Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"total fuel" (slightly) incorrectly written out (?) #1288

Open
adrifoster opened this issue Nov 18, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

"total fuel" (slightly) incorrectly written out (?) #1288

adrifoster opened this issue Nov 18, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@adrifoster
Copy link
Contributor

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...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: ❕Todo
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant