Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Modified k1 value and some of the doc #574

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 11, 2021
Merged

Modified k1 value and some of the doc #574

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 11, 2021

Conversation

JFLemieux73
Copy link
Contributor

For detailed information about submitting Pull Requests (PRs) to the CICE-Consortium,
please refer to: https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/About-Us/wiki/Resource-Index#information-for-developers

PR checklist

  • Short (1 sentence) summary of your PR:
    Based on our results, k1=7.5 is a better value than 8.0. I also made very small modifications to the doc.
  • Developer(s):
    @JFLemieux73
  • Suggest PR reviewers from list in the column to the right.
    @apcraig
  • Please copy the PR test results link or provide a summary of testing completed below.
    I did not ran the test suite...not needed here.
  • How much do the PR code changes differ from the unmodified code?
    • bit for bit
    • different at roundoff level
    • more substantial
  • Does this PR create or have dependencies on Icepack or any other models?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Does this PR add any new test cases?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Is the documentation being updated? ("Documentation" includes information on the wiki or in the .rst files from doc/source/, which are used to create the online technical docs at https://readthedocs.org/projects/cice-consortium-cice/. A test build of the technical docs will be performed as part of the PR testing.)
    • Yes
    • No, does the documentation need to be updated at a later time?
      • Yes
      • No
  • Please provide any additional information or relevant details below:

eclare108213
eclare108213 reviewed Mar 9, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@eclare108213 eclare108213 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks fine to me, but it will change the answers when this method is turned on. Do we not have any tests in the test suite that include k1?

@apcraig
Copy link
Contributor

apcraig commented Mar 9, 2021

We have short (5-10 day) tests that turn on the landfast ice but I believe no ice is grounded (do I have the terms right?). So changing k1 could change this, but I suspect it won't. Once the new time manager is merged and we have initial conditions for other months based on JRA55 with landfast ice on in the spinup, the idea is to create landfast tests starting in April hoping that ice will be grounded there. See #573.

phil-blain
phil-blain reviewed Mar 11, 2021
View reviewed changes
doc/source/science_guide/sg_dynamics.rst Outdated
stress) parameterization of :cite:`Lemieux16` is chosen if ``seabed_stress_method``
= ``LKD`` while the new probabilistic approach is used if ``seabed_stress_method``
= ``probabilistic``.
stress) parameterization of :cite:`Lemieux16` is chosen if ``seabed_stress_method`` = ``LKD`` while the approach based on the probability of contact between the ice and he seabed is used if ``seabed_stress_method`` = ``probabilistic``.

This comment was marked as duplicate.

Sign in to view

doc/source/science_guide/sg_dynamics.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@JFLemieux73 @phil-blain
Update doc/source/science_guide/sg_dynamics.rst
d5c6227 
Co-authored-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
@eclare108213 eclare108213 merged commit 5a0a559 into CICE-Consortium:master Mar 11, 2021
@phil-blain phil-blain mentioned this pull request Apr 1, 2021
Closed
@JFLemieux73 JFLemieux73 deleted the UPDATE_DOC branch September 27, 2021 14:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@phil-blain phil-blain phil-blain left review comments

@eclare108213 eclare108213 eclare108213 approved these changes

@apcraig apcraig apcraig approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@JFLemieux73 @apcraig @eclare108213 @phil-blain