-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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.
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
COSIMA workshop 2023 poster #23
Comments
Hi Wilma, Then later on, I would want to emphasise (bold text?) that adding the CM2 wind field has surprisingly enhanced and densified the DSW, which suggests that if we could replicate this ocean-sea ice configuration into a coupled model, it may be able to generate DSW in fully coupled mode (first time ever)... but we need to test it. Perhaps I'm over-selling it? That to me seems like an exciting result to highlight some more. |
Thanks Wilma :) Looks good enough to me. Looking forward to chatting with you all about it next week :) |
Awesome Wilma, Looks good to me :) |
Thanks for putting this together Wilma! My suggestions:
- Don’t use the DSW acronym in the title. I would estimate 50% of COSIMA
won’t know what that means. “Antarctic dense water” instead? The acronym
also needs defining in the purple box.
- if it was me I would put Wilton’s name first, with presenter name after
in bold, to give him a bit more credit for all the effort he’s put into
getting these runs going. But then again, we did say at the start that we
would leave author order open and see who does the most. And it is nice in
a collaborative project for us all to be able to feel ownership of the
project. So happy either way!
- Under “modelling challenges”, I suggest “other GLOBAL eddying models fail
to reproduce…” because other regional models do get it (eg Mensah et al.
2021).
- under “sensitivity experiments “, “increase surface grid to 5m” is not
what we did right? Wilton is running that simulation now, but I think the
simulation you’re plotting has coarsened resolution over the top 500m. Does
that run still have 75 levels? I can’t remember.
- do the SWMT and export plots show the same information? If yes, then
maybe cut the SWMT plots to simplify it. You could also then zoom in the
axes a bit on the export plots so it’s easier to see the changes. As it is,
it’s hard to tell that the different simulations are very different. Could
show something different instead, like changes in bottom age? That would
show which regions are getting more / less DSW export.
- I like the link to the GitHub repo!
…On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 5:27 PM, Wilton Aguiar ***@***.***> wrote:
Awesome Wilma, Looks good to me :)
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#23 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACA44U7J5ZWWNSHMGW2HJXLXXWKXDANCNFSM6AAAAAA4CMB6RY>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Thanks to all for the feedback, I'll make some adjustments! |
ok, answering Adele, the run with coarsened vertical resolution at the top 500m has 60 levels, and the new run with changes only in the top 5 m has 72 levels. |
Quick summary from the poster session:
|
Thanks Wilma! I just need to correct something I said before. Upon closer look, it seems that the simulation with just the top cell change (5mtop) do have the same SWMT pattern and transport across the 1000m isobath ( I had some errors in the post before - sorry). But at least this points out that the topmost 5m cell is what actually matters. I also finished running a simulation with stronger restoring parameters (max_delta_salinity_restore = 5), and we still have very similar SWMT and volume transports as the ctrl case, so Salinity restoring seem to not be doing much here. |
When you say "the simulation with just the top cell change (5mtop) do have the same SWMT pattern and transport across the 1000m isobath", you mean compared to control or the previous coarsened grid experiment? If it's the upper grid cell, that would be neat (at least one experiment that fits our hypothesis). Nice result that surface salinity restoring does not seem to have an impact. Freshwater fluxes controlled by sea ice might still be important though? |
Yes - the 5mtop has the same result as the coarsened vertical resolution case ( same reduction on both SWMT and cross-slope mass transport). |
Excellent, that's a nice result then! I wonder if we should test this
further?
e.g. run a case with a thinner upper layer, perhaps halving the upper layer
compared to the control.
Could we also test that the dependence on thickness of the upper cell comes
down to the sea ice water/salt fluxes being extracted from the upper cell?
e.g. if we could reduce the upper layer thickness to 0.5m, but still
extract/insert water fluxes from the top 2 layers (1m). This could be
technically challenging though.
…On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 12:48, Wilton Aguiar ***@***.***> wrote:
Yes - the 5mtop has the same result as the coarsened vertical resolution
case ( same reduction on both SWMT and cross-slope mass transport).
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#23 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACA44U2XVVDSR62NI3OW6NTXZZ3WNANCNFSM6AAAAAA4CMB6RY>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Hi team, I've put together a poster for the upcoming COSIMA workshop. let me know if you want me to make any changes!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: