Back to NCEX sequential runs

Ok, the models have been running in the background...now it's time to see if they've written my PhD thesis for me.

First things first. I need to confirm that the sequential (and nonstationary) runs provide reasonable results. To do that I compare with a 'baseline' test case which I chose to be Oct 10, 1900 GMT where the video images give good information for model-data comparison. We know where the rips should be. I also compare the results we get with those from the model run conducted for that hour only.

Results:
There are certainly major differences between the two circulation patterns. However, we still see rips at the two locations where the Argus image indicates rips occurred. What about the third rip that the model predicts? In the previous run it was just an undulation, now its a full rip current. Also the main rip at y ~= 1500m is much wider in this simulation. Neither of these questions can be answered with the video images but I would say we still compare well with the remote-sensing stuff.

Next:
Look at the in situ data to see if the nonstationary runs provided reasonable results...