Feature/wjiang/combine easev1 v2

[weiyuan-jiang]

OBSOLETE! Addressed with #634.

Combine easev1 and v2. Some public interfaces in EASE_conv.F90 will be removed after mkSMAPTilesPara.F90 is removed.

[weiyuan-jiang]

Obviously a typo here. It is v1, so it should be just 'EASE' . It will lead to non-zero diff in the future when it is corrected.

GEOSgcm_GridComp/GEOSagcm_GridComp/GEOSphysics_GridComp/GEOSsurface_GridComp/Utils/Raster/mkSMAPTilesPara.F90

Line 604 in e52d091

write (10,*)'SMAP-EASEv2-'//trim(MGRID)

[tclune]

CMake changes ok

[gmao-rreichle]

Obviously a typo here. It is v1, so it should be just 'EASE' . It will lead to non-zero diff in the future when it is corrected.

GEOSgcm_GridComp/GEOSagcm_GridComp/GEOSphysics_GridComp/GEOSsurface_GridComp/Utils/Raster/mkSMAPTilesPara.F90

Line 604 in e52d091

write (10,*)'SMAP-EASEv2-'//trim(MGRID)

This correction is fine. It's only changing a string in a file header and should be easily identifiable as a bug fix. My understanding is that the current branch already fixes this typo.

[gmao-rreichle]

@weiyuan-jiang, a note on my latest commit: 6e467b4
Before I made this commit, I approached this PR in isolation and did not refer back to the make_bcs cleanup project, and I promptly forgot that we have LDAS_EASE_conv.F90 in the GEOSldas repo. I now realize that your new EASE_conv.F90 was just a copy of LDAS_EASE_conv.F90. (It would have been very helpful if this equivalence had been pointed out in the commit messages or in the PR comments.)
In any case, I'm not 100% sure that LDAS_EASE_conv.F90 (or, equivalently, EASE_conv.F90 before my latest commit) is 0-diff against easeV1_conv.F90 because of the difference in the definition of PI for the EASEv1 case. This should be fixed in my latest commit, along with some minor cleanup of comments and clarification of global constants. We'll need to decide which version of EASE_conv.F90 is best going forward.

[gmao-rreichle]

Two more comments on mkSMAPTilesPara_v2.F90:

1. I'm confused what subroutine mkEASEv2Raster() does, and why this is not done for EASEv1.
2. Also, subroutine write_tilfile() seems obsolete.

[gmao-rreichle]

Two more comments on mkSMAPTilesPara_v2.F90:

1. I'm confused what subroutine mkEASEv2Raster() does, and why this is not done for EASEv1.
2. Also, subroutine write_tilfile() seems obsolete.

These subroutines are not needed right now but were probably needed for the irrigation bcs processing. For now, comment out the subroutines.

[weiyuan-jiang]

Do not comment on this PR. It will be replaced by #634

[gmao-rreichle]

OBSOLETE! Addressed with #634. Closing.