| 1 | 
dimitri | 
1.1 | 
\section{Discussion and conclusion} | 
| 2 | 
  | 
  | 
\label{sec:concl} | 
| 3 | 
  | 
  | 
 | 
| 4 | 
mlosch | 
1.2 | 
Recommendations | 
| 5 | 
  | 
  | 
\begin{itemize} | 
| 6 | 
  | 
  | 
\item use the LSOR or another implicit solver, because EVP tends to | 
| 7 | 
  | 
  | 
  have too weak ice, and is much slower for the recommended time step | 
| 8 | 
  | 
  | 
  choices ($\frac{1}{120}$ of the model time step). Linearization does | 
| 9 | 
  | 
  | 
  not appear to be an issue for the short time steps used in this | 
| 10 | 
  | 
  | 
  study ($\Delta{t} = 20\text{\,min}$), and the LSOR-solver converges | 
| 11 | 
  | 
  | 
  quickly (only a few iterations) at each time step, because the | 
| 12 | 
  | 
  | 
  forcing changes only slowly within 20\,min. | 
| 13 | 
  | 
  | 
\item thermodynamics appears to thave the second largest effect (after | 
| 14 | 
  | 
  | 
  EVP vs.\ LSOR) | 
| 15 | 
  | 
  | 
\item use a flux limited scheme without explicit diffusion for | 
| 16 | 
  | 
  | 
  advecting thermodynamic variables | 
| 17 | 
  | 
  | 
\item use no slip boundary conditions, they make more sense | 
| 18 | 
  | 
  | 
\item TEM has little effect on the solution, other rheologies that | 
| 19 | 
  | 
  | 
  differ more from the elliptic yield curve may have bigger effects | 
| 20 | 
  | 
  | 
\item the effects of \citet{hibler87}'s stress formulation on both ice | 
| 21 | 
  | 
  | 
  and ocean model need further exploration | 
| 22 | 
  | 
  | 
\end{itemize} | 
| 23 | 
  | 
  | 
 | 
| 24 | 
  | 
  | 
%%% Local Variables:  | 
| 25 | 
  | 
  | 
%%% mode: latex | 
| 26 | 
  | 
  | 
%%% TeX-master: "ceaice" | 
| 27 | 
  | 
  | 
%%% End:  |