Skip to content

Conversation

rgknox
Copy link
Contributor

@rgknox rgknox commented Apr 24, 2025

Description:

This set of changes addresses isues brought up by @mvdebolskiy related to coupling radiation with FATES and CAM: #1376 (comment) . This led to a generalized refactor of radiation diagnostics, particularly radiation profiles, and how these things are initialized and written to output given the nature of the normalized radiation calls (ie that the current day's albedo is calculated at the end of the previous timestep).

This PR has a sibling PR in NorESMhub: https://github.com/NorESMhub/fates/pull/17/files

Collaborators:

@mvdebolskiy

Expectation of Answer Changes:

yes, this will change fates radiation history variables (high frequency multi-layer canopy output), but those only. This is because more attention is being paid to when they are zero'd and when they are ignored.

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

  • The in-code documentation has been updated with descriptive comments
  • The documentation has been assessed to determine if updates are necessary

Integrator

  • FATES PASS/FAIL regression tests were run
  • Evaluation of test results for answer changes was performed and results provided
  • FATES-CLM6 Code Freeze: satellite phenology regression tests are b4b

If satellite phenology regressions are not b4b, please hold merge and notify the FATES development team.

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:

@rgknox rgknox added the status: Not Ready The author is signaling that this PR is a work in progress and not ready for integration. label Apr 24, 2025
@rgknox
Copy link
Contributor Author

rgknox commented Jun 9, 2025

See comment: ESCOMP/CTSM#3051 (comment)

cc @mvdebolskiy

@glemieux glemieux moved this from Finding Reviewers to Stuck in FATES Pull Request Planning and Status Jul 28, 2025
@glemieux glemieux moved this from Stuck to Under Review in FATES Pull Request Planning and Status Aug 25, 2025
@rgknox rgknox removed the status: Not Ready The author is signaling that this PR is a work in progress and not ready for integration. label Sep 15, 2025
@glemieux glemieux self-requested a review September 15, 2025 18:43
Copy link
Contributor

@glemieux glemieux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good. I really like how the downstream calculations for the diagnostics are now conducted in the history interface module. I like the practice of adjusting the output in this module, rather than in the calculating module.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants