Replies: 1 comment
-
My suggestion is that:
change to:
and the comments around them that say "potential veg" use "primary land". Similar changes would happen in CTSM for the PVT system test. I can't comment on if there are changes that should happen to ELM, although it seems unlikely that ELM has a Paleo mode? NorESM does do Paleo work, but they stay pretty close to CTSM, so likely wouldn't have to do any changes themselves. So I think the change would only happen in FATES and then CTSM. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
In CTSM the use of "potential vegetation" is used pretty synonymously with "recent Paleo". In FATES it's used in the sense of leaving vegetation as primary land cover. I find the use of the same term in different ways to be confusing personally.
For example in CTSM in namelist_definition_ctsm.xml you have this statement:
namelist defaults has this:
There's similar statements in the surface dataset generation tools
Within the FATES repository I only find these references:
I suggest the use in these files (and the PVT system test in CTSM) be changed to something that says something to the effect of all primary land rather than potential vegetation.
This discussion started in CTSM here:
https://github.com/ESCOMP/CTSM/pull/2898/files/b4415079927843cb752d2d6e6131c96c406f20a7#r1870145028
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions