| 1 |
\section{Discussion and conclusion} |
| 2 |
\label{sec:concl} |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
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: |