\label{fig-mixedlayer}
 \end{figure}
 
 
