You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In ctsm5.3.0 we update to using a 78 PFT fire emissions dataset. But, we also made sure that you could use the previous 16 PFT one. Going forward it might be better to trigger use of 16 PFT as an error.
Well, my original concern is still there—if ( size(factors) > npfts ) will never be true here as long as if ( npfts < maxveg ) in fire_emis_factors_init() triggers an error.
Do we want the user to be able to run with a too-short emissions file or not? If yes, delete that error check (and rename npfts to something more descriptive, like npfts_on_emis_file). If no, delete this conditional (and the npft variable).
I say no—I don't like it when the model silently resolves what might have been a mistake on my part.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
ekluzek
added
next
this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting.
usability
Improve or clarify user-facing options
labels
Sep 24, 2024
wwieder
removed
the
next
this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting.
label
Oct 3, 2024
samsrabin
changed the title
Should use of a 16 PFT fire emissions dataset trigger an error?
Make using a 16-PFT fire emissions dataset in a 78-PFT run trigger an error
Oct 3, 2024
In ctsm5.3.0 we update to using a 78 PFT fire emissions dataset. But, we also made sure that you could use the previous 16 PFT one. Going forward it might be better to trigger use of 16 PFT as an error.
As @samsrabin says here...
Originally posted by @samsrabin in #2500 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: