--- manual/s_phys_pkgs/text/gmredi.tex 2004/01/28 17:13:33 1.6 +++ manual/s_phys_pkgs/text/gmredi.tex 2011/06/27 02:08:35 1.16 @@ -1,13 +1,17 @@ -\section{Gent/McWiliams/Redi SGS Eddy parameterization} +\subsection{GMREDI: Gent-McWilliams/Redi SGS Eddy Parameterization} +\label{sec:pkg:gmredi} +\begin{rawhtml} + +\end{rawhtml} There are two parts to the Redi/GM parameterization of geostrophic -eddies. The first aims to mix tracer properties along isentropes +eddies. The first, the Redi scheme \citep{re82}, aims to mix tracer properties along isentropes (neutral surfaces) by means of a diffusion operator oriented along the -local isentropic surface (Redi). The second part, adiabatically +local isentropic surface. The second part, GM \citep{gen-mcw:90,gen-eta:95}, adiabatically re-arranges tracers through an advective flux where the advecting flow -is a function of slope of the isentropic surfaces (GM). +is a function of slope of the isentropic surfaces. -The first GCM implementation of the Redi scheme was by Cox 1987 in the +The first GCM implementation of the Redi scheme was by \cite{Cox87} in the GFDL ocean circulation model. The original approach failed to distinguish between isopycnals and surfaces of locally referenced potential density (now called neutral surfaces) which are proper @@ -22,7 +26,7 @@ to the boundary condition of zero value on upper and lower boundaries. The horizontal bolus velocities are then the vertical derivative of these functions. Here in lies a problem highlighted by -Griffies et al., 1997: the bolus velocities involve multiple +\cite{gretal:98}: the bolus velocities involve multiple derivatives on the potential density field, which can consequently give rise to noise. Griffies et al. point out that the GM bolus fluxes can be identically written as a skew flux which involves fewer @@ -31,7 +35,7 @@ that the horizontal fluxes are unmodified from the lateral diffusion parameterization. -\subsection{Redi scheme: Isopycnal diffusion} +\subsubsection{Redi scheme: Isopycnal diffusion} The Redi scheme diffuses tracers along isopycnals and introduces a term in the tendency (rhs) of such a tracer (here $\tau$) of the form: @@ -71,44 +75,82 @@ \end{equation} -\subsection{GM parameterization} +\subsubsection{GM parameterization} -The GM parameterization aims to parameterise the ``advective'' or +The GM parameterization aims to represent the ``advective'' or ``transport'' effect of geostrophic eddies by means of a ``bolus'' -velocity, $\bf{u}^*$. The divergence of this advective flux is added +velocity, $\bf{u}^\star$. The divergence of this advective flux is added to the tracer tendency equation (on the rhs): \begin{equation} -- \bf{\nabla} \cdot \tau \bf{u}^* +- \bf{\nabla} \cdot \tau \bf{u}^\star \end{equation} -The bolus velocity is defined as: -\begin{eqnarray} -u^* & = & - \partial_z F_x \\ -v^* & = & - \partial_z F_y \\ -w^* & = & \partial_x F_x + \partial_y F_y -\end{eqnarray} -where $F_x$ and $F_y$ are stream-functions with boundary conditions -$F_x=F_y=0$ on upper and lower boundaries. The virtue of casting the -bolus velocity in terms of these stream-functions is that they are -automatically non-divergent ($\partial_x u^* + \partial_y v^* = - -\partial_{xz} F_x - \partial_{yz} F_y = - \partial_z w^*$). $F_x$ and -$F_y$ are specified in terms of the isoneutral slopes $S_x$ and $S_y$: +The bolus velocity $\bf{u}^\star$ is defined as the rotational of a +streamfunction $\bf{F}^\star$=$(F_x^\star,F_y^\star,0)$: +\begin{equation} +\bf{u}^\star = \nabla \times \bf{F}^\star = +\left( \begin{array}{c} +- \partial_z F_y^\star \\ ++ \partial_z F_x^\star \\ +\partial_x F_y^\star - \partial_y F_x^\star +\end{array} \right), +\end{equation} +and thus is automatically non-divergent. In the GM parameterization, the streamfunction is +specified in terms of the isoneutral slopes $S_x$ and $S_y$: \begin{eqnarray} -F_x & = & \kappa_{GM} S_x \\ -F_y & = & \kappa_{GM} S_y +F_x^\star & = & -\kappa_{GM} S_y \\ +F_y^\star & = & \kappa_{GM} S_x \end{eqnarray} +with boundary conditions $F_x^\star=F_y^\star=0$ on upper and lower boundaries. +In the end, the bolus transport in the GM parameterization is given by: +\begin{equation} +\bf{u}^\star = \left( +\begin{array}{c} +u^\star \\ +v^\star \\ +w^\star +\end{array} +\right) = \left( +\begin{array}{c} +- \partial_z (\kappa_{GM} S_x) \\ +- \partial_z (\kappa_{GM} S_y) \\ +\partial_x (\kappa_{GM} S_x) + \partial_y (\kappa_{GM} S_y) +\end{array} +\right) +\end{equation} + This is the form of the GM parameterization as applied by Donabasaglu, 1997, in MOM versions 1 and 2. -\subsection{Griffies Skew Flux} +Note that in the MITgcm, the variables containing the GM bolus streamfunction are: +\begin{equation} +\left( +\begin{array}{c} +GM\_PsiX \\ +GM\_PsiY +\end{array} +\right) = \left( +\begin{array}{c} +\kappa_{GM} S_x \\ +\kappa_{GM} S_y +\end{array} +\right)= \left( +\begin{array}{c} +F_y^\star \\ +-F_x^\star +\end{array} +\right). +\end{equation} + +\subsubsection{Griffies Skew Flux} -Griffies notes that the discretisation of bolus velocities involves +\cite{gr:98} notes that the discretisation of bolus velocities involves multiple layers of differencing and interpolation that potentially lead to noisy fields and computational modes. He pointed out that the bolus flux can be re-written in terms of a non-divergent flux and a skew-flux: \begin{eqnarray*} -\bf{u}^* \tau +\bf{u}^\star \tau & = & \left( \begin{array}{c} - \partial_z ( \kappa_{GM} S_x ) \tau \\ @@ -120,18 +162,18 @@ \left( \begin{array}{c} - \partial_z ( \kappa_{GM} S_x \tau) \\ - \partial_z ( \kappa_{GM} S_y \tau) \\ -\partial_x ( \kappa_{GM} S_x \tau) + \partial_y ( \kappa_{GM} S_y) \tau) +\partial_x ( \kappa_{GM} S_x \tau) + \partial_y ( \kappa_{GM} S_y \tau) \end{array} \right) + \left( \begin{array}{c} \kappa_{GM} S_x \partial_z \tau \\ \kappa_{GM} S_y \partial_z \tau \\ -- \kappa_{GM} S_x \partial_x \tau - \kappa_{GM} S_y) \partial_y \tau +- \kappa_{GM} S_x \partial_x \tau - \kappa_{GM} S_y \partial_y \tau \end{array} \right) \end{eqnarray*} The first vector is non-divergent and thus has no effect on the tracer field and can be dropped. The remaining flux can be written: \begin{equation} -\bf{u}^* \tau = - \kappa_{GM} \bf{K}_{GM} \bf{\nabla} \tau +\bf{u}^\star \tau = - \kappa_{GM} \bf{K}_{GM} \bf{\nabla} \tau \end{equation} where \begin{equation} @@ -153,7 +195,7 @@ with the Redi isoneutral mixing scheme: \begin{equation} \kappa_\rho \bf{K}_{Redi} \bf{\nabla} \tau -- u^* \tau = +- u^\star \tau = ( \kappa_\rho \bf{K}_{Redi} + \kappa_{GM} \bf{K}_{GM} ) \bf{\nabla} \tau \end{equation} In the instance that $\kappa_{GM} = \kappa_{\rho}$ then @@ -187,9 +229,9 @@ -\subsection{Variable $\kappa_{GM}$} +\subsubsection{Variable $\kappa_{GM}$} -Visbeck et al., 1996, suggest making the eddy coefficient, +\cite{visbeck:97} suggest making the eddy coefficient, $\kappa_{GM}$, a function of the Eady growth rate, $|f|/\sqrt{Ri}$. The formula involves a non-dimensional constant, $\alpha$, and a length-scale $L$: @@ -213,12 +255,12 @@ \end{displaymath} -\subsection{Tapering and stability} +\subsubsection{Tapering and stability} Experience with the GFDL model showed that the GM scheme has to be matched to the convective parameterization. This was originally expressed in connection with the introduction of the KPP boundary -layer scheme (Large et al., 97) but in fact, as subsequent experience +layer scheme \citep{lar-eta:94} but in fact, as subsequent experience with the MIT model has found, is necessary for any convective parameterization. @@ -238,15 +280,15 @@ \begin{figure} \begin{center} -\resizebox{5.0in}{3.0in}{\includegraphics{part6/tapers.eps}} +\resizebox{5.0in}{3.0in}{\includegraphics{s_phys_pkgs/figs/tapers.eps}} \end{center} -\caption{Taper functions used in GKW99 and DM95.} +\caption{Taper functions used in GKW91 and DM95.} \label{fig:tapers} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \begin{center} -\resizebox{5.0in}{3.0in}{\includegraphics{part6/effective_slopes.eps}} +\resizebox{5.0in}{3.0in}{\includegraphics{s_phys_pkgs/figs/effective_slopes.eps}} \end{center} \caption{Effective slope as a function of ``true'' slope using Cox slope clipping, GKW91 limiting and DM95 limiting.} @@ -254,7 +296,7 @@ \end{figure} -\subsubsection{Slope clipping} +\subsubsection*{Slope clipping} Deep convection sites and the mixed layer are indicated by homogenized, unstable or nearly unstable stratification. The slopes in @@ -262,7 +304,7 @@ or simply very large. From a numerical point of view, large slopes lead to large variations in the tensor elements (implying large bolus flow) and can be numerically unstable. This was first recognized by -Cox, 1987, who implemented ``slope clipping'' in the isopycnal mixing +\cite{Cox87} who implemented ``slope clipping'' in the isopycnal mixing tensor. Here, the slope magnitude is simply restricted by an upper limit: \begin{eqnarray} @@ -301,9 +343,9 @@ of the GM/Redi parameterization, re-introducing diabatic fluxes in regions where the limiting is in effect. -\subsubsection{Tapering: Gerdes, Koberle and Willebrand, Clim. Dyn. 1991} +\subsubsection*{Tapering: Gerdes, Koberle and Willebrand, Clim. Dyn. 1991} -The tapering scheme used in Gerdes et al., 1999, (\cite{gkw:99}) +The tapering scheme used in \cite{gkw:91} addressed two issues with the clipping method: the introduction of large vertical fluxes in addition to convective adjustment fluxes is avoided by tapering the GM/Redi slopes back to zero in @@ -322,13 +364,12 @@ that the effective vertical diffusivity term $\kappa f_1(S) |S|^2 = \kappa S_{max}^2$. -The GKW tapering scheme is activated in the model by setting {\bf +The GKW91 tapering scheme is activated in the model by setting {\bf GM\_tap\-er\_scheme = 'gkw91'} in {\em data.gmredi}. -\subsection{Tapering: Danabasoglu and McWilliams, J. Clim. 1995} +\subsubsection*{Tapering: Danabasoglu and McWilliams, J. Clim. 1995} -The tapering scheme used by Danabasoglu and McWilliams, 1995, -\cite{dm:95}, followed a similar procedure but used a different +The tapering scheme used by \cite{dm:95} followed a similar procedure but used a different tapering function, $f_1(S)$: \begin{equation} f_1(S) = \frac{1}{2} \left( 1+\tanh \left[ \frac{S_c - |S|}{S_d} \right] \right) @@ -339,23 +380,23 @@ cut-off, turning off the GM/Redi SGS parameterization for weaker slopes. -The DM tapering scheme is activated in the model by setting {\bf +The DM95 tapering scheme is activated in the model by setting {\bf GM\_tap\-er\_scheme = 'dm95'} in {\em data.gmredi}. -\subsection{Tapering: Large, Danabasoglu and Doney, JPO 1997} +\subsubsection*{Tapering: Large, Danabasoglu and Doney, JPO 1997} -The tapering used in Large et al., 1997, \cite{ldd:97}, is based on the +The tapering used in \cite{ldd:97} is based on the DM95 tapering scheme, but also tapers the scheme with an additional function of height, $f_2(z)$, so that the GM/Redi SGS fluxes are reduced near the surface: \begin{equation} -f_2(S) = \frac{1}{2} \left( 1 + \sin(\pi \frac{z}{D} - \pi/2)\right) +f_2(z) = \frac{1}{2} \left( 1 + \sin(\pi \frac{z}{D} - \frac{\pi}{2})\right) \end{equation} where $D = L_\rho |S|$ is a depth-scale and $L_\rho=c/f$ with $c=2$~m~s$^{-1}$. This tapering with height was introduced to fix some spurious interaction with the mixed-layer KPP parameterization. -The LDD tapering scheme is activated in the model by setting {\bf +The LDD97 tapering scheme is activated in the model by setting {\bf GM\_tap\-er\_scheme = 'ldd97'} in {\em data.gmredi}. @@ -372,7 +413,39 @@ \label{fig-mixedlayer} \end{figure} -\subsection{Package Reference} +\subsubsection{Package Reference} +\label{sec:pkg:gmredi:diagnostics} + +{\footnotesize +\begin{verbatim} +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +<-Name->|Levs|<-parsing code->|<-- Units -->|<- Tile (max=80c) +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +GM_VisbK| 1 |SM P M1 |m^2/s |Mixing coefficient from Visbeck etal parameterization +GM_Kux | 15 |UU P 177MR |m^2/s |K_11 element (U.point, X.dir) of GM-Redi tensor +GM_Kvy | 15 |VV P 176MR |m^2/s |K_22 element (V.point, Y.dir) of GM-Redi tensor +GM_Kuz | 15 |UU 179MR |m^2/s |K_13 element (U.point, Z.dir) of GM-Redi tensor +GM_Kvz | 15 |VV 178MR |m^2/s |K_23 element (V.point, Z.dir) of GM-Redi tensor +GM_Kwx | 15 |UM 181LR |m^2/s |K_31 element (W.point, X.dir) of GM-Redi tensor +GM_Kwy | 15 |VM 180LR |m^2/s |K_32 element (W.point, Y.dir) of GM-Redi tensor +GM_Kwz | 15 |WM P LR |m^2/s |K_33 element (W.point, Z.dir) of GM-Redi tensor +GM_PsiX | 15 |UU 184LR |m^2/s |GM Bolus transport stream-function : X component +GM_PsiY | 15 |VV 183LR |m^2/s |GM Bolus transport stream-function : Y component +GM_KuzTz| 15 |UU 186MR |degC.m^3/s |Redi Off-diagonal Tempetature flux: X component +GM_KvzTz| 15 |VV 185MR |degC.m^3/s |Redi Off-diagonal Tempetature flux: Y component +\end{verbatim} +} + +\subsubsection{Experiments and tutorials that use gmredi} +\label{sec:pkg:gmredi:experiments} + +\begin{itemize} +\item{Global Ocean tutorial, in tutorial\_global\_oce\_latlon verification directory, +described in section \ref{sec:eg-global} } +\item{ Front Relax experiment, in front\_relax verification directory.} +\item{ Ideal 2D Ocean experiment, in ideal\_2D\_oce verification directory.} +\end{itemize} + % DO NOT EDIT HERE