make sure when we cutoff a_ice=0.0 that we also cutoff m_ice and m_snow #377
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Do you know why it was defined only for the IFS case? Not to break the tests? :) |
|
@koldunov, could you evaluate and compare |
|
Here is the tripyview evaluation of a 1958 to 2017 standalone run with the new cutoff values removed vs the same period with the current main branch. I have nowhere to host the html, so as a pdf instead: |
|
As expected, the changes are minute. I will go ahead, update the truth and merge. |
|
Requires review to merge @dsidoren, @koldunovn, @trackow. |
koldunovn
approved these changes
Jul 26, 2024
|
Ty :) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When we cut off the ice concentration towards zeros we should make sure that we also cutoff the m_ice and m_snow, when there is no concentration than there can be also no ice and snow height. Somehow this issue slipped into the only coupled case. The difference is not much, its just a small inconsistency but its enough to most likely blow up the test case.
Its not a burning issue, for the case we next time have to redo the testcase we can also merge that issue!