> Hi, > > The main reason for bars or dbars in mom4 is to send as arguments to the > density module. The dynamical pressure gradient is in mks, which is > Pascals/meter. I questioned those having coded bars in mom4 originally, > and found there to be no compelling reason to continue doing so. I > therefore converted the usage of bars to dbars in mom4, thus saving a > few multiplies. If the EOS expected Pascals, then we would save one > more multiply. I am not concerned about this savings, and believe the > effort you would need to reformulate your EOS, or for me to recode the > coefficients, would be not worth any trivial savings. > > For diagnostic purposes, I will output pressure in dbars, instead of > bars or Pascals, yet pressure gradients in mks. Is this reasonable? > > Thanks, > Steve
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Steve, > > > > I notice that both MOM4 and POP have their pressure in bar. You must > > have given this some thought. > > Why do you prefer bar to dbar or Pa or Mbar? > > > > If Bar are here to stay as the unit of pressure in ocean models, then > > perhaps David and I should > > be exporting our coefficients in that form so as to save both MOM4 and POP > > having to > > muliply the model bressure by 10.0 before evaluating the EOS. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > I am pretty sure that observational oceanographers will continue to think > > in db simply because they are > > roughly metres and we like to think of the ocean as being 4000m deep, not 40 > > MPa "deep" or 400Bar "deep". > > But it seems that models are firmly knitted to Bar. > > > > Trevor k
begin:vcard n:Griffies;Stephen x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:DOC/NOAA/OAR/GFDL adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Physical Scientist x-mozilla-cpt:;-11168 fn:Stephen Griffies end:vcard
