Open aekiss opened 2 months ago
I think this is a good idea. What product would we use for the distribution pattern?
When you say heat flux, do you mean adding the latent heat like Pedro has been doing? That seems to have been quite problematic right? (even though physically it seems the right thing to do)
What about dynamic icebergs?
This issue has been mentioned on ACCESS Hive Community Forum. There might be relevant details there:
https://forum.access-hive.org.au/t/cosima-twg-meeting-minutes-2024/1734/17
ACCESS-CM2 uses a fixed iceberg melt distribution pattern scaled by the snow accumulation over the ice sheets. Description paper says "Then we distribute this climatology of NH and SH land ice amounts onto the distributional map of the iceberg climatology from the GC3.1 Lagrangian iceberg model (D. Storkey, pers. comm.)." See Fig 1 of https://www.publish.csiro.au/es/Fulltext/ES19040
The distribution pattern looks like that in Fig 7c of https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/3187/2018/, derived using the NEMO ice shelf parameterization and the interactive icebergs scheme.
Do we want to distribute the calving meltwater and heat flux according to iceberg distribution? This was done in ACCESS-CM2, but not in the ACCESS-OM2 release (although Pedro Colombo (https://github.com/pedrocol/basal_mom5-collaborative-project) and Jingwei Zhang have explored adding it).
Pedro has also investigated distributing basal and iceberg melt at depth.