doc: correct description of box2001 test

[phil-blain]

PR checklist

• Short (1 sentence) summary of your PR:
  doc: correct description of box2001 test

• Developer(s):
  P Blain.

• Suggest PR reviewers from list in the column to the right.

• Please copy the PR test results link or provide a summary of testing completed below.
  no tests; doc fix.

• How much do the PR code changes differ from the unmodified code?

  • bit for bit
  • different at roundoff level
  • more substantial

• Does this PR create or have dependencies on Icepack or any other models?

  • Yes
  • No

• Does this PR add any new test cases?

  • Yes
  • No

• Is the documentation being updated? ("Documentation" includes information on the wiki or in the .rst files from doc/source/, which are used to create the online technical docs at https://readthedocs.org/projects/cice-consortium-cice/. A test build of the technical docs will be performed as part of the PR testing.)

  • Yes
  • No, does the documentation need to be updated at a later time?
    • Yes
    • No

• Please provide any additional information or relevant details below:

  The documentation states that this test case sets 'coriolis' to zero,
  but 'configuration/scripts/options/set_nml.box2001' sets 'coriolis' to 'constant'.
  Fix the documentation to be in line with the code.

[JFLemieux73]

@phil-blain please add the units...i.e., f=1.46e-4 s^{-1}.

[phil-blain]

@JFLemieux73 good idea. I've added it and also in the Case settings section.

[apcraig]

In preparation for the next release, I will merge this tomorrow morning unless any other concerns are expressed before then. Thanks.

[eclare108213]

Hmmm. I thought that the box test in the paper (Hunke 2001) used Coriolis=0. Am I not remembering that correctly? The idea was that this test would replicate the one in that paper, to the extent possible. In that case, it would be better to change the test rather than changing the documentation of the test. Opinions about this are welcome.

[JFLemieux73]

In Hunke 2001 it is written: For these simulations the Coriolis parameter is taken to be constant...
In the table: f Coriolis parameter 1.46 x 10-4 s-1

We could set f to 0 as long as it is consistent with the doc. I think the 3 islands are not there either (am I right?). We could just say this test case is inspired by the test case in Hunke 2001.

[eclare108213]

Interesting. Thanks for checking! Then let's keep it as the constant value. You're right, the islands aren't there, but they aren't the important part of the test - that's getting the forcing the same. So I think this is fine. Thank you!