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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

leafcn for pfts 15 and 16 have diverged, should probably be the same #2184

Closed
slevis-lmwg opened this issue Oct 5, 2023 · 4 comments · Fixed by #2258
Closed

leafcn for pfts 15 and 16 have diverged, should probably be the same #2184

slevis-lmwg opened this issue Oct 5, 2023 · 4 comments · Fixed by #2258
Assignees
@wwieder @slevis-lmwg
Labels
bug something is working incorrectly science Enhancement to or bug impacting science

Comments

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor

Brief summary of bug

A user posted in the CESM Forums that pfts 15 and 16 have different leafcn in the params file.

Here is what I found going back in time:
clm5_params.c170303.nc: 28.0269058295964, 25 ! we have used these values since this file
clm5_params.c170202.nc: 28.0898876404494, 25 ! these values appeared temporarily
clm5_params.c161105.nc: 31.9110426104045, 25 ! these values appeared temporarily
clm5_params.c161103.nc: 25 25 ! last file with these values

General bug information

Does this bug cause significantly incorrect results in the model's science?
Possibly (see next).

Configurations affected:
In simulations with no irrigation, pft 16 (irrigated generic crop) merges with pft 15 (unirrigated generic crop). So any pft 16 area will have leafcn = 25 in simulations with active irrigation, and the other value in simulations with inactive irrigation.
@wwieder
Copy link
Contributor

wwieder commented Oct 5, 2023

I suspect this bug goes back to the frantic CLM5 calibration efforts and suggest we make these the same.

  • Aren't these values going to used for simulations with explicit crop management too?
  • Since all the other crop C:N ratios are integers, I suggest we move this back to 25 for PFT 15.
  • Can we do an i2000 simulation to evaluate the impact of this bug on crop yields (in a crop case) and GPP / LAI (in a BGC case). These may require spinup?

How carefully do we need to evaluate these kinds of bug fixes? Maybe this can get brought in with another answer changing bug-fix tag?

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

This issue is linked to the "upcoming tags" card that handles answer-changing params file changes.

@wwieder
Copy link
Contributor

wwieder commented Oct 20, 2023

Should we add the FUN bug #2120 to this answer-changing param file change too?

@slevis-lmwg
Copy link
Contributor Author

I vote YES :-)

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg mentioned this issue Nov 15, 2023
Merged
samsrabin added a commit to samsrabin/CTSM that referenced this issue Nov 27, 2023
@samsrabin
Merge tag 'ctsm5.1.dev154' into use-basetlatvary-params
5b2c2a9 
New params files for Meier roughness, MIMICS, SNICAR, and with changes to leafcn and k*_nonmyc

1) Start using existing new params file for Meier roughness:
/glade/campaign/cesm/cesmdata/inputdata/lnd/clm2/paramdata/ctsm51_params.RMz0.c231011.nc
and include bug-fix ESCOMP#2219
2) Update forcing heights per ESCOMP#2071.
3) Update params file for MIMICS per ESCOMP#1845.
4) Make leafcn for pfts 15 and 16 the same per ESCOMP#2184.
5) Switch the values of params kc_nonmyc and kn_nonmyc per ESCOMP#2120.
6) Move SNICAR parameters to params file per ESCOMP#2247.

Changes answers. Details in PR ESCOMP#2258 and in the ChangeLog.
@samsrabin samsrabin added bug something is working incorrectly science Enhancement to or bug impacting science labels Aug 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@wwieder wwieder

@slevis-lmwg slevis-lmwg

Labels
bug something is working incorrectly science Enhancement to or bug impacting science
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
3 participants
@wwieder @samsrabin @slevis-lmwg