Nemo merge requestshttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests2024-03-28T16:18:42Zhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/483Resolve: "Basic fixes for the trends diagnostics"2024-03-28T16:18:42ZDaley CalvertResolve: "Basic fixes for the trends diagnostics"Closes #395.
#### Tests
**Regular checks**
- [x] Can this change be shown to produce expected impact (option activated)?
- [x] Can this change be shown to have a null impact (option not activated)?
- [x] Results of the required bit co...Closes #395.
#### Tests
**Regular checks**
- [x] Can this change be shown to produce expected impact (option activated)?
- [x] Can this change be shown to have a null impact (option not activated)?
- [x] Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: are there no differences when activating the development?
- [ ] ~~If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood?~~
- [ ] ~~If some differences appear, is the impact as expected on model configurations?~~
- [ ] Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
- [x] If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?
- [ ] Are there significant changes in run time/memory?
Note that SETTE does not use the trends diagnostics.
**Other tests**
A 10-day run of an ocean-only ORCA2 configuration was used for testing. This just checked that the diagnostics could be run successfully- they are not necessarily correct- and that they were restartable. I also did not check whether the results were the same as some reference commit- there have been too many changes to the model since the diagnostics last worked.
As noted in #395, the wind stress trends are not restartable when using RK3.
I did not check to see if the passive tracers trends diagnostics worked. The aim was to get the diagnostics to at least run in an ocean-only configuration. There will be more work on these diagnostics in the future.
#### Review
**Assessments**
- [ ] Is the proposed methodology now implemented?
- [ ] Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at preview step?
- [ ] Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at preview step?
- [ ] If, not, are the discrepancies acceptable?
- [ ] Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?
- [ ] Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?
- [ ] Is the development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
- [ ] Is the project ~doc (manual, guide, web, ...) now updated or completed following the proposed summary in preview section?NEMO 5.0-betaDaley CalvertDaley Calverthttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/377Draft: Resolve "wrong localisation of the error in stpctl"2023-11-10T17:24:37ZSebastien MassonDraft: Resolve "wrong localisation of the error in stpctl"Closes #317Closes #3172023 WPSebastien MassonSebastien Massonhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/354Draft: Resolve "wrong name for k_bot_in in case of localised vertical coordin...2023-09-01T11:08:54ZDiego Bruciaferridiego.bruciaferri@metoffice.gov.ukDraft: Resolve "wrong name for k_bot_in in case of localised vertical coordinates"Closes #280Closes #280Diego Bruciaferridiego.bruciaferri@metoffice.gov.ukDiego Bruciaferridiego.bruciaferri@metoffice.gov.ukhttps://forge.nemo-ocean.eu/nemo/nemo/-/merge_requests/332Draft: Resolve "TOP light scaling under seaice create anomalous blooms"2023-08-18T12:28:50Zjulien PalmieriDraft: Resolve "TOP light scaling under seaice create anomalous blooms"Closes #261
Testing the light-Chl coupling in MEDUSA alongside the other light attenuation scheme, It appears that the biology is doing abnormally well under sea-ice in the Arctic, except in time of perpetual night (i.e: November to mi...Closes #261
Testing the light-Chl coupling in MEDUSA alongside the other light attenuation scheme, It appears that the biology is doing abnormally well under sea-ice in the Arctic, except in time of perpetual night (i.e: November to mid-January). As soon as `QSR` is slightly rising, the phytoplankton blooms.
It seems this come from the light module `trcopt`, where the sea-ice impact on light is done this way :
```fortran
! Photosynthetically Available Radiation (PAR)
! --------------------------------------------
DO_2D( 0, 0, 0, 0 )
zqsr_corr(ji,jj) = parsw(ji,jj) * qsr(ji,jj) / ( 1.-fr_i(ji,jj) + rtrn )
END_2D
!
CALL trc_opt_par( kt, zqsr_corr, ze1, ze2, ze3 )
!
```
The same mistake is done in PISCES' `p4zopt`
A simple solution would be to multiply instead of dividing by the ice fraction :
```fortran
DO_2D( 0, 0, 0, 0 )
zqsr_corr(ji,jj) = parsw(ji,jj) * qsr(ji,jj) * ( 1.-fr_i(ji,jj) + rtrn )
END_2D
```
see here a one year Hovmoller of the PAR. First plot using MEDUSA usual light scheme, and bellow using `trcopt`. NEMO-MEDUSA is running 1D here, in a location between Svalbard and Greenland. The x axis is the time of year in year (0.5 is june).\
![image](/uploads/cccc505e72b9ae2de4fa10e31489a34f/image.png)
![image](/uploads/240116edbeb6ab3b302fa7e9f28aaeff/image.png)
here the impact on Chl : \
![image](/uploads/c808bd233d9599e739036923447d3afb/image.png)
![image](/uploads/13f30f989ada6b11cfac4d43dd7599d2/image.png)
As we can see, there's definitely a problem there.julien Palmierijulien Palmieri