You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
But in the current fire model we remove the "mineral portion" from the actual fuel attribute rather than an internal variable. This is fine scientifically (I'm pretty sure..) but it is a little misleading for writing out history variables.
My suggestion is that we leave the %non_trunk_loading attribute alone in this subroutine and instead calculate an internal variable and use that for the ROS calculations.
On the other hand, we can just specify in the history output that it is non-mineral fuel loading...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
So we have a 'sum fuel' written out here.
But in the current fire model we remove the "mineral portion" from the actual fuel attribute rather than an internal variable. This is fine scientifically (I'm pretty sure..) but it is a little misleading for writing out history variables.
My suggestion is that we leave the
%non_trunk_loading
attribute alone in this subroutine and instead calculate an internal variable and use that for the ROS calculations.On the other hand, we can just specify in the history output that it is non-mineral fuel loading...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: