Replies: 3 comments
-
We had some discussion about this last week. We figure we should allow options that should work with FATES to exist, but won't add explicit testing for it, as we don't think this is a normal way of working. Perhaps if people start to use it down the line, we'll need to add testing. We did disable the use of n_dom_pfts with FATES in #1766, but this should likely also going into the FORTRAN code and apply to the other things pointed out above as well. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Just a quick note that this came up in testing fates landuse v1; see #2076 (comment). In summary, I should note that this appears to only be an issue for the nag compiler. This passed through the gnu compiler on derecho. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'm converting this to a discussion. If we work on this we should map out exactly what needs to be done. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@rgknox points this out in his most recent PR #1766. The collapse options that work on landunit should work provided FATES is using create_crop_landunit=F and 16-PFT datasets are being read and you don't have FATES managing crop landunits. But, "n_dom_pfts" is incompatible with FATES, except maybe for FATES-SP mode. I think we should disable it for all FATES modes though. "toosmall_soil" is also problematic and likely should be disabled.
When FATES can manage crop landunits, the "toosmall_crop" might be problematic. But, for the case when we run FATES for natural veg and BGC-CROP for CFT's, "toosmall_crop" should be fine.
It also a question on if we should test FATES with the collapse options. I don't think this is a use case that would at all be common so I'm thinking it shouldn't be.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions