Compute surface albedo correctly

[kmdeck]

Purpose

Close #845

Because this involves name changing, a lot of files changed in experiments, test.

For review, I think it is enough to focus on the changes to files in src/. @braghiere
Tagging @Espeer5 since you implemented the two stream scheme and this impacts those functions - only review as your time permits :)

To-do

Content

Previously, we computed the absorbed, reflected, and transmitted fluxes in moles of photons per m^2/s in both NIR and PAR. This required:

• converting PAR and NIR downwelling energy flux -> moles of photon fluxes, which is then used to get moles photon/m^2/s absorbed, transmitted, reflected. We do this because PAR is needed in moles of photon for photosynthesis and SIF computations. But, it required then converting absorbed molar flux etc back to get total absorbed energy flux, transmitted flux, etc
• NIR is not needed in molar flux, but we still computed it this way since we did it for PAR

Content:

• compute fraction absorbed, reflected, transmitted
• when a molar flux of absorbed PAR is needed, convert to it, but otherwise work in energy fluxes
• remove lambda_gamma_NIR (typical energy per photon in the NIR) from parameters and all scripts since we do not need to convert the NIR energy flux into a moles of photon flux.
• renamed inc_* -> *_d (incoming -> downwelling by our convention)
• Changed names: compute_absorbances -> compute_fractional_absorbances, plant_absorbed_pfd -> canopy_sw_rt (shortwave radiative transfer)

I compared multiple buildkite plots (ClimaLandSims, fluxnet sites, canopy implicit timestepping, canopy without lai/sai, and all plots were identical between this and the latest PR that merged into main).

---

• I have read and checked the items on the review checklist.

[braghiere]

We need to change how we calculate SW albedo.

[Espeer5]

Changes to the TwoStream scheme look good and make sense to me!

[kmdeck]

We need to change how we calculate SW albedo.

fixed!

I fixed the issue