-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 525
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
Problem with ST4 SDSBCHOICE=2 #1074
Comments
Hi Benoit, If the issue is still here, I'll see with Fabrice to add a bugfix in this branch Mickael |
It did not compile (Intel).
I don't understand all the changes in this branch but it doesn't look like they would adress the first two bullets I mention in "Additional context". |
What I think is needed is changes similar to this: With this branch, I no longer get 120 m Hs. But it's not right yet, I get Hs that are ~40% higher than with the old T500. |
Hello ...I'll have to check a few things on what I've changed that could affect the tail of the spectrum. It almost sounds like dissipation is zero... |
Merci d'y jeter un coup d'oeil. With Once the wind starts, the energy accumulates very rapidly with only episodical dissipation until Hs reaches a fixed height. The pattern of max Hs seems to match bathymetry pretty closely, up to a point. Signficant wave height (m) after 24 hours from cold start (similar to 6 hours except in some isolated corners)Bathymetry (m) |
OK, there was one line missing in the code, and the dissipation was effectively zero. |
address issue NOAA-EMC#1074 add regtest
I will test next week. |
OK.
I will have to dig deeper and check all the parameters ...
… Adding SRHS = DDIAG * A helped. On its own the result is still pretty
far (~50% too high). Along with a476ee8 [1] and d73e295 [2] the
results are pretty close but still about 10% higher than before #189
[3]. I'll try ww3_ts1.
--
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub [4], or unsubscribe
[5].
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
Links:
------
[1]
a476ee8
[2]
d73e295
[3] #189
[4] #1074 (comment)
[5]
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG4TOHXBFQWKP2ASUQ2WZUTX6XFW3AVCNFSM6AAAAAA42KMQTSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONJWGM3TQNZXGM
--
Fabrice Ardhuin
Laboratoire d'Océanographie Physique et Spatiale, Brest, France
Phone: (33) 6 52 86 64 41
--
Groupe de recherche sur les états de mer: https://wwz.ifremer.fr/iowaga
|
Describe the bug
I have a Great Lakes case where I run with T500. It used to produce a reasonnable wave forecast, following #189 the forecast is much slower (more than 6 times) and produces Hs up to 125 m.
To Reproduce
Try a run with T500 parameters
SDSC1=1
,SDSBCK=0.185
, etc.SDSBCHOICE=2
,SDSBCK=0.185
, etc.Expected behavior
Same behaviour as before #189. Not 125 m wave heights.
Additional context
SDSC1=1
,SDSBCK=0.185
), the T441/Ardhuin et al.if
would be true and so would be the T500/Filipot et al.if
. The secondif
depends on thePB
value defined in the firstif
.PB = (1-SSDSC(1))*PB2*A + SSDSC(1)*PB
no longer works now that SDSBCHOICE uses SSDSC(1) and must be 2 in this context rather than a namelist option (1 for T500).SDSBCHOICE=2
. It only runs for a minute and no wind input which is probably why it gave sensible results./cc @mickaelaccensi
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: