search

TNC-NMFO / NWLAND

carbon accounting model
0 stars 0 forks source link

scenarios_nm_ac.xls: unequal record number between ambitions A, B and C, D #148

Open aj1s opened 2 years ago

aj1s commented 2 years ago

Part of the disparity was resolved by removal of 816 records from C and D, per e647f0f7e453e7c34a3c115f766a62a87393360e

The remaining disparity is entirely due to the Thinning* practices. A,B have 816 unique combinations of Landcat + Thinning*, where C,D have 864 unique combinations. Looking now at whether A and B are missing 48 unique combos, or if (less likely, evidently) C and D have 48 duplicates.

aj1s commented 2 years ago

48 combinations (16 landcats over the three time horizons) have Thinning_* acreages in C_Potential and D_Maximum, but not in A_Historical and B_Current:

C35001_Forest_USFS_Thinning C35001_Woodland_USFS_Thinning C35006_Forest_USFS_Thinning C35006_Woodland_USFS_Thinning C35015_Forest_USFS_Thinning C35017_Forest_USFS_Thinning C35027_Forest_USFS_Thinning C35031_Forest_USFS_Thinning C35047_Forest_USFS_Thinning C35047_Woodland_USFS_Thinning C35049_Forest_USFS_Thinning C35049_Woodland_USFS_Thinning C35051_Forest_USFS_Thinning C35053_Forest_USFS_Thinning C35055_Forest_USFS_Thinning C35055_Woodland_USFS_Thinning

All 16 landcats have Thinning values per the summarized FACT data.

However, I have not yet added these as 48 records to A and B in to scenarios_nm_ac.xls because a random sample of start_areas and end_areas in this file due not match the those (by landcat) in the summarized facts data (at least for Thinning).