Issue649 addd diagnostic fsd #661
Conversation
tdcwilliams
left a comment
tdcwilliams
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good @docguibou - some minor changes needed perhaps
| double M_0 = 0, M_1 = 0., M_neg1 = 0., M_neg2 = 0.; | ||
| if (M_conc_mech_fsd[M_num_fsd_bins-1][i]<=M_dmax_c_threshold*D_conc[i]) | ||
| { | ||
| //If more than 90% of sea ice that is in the element is "broken" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you add an explanation for the ordering? It looks like you start at the largest floe size bin and decrease - what is the reason for that? (I would expect the other way so if 90% of the ice is in the smallest bin you'd stop there with a small Dmax, otherwise keep increasing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So happy you're back! Hmmm I haven't changed the ordering actually. I suppose my reasoning at the time was that there is more elements with unbroken ice than with broken ice, so the loop would stop faster starting from the larger floes. If it really does not make sense to you, I can rewrite it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unless I am misunderstanding, the current Dmax comes from \int_{Dmax}^\infty = 0.9, but reversing gives \int_0^{Dmax} = 0.9? These are quite different. But perhaps we could think about it and if it is important and change it in the other branch
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I defined M_dmax_c_threshold as (1-0.9) to account for that, that's ok no? Super confusing with these comments though.
tdcwilliams
left a comment
tdcwilliams
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I made some suggestions for doxygen comments which should be committed, and another couple, which you can decide about
| M_0 = D_conc[i]; | ||
| // No need to normalize the other moments as we do a ratio | ||
| // Now compute the characteristic floe sizes | ||
| D_dmean[i] = M_1_mech / M_0; // Characteristic floe size associated with the number of floes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks like D_dchar but for mech FSD?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is! I am reluctant to change that as it is what we published, but to be consistent with assumptions from scattering parameterizations, I should have not used the areal FSD. However, that would be assuming that absolutely all floes contribute to scattering, which is likely to be wrong. I can discuss that with you at some point.
| double M_0 = 0, M_1 = 0., M_neg1 = 0., M_neg2 = 0.; | ||
| if (M_conc_mech_fsd[M_num_fsd_bins-1][i]<=M_dmax_c_threshold*D_conc[i]) | ||
| { | ||
| //If more than 90% of sea ice that is in the element is "broken" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unless I am misunderstanding, the current Dmax comes from \int_{Dmax}^\infty = 0.9, but reversing gives \int_0^{Dmax} = 0.9? These are quite different. But perhaps we could think about it and if it is important and change it in the other branch
Co-authored-by: Timothy Williams <tdcwilliams@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Timothy Williams <tdcwilliams@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Timothy Williams <tdcwilliams@gmail.com>
Addition of diagnostic FSD computed online. It compiles and runs. It involved a bit of cleaning of the "old" FSD computation and adding floe size parameters as outputs.