Closed jhamman closed 10 years ago
"it would be good" - as in "this will be done" or as in "crossing our fingers and hope for the best"? I'd much prefer the "this will be done" version...
On Nov 18, 2014, at 12:15 PM, Joe Hamman notifications@github.com wrote:
Fixing #147 has raised the concern that the sub-components of total evaporation may not all be updated properly after evaporation is rescaled (as it is in runoff.c). It would be good to confirm that it is updated and that:
OUT_EVAP = OUT_EVAP_BARE + OUT_EVAP_CANOP + OUT_TRANSP_VEG + OUT_SUB_SURFACE + OUT_SUB_CANOP
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
Ok, I did some looking into this and it does not look like there is a problem here. My understanding of how this works is:
bare_evap_frac
) is held constant after being calculated in func_surf_energy_bal.c
. runoff.c
OUT_EVAP_BARE
and OUT_TRANSP_VEG
use bare_evap_frac
to partition the flux in put_data.c
The two plots below illustrate my findings a bit more.
Plot 1 show the total EVAP
compared to the individual components and the ERROR
calculated as:
df['EVAP_ERROR'] = df['EVAP'] - (df['EVAP_BARE'] + df['EVAP_CANOP'] + df['TRANSP_VEG'] + df['SUB_SNOW'] + df['SUB_CANOP'])
Plot 2 zooms in on the calculated error showing that it merely round off errors in the ASCII output:
@tbohn , if you feel good about my assessment, go ahead and close the issue...
Thanks Joe. I don't have permission to close the issue, but I'm OK with closing it.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Joe Hamman notifications@github.com wrote:
@tbohn https://github.com/tbohn , if you feel good about my assessment, go ahead and close the issue...
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/UW-Hydro/VIC/issues/158#issuecomment-63570419.
Fixing #147 has raised the concern that the sub-components of total evaporation may not all be updated properly after evaporation is rescaled (as it is in
runoff.c
). It would be good to confirm that it is updated and that: