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.

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

dry-deposition work with FATES for normal FATES competitive mode #1044

Closed
ekluzek opened this issue Jun 17, 2020 · 10 comments
Closed

dry-deposition work with FATES for normal FATES competitive mode #1044

ekluzek opened this issue Jun 17, 2020 · 10 comments
Assignees
Labels
closed: wontfix We won't fix this issue, because it would be too difficult and/or isn't important enough to fix enhancement new capability or improved behavior of existing capability science Enhancement to or bug impacting science

Comments

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator

ekluzek commented Jun 17, 2020

Currently dry-deposition (which is needed when coupled to CAM-Chem) only works for CN or BGC mode. We need this to work when running with FATES as well.

From our discussion on CTSM-FATES this is something we'd need in the CTSM-FATES v0 version which also needs to run with F compsets. We want to get F2000 and FAMIP compsets to work with FATES.

Definition of done: FATES is able to run and produce dry-deposition coupled to CAM in normal FATES competitive mode

@ekluzek ekluzek added enhancement new capability or improved behavior of existing capability tag: enh - new science next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. labels Jun 17, 2020
@ekluzek ekluzek self-assigned this Jun 17, 2020
@billsacks billsacks removed the next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. label Jun 22, 2020
@ckoven
Copy link
Contributor

ckoven commented Mar 17, 2021

Hi @ekluzek @billsacks was just looking over your V1 CTSM-FATES list and saw this. Does this require anything on the FATES side, or is it just in the handling of things on the CTSM side?

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Mar 17, 2021

@ckoven yes I don't think anything is required on the FATES side for this. Looking over the code I think the main thing is we need to try running drydep with FATES. We've never done that before hence I suspect it won't work. But, in looking over the code I think it might actually work. One of the issues is that FATES runs with the logical use_cn False, and the drydep behavior depends on use_cn. So I'm not sure if that will work right when FATES is being used. In this context it might need to be a use_cn==T .or use_fates==T kind of thing. This is one of the places where use_cn is a confusing control variable.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Jun 9, 2022

I looked at this again in context of making sure we don't break this any worse than it is now. We should be able to call DryDepVelocity for FATES if we provide: elai, fsun, rssun, rssha from FATES which technically is already done. There are also some canopy flux variables that are input, that should be fine for FATES.

drydep Initializition is already being done and it's called at run time as well even for FATES. If there are any FATES variables that do need to be provided before drydeposition is called a prep_drydeposition call could be added that would be something like this...

      if (use_fates) then
         call clm_fates%prep_drydepositionfluxes(nc, fn, filterp, photosyns_inst...)
      end if

fsun gets added from FATES in wrap_sunfrac, and elai in wrap_update_hlmfates_dyn. rssun and rssha is in wrap_photosynthesis. So these are all done after FATES is run, so I don't think that even the above needs to be done -- unless it's important to get the value before rather than having the values lagged by a time-step.

What we do need to make sure we preserve is that DryDep currently still requires annual LAI to be read in, so we need to keep that even when running FATES.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Jun 9, 2022

Since, it looks like there is a chance this will work pretty much as is. We should add a new test to the test list for both the aux_clm and fates test lists to turn drydep on with FATES.

@rgknox
Copy link
Collaborator

rgknox commented Jun 10, 2022

@ekluzek I don't have a good sense of how the dry-dep scheme works, but I'm keeping my eye on this issue. @ekluzek, I and others may team up and look at this together at some point. My original concern was that drydep is somehow dependant on pft/patch scale information which is conceptually inconsistent with FATES, but it looks like maybe that is not true, so good!

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Jun 10, 2022

@rgknox no you were right. Everything is based on the PFT type "ivt" array, which as we have been discussing makes no sense for most FATES patches. We should make sure it's set to something that indicates it's a FATES patch and doesn't indicate a veg-type. Maybe it should be negative so it will trigger a subscript out of bounds if it's used?

I think this means that we should be able to get this to work for FATES-SP, but it will be a problem for general FATES. FATES will need to do something like tell CTSM how many different PFT's are in a patch and the dry-deposition mechanism will need to operate over them.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Jun 16, 2022

I'm going to spinoff a separate issue for dry deposition to work with FATES-SP mode. We actually are close to having that at least function. #1766 will get it working. We'll need to do some work to make sure it's working correctly, but it does function.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Jun 16, 2022

For this to work in general for FATES I need to have an interface in FATES that returns a list of PFTs and their area. I'm not sure how to handle the fact that areas overlap in FATES. But I'll start an issue on the FATES side and we can discuss there.

@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Jun 17, 2022

The issue for FATES-SP mode is #1784. The issue in FATES is:

NGEET/fates#879

@rgknox and I met and decided that we should make sure dry-deposition is currently disabled with regular FATES, since the arrays won't even be dimensioned correctly. I've added something that aborts with a warning in build-namelist if you try to turn on FATES and drydep. I'll also expand that to the FORTRAN code. I'm also going to add some comments to the code that talk about what needs to be done to get it to work with dry-deposition for FATES

@ekluzek ekluzek added the next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. label Jun 17, 2022
@billsacks billsacks removed the next this should get some attention in the next week or two. Normally each Thursday SE meeting. label Jun 23, 2022
@ekluzek ekluzek added the closed: wontfix We won't fix this issue, because it would be too difficult and/or isn't important enough to fix label Aug 26, 2022
@ekluzek ekluzek changed the title We need dry-deposition to work with FATES dry-deposition work with FATES for normal FATES competitive mode Aug 26, 2022
@ekluzek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ekluzek commented Aug 26, 2022

I'm closing this as a wontfix for now, as we have this working for FATES-SP and we will get this working for no-competition mode. Later more scientific research will be done to figure out the best way to handle this.

@ekluzek ekluzek closed this as completed Aug 26, 2022
@jkshuman jkshuman moved this to Close for now, won't fix in CTSM-FATES priorities Dec 15, 2022
@samsrabin samsrabin added the science Enhancement to or bug impacting science label Aug 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
closed: wontfix We won't fix this issue, because it would be too difficult and/or isn't important enough to fix enhancement new capability or improved behavior of existing capability science Enhancement to or bug impacting science
Projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants