fix: bb_slope fix: carea fix: icefilter #76
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR bundles 3 fixes that address:
#73
#69
#44
The fix to 73 is the only one that would be expected to have b4b regressions. I performed baseline simulation comparsisons between f1a14d6 and 18613d1, and tests confirmed b4b on all expected passes. One extra step was necessary, in that I needed to update the parameter file values of BB_slope to match what was previously hard coded (a value of 9). The current value in the default parameter file is 8, we can certaintly change this going forward. Not changing this now.
The other two fixes, #69 and #44 are not supposed to generate b4b results, and they don't. 1x1 brazil simulations were also run on eddi to make sure that the non-b4b changes continue to generate very similar projections of forest composition and structure, as well as flux variables. They did.
Fixes: #73, #69, #44
User interface changes?: no
Code review: Self
Test suite: lawrencium-lr3 intel, eddi (PC) gnu (visualizations)
Test baseline: 18613d1
Test namelist changes: none
Test answer changes: see above
Test summary: