--- manual/s_algorithm/text/tracer.tex	2001/10/25 18:36:53	1.8
+++ manual/s_algorithm/text/tracer.tex	2004/03/23 15:29:40	1.14
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
-% $Header: /home/ubuntu/mnt/e9_copy/manual/s_algorithm/text/tracer.tex,v 1.8 2001/10/25 18:36:53 cnh Exp $
+% $Header: /home/ubuntu/mnt/e9_copy/manual/s_algorithm/text/tracer.tex,v 1.14 2004/03/23 15:29:40 afe Exp $
 % $Name:  $
 
 \section{Tracer equations}
-\label{sec:tracer_equations}
+\label{sect:tracer_equations}
 
 The basic discretization used for the tracer equations is the second
 order piece-wise constant finite volume form of the forced
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
 described here.
 
 \subsection{Time-stepping of tracers: ABII}
-\label{sec:tracer_equations_abII}
+\label{sect:tracer_equations_abII}
 
 The default advection scheme is the centered second order method which
 requires a second order or quasi-second order time-stepping scheme to
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
 everywhere else. This term is therefore referred to as the surface
 correction term. Global conservation is not possible using the
 flux-form (as here) and a linearized free-surface
-(\cite{Griffies00,Campin02}).
+(\cite{griffies:00,campin:02}).
 
 The continuity equation can be recovered by setting
 $G_{diff}=G_{forc}=0$ and $\tau=1$.
@@ -123,6 +123,10 @@
 
 
 \section{Linear advection schemes}
+\label{sect:tracer-advection}
+\begin{rawhtml}
+<!-- CMIREDIR:linear_advection_schemes -->
+\end{rawhtml}
 
 \begin{figure}
 \resizebox{5.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{part2/advect-1d-lo.eps}}
@@ -200,7 +204,7 @@
 
 For non-divergent flow, this discretization can be shown to conserve
 the tracer both locally and globally and to globally conserve tracer
-variance, $\tau^2$. The proof is given in \cite{Adcroft95,Adcroft97}.
+variance, $\tau^2$. The proof is given in \cite{adcroft:95,adcroft:97}.
 
 \fbox{ \begin{minipage}{4.75in}
 {\em S/R GAD\_C2\_ADV\_X} ({\em gad\_c2\_adv\_x.F})
@@ -387,7 +391,7 @@
 r = \frac{ \tau_{i+1} - \tau_{i} }{ \tau_{i} - \tau_{i-1} } & \forall & u < 0
 \end{eqnarray}
 as it's argument. There are many choices of limiter function but we
-only provide the Superbee limiter \cite{Roe85}:
+only provide the Superbee limiter \cite{roe:85}:
 \begin{equation}
 \psi(r) = \max[0,\min[1,2r],\min[2,r]]
 \end{equation}
@@ -449,7 +453,7 @@
 
 The DST3 method described above must be used in a forward-in-time
 manner and is stable for $0 \le |c| \le 1$. Although the scheme
-appears to be forward-in-time, it is in fact second order in time and
+appears to be forward-in-time, it is in fact third order in time and
 the accuracy increases with the Courant number! For low Courant
 number, DST3 produces very similar results (indistinguishable in
 Fig.~\ref{fig:advect-1d-lo}) to the linear third order method but for
@@ -675,7 +679,7 @@
 phenomenon.
 
 Finally, the bottom left and right panels use the same advection
-scheme but the right does not use the mutli-dimensional method. At low
+scheme but the right does not use the multi-dimensional method. At low
 Courant number this appears to not matter but for moderate Courant
 number severe distortion of the feature is apparent. Moreover, the
 stability of the multi-dimensional scheme is determined by the maximum
@@ -704,6 +708,6 @@
 non-linear schemes have the most stability (up to Courant number 1).
 \item If you need to know how much diffusion/dissipation has occurred you
 will have a lot of trouble figuring it out with a non-linear method.
-\item The presence of false extrema is unphysical and this alone is the
+\item The presence of false extrema is non-physical and this alone is the
 strongest argument for using a positive scheme.
 \end{itemize}