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: |