turn off requirement for prognostic CO2 for using dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm?

[wwieder]

My understanding is that the xsmr harvest bug fix (#590 & #610) is still only on when using crop and prognostic CO2?

CTSM/bld/namelist_files/namelist_defaults_ctsm.xml

Line 496 in 8550666

<dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm co2_type="prognostic" use_crop=".true.">.true.</dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm>

Can we remove the prognostic CO2 conditional in CTSM5.1? Should the same be done for CESM2.2?

[ekluzek]

Yes, this is on only when co2_type="prognostic" for clm4_5 or clm5_0. This could be changed for clm5_1, so that it's always on when crop is on.

The xml should look something like...

<dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm phys="clm5_1"                use_crop=".true.">.true.</dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm>
<dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm co2_type="prognostic" use_crop=".true.">.true.</dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm>
<dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm                                         use_crop=".true.">.false.</dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm>

And phys needs to be added to the CLMBuildNamelist.pm. It could be turned on for all versions if that's what we really want. I think it makes sense to keep the previous behavior for clm5_0 though. But, let me know if we don't want that.

[wwieder]

You're right Erik, let's keep this as is for CLM5.0, but make it on by default (with crops) for CTSM5.1.

…

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:10 AM Erik Kluzek ***@***.***> wrote: Yes, this is on only when co2_type="prognostic" for clm4_5 or clm5_0. This could be changed for clm5_1, so that it's always on when crop is on. The xml should look something like... <dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm phys="clm5_1" use_crop=".true.">.true.</dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm> <dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm co2_type="prognostic" use_crop=".true.">.true.</dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm> <dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm use_crop=".true.">.false.</dribble_crophrv_xsmrpool_2atm> And phys needs to be added to the CLMBuildNamelist.pm. It could be turned on for all versions if that's what we really want. I think it makes sense to keep the previous behavior for clm5_0 though. But, let me know if we don't want that. — You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1158 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB5IWJEOZWMANERZRHNKVD3SHDK73ANCNFSM4RVWHPQQ> .

[billsacks]

@dlawrenncar says we should change this for older physics versions, too (clm5_0 and clm4_5). And in that case, we should just go ahead and remove this namelist item.