Replies: 1 comment
-
Talking with @ckoven we think that removing this scaling using the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
In the history interface module we have an area scaling calculation that I think should be changed:
fates/main/FatesHistoryInterfaceMod.F90
Lines 4990 to 4999 in 0f321cd
@ckoven the
site_area_veg_inv
here was initially used to scale only the instantaneoustveg
(via #877). That said, I think the scaling that uses thepatch%total_canopy_area
site summation in theelse
block is more correct for fbg+nocomp mode as well. Is that correct to you?Background
I noticed that there is one place in the history interface module in which we check if we are in FBG + Nocomp mode to determine how to calculate an area scaling variable
site_area_veg_inv
for use in theupdate_history_hifreq1
subroutine:fates/main/FatesHistoryInterfaceMod.F90
Lines 4990 to 4992 in 0f321cd
This jumped out at me as I didn't see a similar check in the companion
update_history_hifreq2
subroutine in which we calculate the same scaling:fates/main/FatesHistoryInterfaceMod.F90
Lines 5185 to 5195 in 0f321cd
This scaling value came in initially as
site_area_veg
to address #861 via #877. @rgknox had originally removed the FBG+nocomp check and restructured the scaling as the summation of thepatch%total_canopy_area
via #1119, but due to a later merge deconflict between this (now onmain
) and #1116 the check made its way back in.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions