<div><div dir="auto">Hi Dan</div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For some reason I’m only seeing your emails on this thread. Can you please forward me the whole thread? Or at least the relevant responses like Paola’s.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And any idea why I’m not seeing them?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks </div><div dir="auto">Matt</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:50 AM Dan Jones <<a href="mailto:dcjones.work@gmail.com">dcjones.work@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Hi all,<br><br>Yes, Paola's description is consistent with my understanding of the issue. If we want to treat buoyancy flux and wind stress separately, then we probably shouldn't use the bulk formulas, at least not "out of the box". Buoyancy flux and wind stress are coupled through the bulk formulas. <br><br>This isn't an issue for most optimisation tasks or sensitivity studies. It's more of an issue for adjoint reconstructions, for which it is arguably conceptually cleaner to separate changes due to wind stress anomalies from changes due to net buoyancy flux anomalies. <br><br>Thanks,<br>Dan</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
ecco-support mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ecco-support@mit.edu" target="_blank">ecco-support@mit.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/ecco-support" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/ecco-support</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>