/[MITgcm]/MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice_split_version/ceaice_part2/ceaice_concl.tex
ViewVC logotype

Annotation of /MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice_split_version/ceaice_part2/ceaice_concl.tex

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log | View Revision Graph Revision Graph


Revision 1.1 - (hide annotations) (download) (as text)
Mon Sep 8 14:55:13 2008 UTC (16 years, 11 months ago) by heimbach
Branch: MAIN
File MIME type: application/x-tex
Forgot to commit this part.

1 heimbach 1.1 \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:

  ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.22