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

Tentative changes from final version used for photoacclimation experiments #12

Conversation

andrew-c-ross
Copy link
Contributor

@andrew-c-ross andrew-c-ross commented Mar 8, 2024

This PR would make COBALT equivalent to the version found in Charlie's generic_COBALT_08222023_control.F90. Some of the changes in this PR are specific to the needs of the global photoacclimation runs, however, and shouldn't be merged. Reviews would be appreciated to identify what should or shouldn't be merged.

Comment on lines +6344 to +6351
call g_tracer_add_param('p_2_n_min_Sm', phyto(SMALL)%p_2_n_min,1.0/23.0 ) ! mol P mol N-1
call g_tracer_add_param('p_2_n_slope_Sm', phyto(SMALL)%p_2_n_slope, 0.0*1.0e6) ! mol P mol N-1 mol P-1 kg
call g_tracer_add_param('p_2_n_max_Sm', phyto(SMALL)%p_2_n_max,1.0/23.0 ) ! mol P mol N-1
call g_tracer_add_param('p_2_n_min_Md', phyto(MEDIUM)%p_2_n_min,1.0/18.0 ) ! mol P mol N-1
call g_tracer_add_param('p_2_n_slope_Md', phyto(MEDIUM)%p_2_n_slope, 0.0*1.0e6) ! mol P mol N-1 mol P-1 kg
call g_tracer_add_param('p_2_n_max_Md', phyto(MEDIUM)%p_2_n_max,1.0/18.0 ) ! mol P mol N-1
call g_tracer_add_param('p_2_n_min_Lg', phyto(LARGE)%p_2_n_min,1.0/14.0 ) ! mol P mol N-1
call g_tracer_add_param('p_2_n_slope_Lg', phyto(LARGE)%p_2_n_slope, 0.0*1.0e6) ! mol P mol N-1 mol P-1 kg
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I see what's going on here now... this is effectively disabling the variable n:p, right? So this should not be merged.

@andrew-c-ross andrew-c-ross marked this pull request as ready for review March 8, 2024 16:50
@yichengt900
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks @andrew-c-ross! @charliestock, based on @nikizadehgfdl's comments during the COBALTv3 Focused Doc and Dev meeting, it seems that we can overwrite parameters using field_table without recompiling the code. This raises the following question: do we still want to update the default values to match those used in the manuscript, purely for the sake of consistency and reference?

@yichengt900
Copy link
Collaborator

yichengt900 commented Mar 27, 2024

@charliestock, following our discussion, I think we will eventually go down the route of providing users with our recommended BGC parameters through a separate file, rather than editing the default values in the code. If so, I will close this PR for now and keep it as a reference. @andrew-c-ross are you ok with that?

@andrew-c-ross
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think that sounds ok. Yeah I will keep my branch around, so with that branch and this closed PR we can always compare values if needed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants