I suspect that the values of ciso_tracer_init_ext(:)%scale_factor that are not 1.0 are not correct, now that we've changed the ciso IC file.
For instance, I think the 1.025 value for DI13C, reading from DIC, was replicating the value for DIC from an old ecosys IC file. Now that the ecosys IC file has the 1.025 value applied in the file, and not in the code, it isn't appropriate to apply 1.025 for DI13C. If possible, I think we should change the scale_factor to be the same as the scale factor for DIC. This might be tricky to pull off in build-namelist. If it isn't straightforward, perhaps we should just use 1 for ciso's scale_factor. We might consider removing ciso's scale_factor from namelist defaults and build-namelist.
Additionally, I think the 0.9225 value for DI14C, reading from DIC, which is intended to account for decay of DI14C, takes into account the old 1.025 factor being applied to DIC. I think we want 0.9 times the factor being used for DIC. For simplicity, we might want to just use 0.9.
Further discussion with Alex Jahn confirmed that decay for DI13C should be 1.0 but offered other suggestions instead of using 0.9 for DI14C to represent decay of 14C. At a MARBL meeting, we decided on the following solution:
add GLODAP PI DI14C to BEC IC file and add fallback to use DIC with default scalefactor (=1)
For abiotic tracers, we want scale factors of 1.0 for ABIO_DIC and 0.9 for ABIO_DIC14
Description of the issue:
@klindsay28 emailed me the following:
Further discussion with Alex Jahn confirmed that decay for DI13C should be 1.0 but offered other suggestions instead of using 0.9 for DI14C to represent decay of 14C. At a MARBL meeting, we decided on the following solution:
For abiotic tracers, we want scale factors of 1.0 for ABIO_DIC and 0.9 for ABIO_DIC14
Version:
Machine/Environment Description:
Machine independent
Any xml/namelist changes or SourceMods:
Problem exists out of the box