Open claireyung opened 11 months ago
Thanks for this Claire, I think we should use viscosity values that are used in normal realistic runs, since the final end is to have acceptable spurious currents in realistic contexts. I do agree that we should keep investigating ways to reduce the spurious currents. One possibility is to mask the pressure gradient in those layers in the proximity to vanishing layers. I discussed this with Bob, he thinks that this may not be necessary, but still possible
The seamount plots have relatively big velocities. Velocities for the seamount topo are 10^(-4)m/s and bigger than the ice shelf, as shown in Pedro's plot:
Why is this? How can we reduce them?
Some examples of achieving lower velocities and thoughts:
The MOM6 seamount tests (2D, with a high viscosity of
KH=1000
and comparatively low resolution) have velocities 10^(-12)m/s.The ISOMIP+ topography in zstar coordinates can reach down to 10^(-11)m/s as discussed in this forum post .
Problem parameters I found that cause the no-ice-shelf-but-3D-topo-zstar to have growing velocities were (also in above post):
comparing with the current MOM_input, we have
KH = 1000
,MASS_WEIGHT_IN_PRESSURE_GRADIENT = True
,DRAG_BG_VEL = 0.05
,MIN_THICKNESS = 1.0E-03
. Perhaps the mass_weight_in_pressure_gradient parameter??