-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
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
refactor of LAI-by-patch-age history (FATES_LAI_AP) #1174
Conversation
…AI tohave matching with FATES_LAI_AP
Manually, from NGEET#1174 commit 9c8a14a.
I might also add the fix to #1170 into this, since it's also trivial |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me. Thanks @rgknox and @samsrabin
! Normalize crown-area weighted height | ||
if(site_ca>nearzero)then | ||
hio_ca_weighted_height_si(io_si) = hio_ca_weighted_height_si(io_si)/site_ca | ||
end if |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
BA weighted height is set to zero if site_ba is not > nearzero. Seems like it would be a very small number anyway but do we want the same thing for CA weighted height?
Also the comment on 2867 could be updated to say that ca_weighted_height and ba_weighted_height are normalized outside of the patch loop.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I left it out because we zero everything in an automated function anyway, we don't actually need to zero the ba weighted output. But now that you bring the point up, its probably confusing to anyone reading the code why we do things differently. I think its better to have these outputs processed consistently to avoid confusion. I'll do a look through and see if I can make things more consistent in other places as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, that makes sense.
tests ok on derecho, some diffs, and the diffs are related only to the changed output variables |
Description:
This is a bug fix. The FATES_LAI_AP diagnostic did not seem to be written correctly. Also, the variables should match FATES_LAI, when summed over patch area weights.
FATES_LAI = sum( FATES_LAI_AP * FATES_PATCHAREA_AP)
Fixes: #1170
Fixes: #1183
Collaborators:
@samsrabin
Expectation of Answer Changes:
This should change both FATES_LAI and FATES_LAI_AP, and a new variable FATES_ELAI is now available.
Checklist
If this is your first time contributing, please read the CONTRIBUTING document.
All checklist items must be checked to enable merging this pull request:
Contributor
Integrator
Documentation
Test Results:
CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) test hash-tag:
CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) baseline hash-tag:
FATES baseline hash-tag:
Test Output: