Date post: | 21-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | quentin-lane |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Model Formulation, Numerics and Approximations
Vertical coordinates for climate?• What are the remaining liabilities or challenges
with z, z*, p, p*, isopycnal, and various approaches to hybrids between coordinates?
• Will sigma ever be viable for long-term global ocean climate modeling?
• Are there "coordinate free" approaches that seem viable, and if so how is the vertical resolution distributed?
• Do ice-shelves or changing coastlines introduce significant new considerations?
Strengths and Weaknesses of Terrain-following Coordinate ModelsStrengths:• Topography is represented very simply and accurately• Easy to enhance resolution near surface.• Lots of experience with atmospheric modeling to draw upon.
Traditional Weaknesses:• Pressure gradient errors are a persistent problem.
Errors are reduced with better numerics (e.g., Shchepetkin & McWilliams, 2003)• Gentle slopes (smoothed topography) must be used for consistency
Traditional requirement for stability (Beckman & Haidvogel, 1993):
ROMS requirement (Shchepetkin, pers. comm):
• Spurious diapycnal mixing due to advection may be very large. (Same issue as Z-coord.)
• Diffusion tensors may be especially difficult to rotate into the neutral direction. Strongly slopes require larger vertical stencil for the isoneutral-diffusion operator.
Myth: Near bottom resolution can be arbitrarily enhanced. Hydrostatic consistency imposes horizontal resolution-dependent constraints on
near-bottom vertical resolution, with serious implications for the ability to represent overflows
2.02
DD
DD
D
D
SSZ pp 11
83~ toz
x
dx
dz
s
Dzx /5Maximum Hydrostatically Consistent Horizontal Resolution
Horizontal Resolution (in km) Required to Permit 50m Vertical Resolution at Bottom
Dzx /5Maximum Hydrostatically Consistent Horizontal Resolution
Horizontal Resolution (in km) Required to Permit 50m Vertical Resolution at Bottom
Dzx /5Maximum Hydrostatically Consistent Horizontal Resolution
Horizontal Resolution (in km) Required to Permit 50m Vertical Resolution at Bottom
Common ApproximationsApproximation How large are errors? Consequences
Boussinesq (-0)/0~0.01 Volume conserved, not mass
Virtual salt flux (35psu-S) / S – very large? Big errors where fresh!
Rigid Lid ~1m / DOce Infinite external wave speed
Thin shell DOce / REarth ~ 0.001
Spherical Earth 10km/6370km ~ 0.0015
Constant gravitational acceleration (g)
2DOce / REarth ~ 0.0015.0025/9.8 ~ 0.00025
Hydrostatic As2*Ro, As*Ro Filter sound waves; No explicit convection
Traditional As*Ro Goes with hydrostatic
Potential temperature as Conservative temperature
(Ask Trevor McDougall)Differ by ~2 C at 0 PSU
Heat capacity varies, but agrees with old conventions
PSU as absolute salinity (35.16505/35-1) ~ 0.0047
Flow-invariant geoid 10% at amphidromic scales
Unstructured ocean grids?• Will any be IPCC-ready by AR6?
• What are the big issues?– Cost?– Conservation?– Adiabaticity?– Experience?
Pressure gradient errors?• Are there still outstanding issues with pressure
gradient force calculations with generalized (i.e. non-P, non-Z, non-in-situ-density) coordinates?
• How serious is this issue?
Numerics for Momentum Eqns• Numerical closures for the momentum
equations:– Is there anything new?– Is anything new needed?
Tracer advection• What is the state of the art?
• What is good enough at which resolutions and for which vertical coordinates?
• How serious is the problem in climate models with spurious diapycnal mixing arising from tracer advection at various resolutions?
Scaling to 1000s of PEs• Scaling to 20 pts/PE
– At 1° scales to (360/20)x(200/20) ~ 180 PEs– At 1/4° Mercator scales to ~ 3,600 PEs?– At 0.1 ° Mercator scales to ~ 25,000 Pes
• Scaling to 10 pts/PE– At 1° scales to (360/10)x(200/10) ~ 720 PEs– At 1/4° Mercator scales to ~ 14,400 PEs?– At 0.1 ° Mercator scales to ~ 100,000 Pes?
Plug & Play Software?• Is this desirable?
• What are we willing to give up for this?
• Who will pay for it?