Percent Melt vs. Time 



1 .4 Growler 

 1.7 Growler 

 1.4& 1.7 Small 

 1.4& 1.7 Medium 

 1 .4 & 1 .7 Large 



o 



4 5 6 



Time (Days) 



10 



Figure 3: The percent melt for each iceberg for both WIM's during the first 10 days of the run. This run was 

 conducted at an SST of 12°C. wave height of 7ft, and wave period of 8 seconds. The small, medium, and large 

 icebergs produced similar results. 



A comparison of computations, using the original algorithm set forth in Anderson (1983) 

 and comparing it with the WIM 1 .7 outputs, was made to examine how closely the models are 

 running with the original algorithms. The tabulated numbers from Anderson (1983) were used to 

 make this comparison. Also, another comparison was done using the parameters of this study and 

 calculating the results with the original algorithms. In both comparisons, it was found that the 

 models are running in accordance with the algorithm, since both methods produced the same 

 results within rounding error. 



Conclusion 



In conclusion, this study shows that the WIM of BAPSNT 1 .4 and the WIM of BAPSNT 

 1 .7 compute identical melt estimates. Some differences between the models were found that have 

 not been documented. The documentation for the WIM of BAPSNT 1 .7 states that the input files 

 are the same as 1.4, when in fact they are not. BAPSNT 1.4 requires a new length and percent 

 melt to be included in the input file to continue melting an iceberg after ten days. The parameter 

 file for 1 .7 is different and treats the remaining length field as original length and calculates a new 

 starting length using percent melt and original length. It is recommended that this change be noted 

 in the documentation of BAPSNT 1.7. Another slight variation that should be noted is that while 

 we tried to use 7.5m as the original length for growler, BAPSNT 1.7 rounded this length up to 

 8m, which had an effect on the output files. BAPSNT 1.4 did not do this, and so it is 



62 



