You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I believe that the contribution of visc%Kv_slow is being double counted at open boundaries by the code starting at about line 1196 of MOM_vert_friction.F90, and that visc%Kv_shear is being double counted in its contribution to a_cpl when visc%Kv_slow is associated. Simply setting Kv_add in this block of code instead of incrementing it should correct the problem, but doing so could change answers.
I do not believe that this code is in use by anyone at GFDL, but someone at NCAR, like @gustavo-marques, should perhaps look into what this might be doing in solutions that do use visc%Kv_slow.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@Hallberg-NOAA, thanks for reporting this. You are correct, visc%Kv_slow is double-counted at open boundaries.
We set ADD_KV_SLOW=False since a fatal error that avoids the double-counting is issued when this option is used in conjunction with use_KPP = True. ADD_KV_SLOW was meant to be a temporary workaround to allow diffusivities due to slowly varying processes to be passed to the solver. Later in the development process, visc%Kv_slow was added into visc/%Kv_shear so that KPP could match the interior/surface diffusivities.
I believe we should remove this entire block of code (and corresponding code related to ADD_KV_SLOW). If we decide to go this way, I can make these changes on dev/ncar, make sure answers do not change and then obsolete ADD_KV_SLOW. We would still want visc%Kv_slow for diagnostics purposes.
I believe that the contribution of visc%Kv_slow is being double counted at open boundaries by the code starting at about line 1196 of MOM_vert_friction.F90, and that visc%Kv_shear is being double counted in its contribution to a_cpl when visc%Kv_slow is associated. Simply setting Kv_add in this block of code instead of incrementing it should correct the problem, but doing so could change answers.
I do not believe that this code is in use by anyone at GFDL, but someone at NCAR, like @gustavo-marques, should perhaps look into what this might be doing in solutions that do use visc%Kv_slow.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: