CO only | leap in some metrics between 2021 and 2022

[sbassett]

e.g.

[sbassett]

also All_region_All_land_All_own_CO_MAX_v01_solelyCO_A_rcp45_climNA_output_mean_BC1_NR120_ghg_ann_comp_output.pdf

[sbassett]

Leap/spike still present.

[sbassett]

The spike is present in all Ambition scenarios so the "change from baseline" stats should all be valid.

This dramatic change netween 2021 and 2022 seems to stem from Developed_all: outputs\output_co_rcp85\A_Historical_co_rcp85_climNA_output_mean_BC1_NR120.xls > All_orgC_den

All_region	Water	All_own	101.62	100.22	98.86	97.49
All_region	Sparse	All_own	231.88	230.26	228.67	227.07
All_region	Shrubland	All_own	133.13	133.87	134.59	135.34
All_region	Grassland	All_own	159.28	157.53	155.81	153.88
All_region	Forest	All_own	232.87	237.35	241.77	246.24
All_region	Meadow	All_own	135.21	136.48	137.73	139.06
All_region	Cultivated	All_own	94.96	91.98	89.12	86.4
All_region	Developed_all	All_own	98.71	84.76	85.02	85.29
All_region	Ice	All_own	108.59	107.14	105.7	104.24
All_region	Barren	All_own	146	145.93	145.87	145.8
All_region	Desert	All_own	80.47	81.86	83.24	84.65
All_region	Woodland	All_own	189.94	190.9	191.75	192.54

[sbassett]

Hypotheses:

• [x] Scenario File Broken [Maybe dead removal needs to have the same 2021-2030, 2031-2040, and 2041-2050 time frames?]
• [x] Jumps in developed area from landuse change projections?

Scenarios file doesn't need to have Dead_removal time periods match the other practices. [per example CALAND scenarios file]

Developed_all doesn't change unexpectedly in area between 2021 and 2022.

[sbassett]

outputs\output_co_rcp85\A_Historical_co_rcp85_climNA_output_mean_BC1_NR120.xls > All_orgC_den

Developed_all Smallest changes between 2021 and 2022: 616002 516008 3316008 3916001 616007 3216005 LARGEST CHANGES in 2021-22: 2516008 2216011 2216001 216011 6116007 3416008

[sbassett]

This is caused by the application of dead removal to a built up legacy pile of dead down and litter. To resolve, the litter and dead down are being removed from initial stock estimate sin developed_all land types/landCats.

[aj1s]

@sbassett - In our 4/25 runs, we had seen this dramatic first-year drop in both CO and NM. As noted above, we removed all but a trace of C in the dead down (DDC) and litter (LTC) pools within the Developed_all land_type. (Actual summary stats for the respective landcats in stocks_ddc_co.csv, stocks_ddc_nm.csv, stocks_ltc_co.csv, and stocks_ltc_nm.csv were set as: min = 0, max = 0.000002, mean = 0.000001, stddev = 3.00E-15, and sum = non_null*mean.)

This has resolved the first-year drop in the respective annual NM figs, e.g., .../output_nm_rcp85/mean/All_region/All_land/All_own/All_region_All_land_All_own_C_Potential_nm_rcp85_climNA_output_mean_BC1_NR120_ghg_ann_comp_output.pdf

... but alas has not in corresponding CO figs, e.g., .../output_co_rcp85/mean/All_region/All_land/All_own/All_region_All_land_All_own_C_Potential_co_rcp85_climNA_output_mean_BC1_NR120_ghg_ann_comp_output.pdf

[sbassett]

@aj1s is this pattern solely present in the devloped_all (and all_land) landtype graphs?

Maybe output from an old 'pre-zeroed out DDC and LTC on delveoped_all' run is used as input for plot_caland()?

[aj1s]

@sbassett 1/ yep -- evident only in developed_all and all_land for CO. However, the CO drop is not as dramatic as it appears at first; see respective magnitudes on the Y-axis, NM vs CO. 2/ On your 2nd Q: I highly doubt it as I ran write_caland_inputs.r and CALAND.r anew with each run, but good Q and I'll double-check.

[sbassett]

Input file still has 'non-basically zero' DDC an LTC values.

[aj1s]

Yes, I would've expected these to be lower. However, they are comparable to the corresponding numbers in the NM input files.