snipped list of recipients - it's getting rather long.
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 11:30 +0200, Jed Brown wrote:
> AJ Payne, Geographical Sciences wrote:
> While it's often handy to have a mask within your code, and to look at
> model output to know what the model is doing with different regions, I
> think the mask may lock us into the current (esp. Glimmer) way of doing
> things. Distinguishing between slow ice and ice streams is very
> unnatural since it will always be subjective and some models (e.g. PISM)
> do not normally distinguish in this way (solving unified physics
> everywhere).
>
> As for grounding line resolution, the combination of bathymetry and ice
> thickness provides subgrid resolution where as the mask cannot. What
> does the mask provide that cannot be reconstructed with an NCO or
> visualization filter?
>
you are absolutely right, the mask quantities can be derived from other
data.
However, I think it might be useful to include some way of
distinguishing between floating and grounded ice: I can well imagine
that observations could provide this observation in which case we must
be able to record this.
magi
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Wed Sep 30 2009 - 03:42:52 BST
