-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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.
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
Rosie colddec #6
Conversation
@@ -907,7 +931,7 @@ subroutine phenology_leafonoff(currentSite) | |||
real(r8) :: store_c_transfer_frac ! Fraction of storage carbon used to flush leaves | |||
integer :: ipft | |||
real(r8), parameter :: leaf_drop_fraction = 1.0_r8 | |||
|
|||
real(r8), parameter :: carbon_store_buffer = 0.10_r8 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rosiealice , would it be most desirable to add this to the parameter file? We could flag this to be added whenever we have a critical mass of changes to implement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe, but
-
it's really there to stop us triggering the termination mortality logic, and so is perhaps better thought of as some sort of internal maths?
however: -
Taking the plant into a very low storage state might in preinciple trigger carbon starvation mortality, even though this is really how deciduous trees are 'supposed' to work. I couldn't really follow the logic of how the target C was calculated in PARTEH well enough to know if there was dispensation for deciduous trees, but irrespective, we don't want to go around killing trees that are really just doing their deciduous things. Then that raises the question of how we -do- get carbon starvation to happen in deciduous trees, and whether those trees should all have a target storage >>1...
-
Having this as a parameter would allow interrogation of the 'save carbon for a drought' vs. 'put it all in the display pools in the spring' strategies.
! In the north, don't accumulate when we are past the leaf fall date. | ||
! Accumulation starts on day 1 of year in NH. | ||
! The 180 is to prevent going into an 'always off' state after initialization | ||
if( model_day_int .gt. currentSite%cleafoffdate.and.hlm_day_of_year.gt.180)then ! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rosiealice , I think it would be nice to give 180 an explicit constant name as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, although the 'start of counting date' might be more tractable and we could key the 180 off that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sounds good
merge up to tag 1.31.1_8.1.0 and add file version of cg_strikes
Fix parameter file read bug as well as old parameter file overwrite code
Description:
Collaborators:
Expectation of Answer Changes:
Test Results:
CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) test hash-tag:
CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) baseline hash-tag:
FATES baseline hash-tag:
Test Output: