Dry deposition working with FATES-NOCOMP

[rosiealice]

These are the FATES-side changed for making FATES-NOCOMP mode work with dry deposition.

The noresm branch appears to be somewhat behind the FATES main, hence the large number of apparent differences.

This code runs in coupled mode and produces valid outputs. Analysis of the validity of their magnitudes is ongoing.

A follow-up PR will introduce the scientifically useful calculation of the seasons. This PR is just to make the code function at all.

Description:

Collaborators:

@mvdebolskiy
@mvertens
@maritsandstad
@kjetilaas

Expectation of Answer Changes:

Answers are expected to change, but only for the dry deposition fields. It is hard to assess the impact of these answer changes as these fields were not generated before and the model version that generates them did not function prior to this PR.
But nothing else should change except for the dry deposition fields.

Checklist:

• My change requires a change to the documentation. (not until it becomes a PR on the actual FATES repo.
• I have updated the in-code documentation .AND. (the technical note .OR. the wiki) accordingly.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• FATES PASS/FAIL regression tests were run
• If answers were expected to change, evaluation was performed and provided. Answers are expected to change.

Test Results:

CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) test hash-tag:

CTSM (or) E3SM (specify which) baseline hash-tag:

FATES baseline hash-tag:

Test Output:

[mvertens]

@rosiealice - I think it would not be easier to make 2 PRs here.

• PR1 would be just to bring the FATES no NorESM up to date with FATES main.
• PR2 would be to update PR1 to have the drydep changes you introduced. That way it would be straightforward to review the changes you made rather than trying to understand this in the context of 147 file changes.
• What tests should be run for PR1 and PR2? Should we try using the new testlist I suggested? We need to create baselines here for that. It would be really helpful to get feedback on if that testlist is too big, etc. Thoughts?

[rosiealice]

Yes, it would be good to bring noresm up to date with NGEET/ FATES main. For some reason I could not see the noresm branch this morning, but I do think it would be better if there was another PR before this one to update it. I can try and have a go...

Note that the NorESMhub/CTSM tags we are using currently point to a NGEET/FATES tag and not here.. https://github.com/NorESMhub/NorESM/blob/noresm2_5_alpha06/Externals_CLM.cfg