[mpas-developers] question about EXPAND_LEVELS

[Todd Ringler]

Hi Michael,

On the ocean side we would prefer to eliminate the EXPAND_LEVELS. We  
do not use it on the ocean side and it sometimes causes confusion.

Also, we (on the ocean side) would benefit from a more streamlined  
init process. Let us know if we can help specify or test your ideas  
related to producing init files.

Cheers,
Todd

On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Michael Duda wrote:

> Hi, All.
>
> I'm finishing up some changes to the WPS infrastructure that will make
> it possible to specify any field dimension in the namelist (recall  
> that
> we are currently able to specify any non-decomposed dimension in the
> namelist, i.e., any dimension other than nCells, nEdges, nVertices,  
> and
> nVertLevels); the primary application of this new functionality  
> would be
> in separate initialization executable, where we read in a grid file,
> create a set of vertical levels at run-time, and write out an IC file
> for the model.
>
> In the process of making these changes, I thought we might now be able
> to remove the EXPAND_LEVELS hack from the code; we currently use
> EXPAND_LEVELS in the hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic cores, but we can
> switch to defining the vertical dimension in a new namelist  
> variable. My
> question, then, was whether the ocean core relied on the use of
> EXPAND_LEVELS in any critical way, or whether anyone was still
> interested in using EXPAND_LEVELS with the shallow water core to test
> with duplicated levels?
>
> After a bit more testing, I think I'll be ready to propose the changes
> this afternoon for review. Depending on any interest in keeping
> EXPAND_LEVELS, I can either remove that code in my proposal, or keep  
> it
> intact.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> mpas-developers mailing list
> mpas-developers at mailman.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpas-developers