You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi @JorgSchwinger, @TomasTorsvik and @tjiputra ,
with #367, the option to remove the (artifical) separation between euphotic (kwrbioz) and deeper ocean region processes was granted. Moving forward to NorESMK2.5, I wonder and as suggested in #340, in how far we should aim at making this the new default and/or removing the current switch that we currently use to achieve this. Any thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I have not looked in depth at any results with the option enabled. I would like to see a long model run first. My first impression was that the changes were large, so difficult to say at this stage.
I agree, it would be good to better understand the implications (in both, isopynic and hybrid coordinates). I suspect it thus makes sense to re-check the output and leave the switch in until a later stage.
Hi @JorgSchwinger, @TomasTorsvik and @tjiputra ,
with #367, the option to remove the (artifical) separation between euphotic (
kwrbioz
) and deeper ocean region processes was granted. Moving forward to NorESMK2.5, I wonder and as suggested in #340, in how far we should aim at making this the new default and/or removing the current switch that we currently use to achieve this. Any thoughts?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: