Closed mwest1066 closed 3 years ago
Compared the default chi calculation versus chi where we define groups consisting of each individual species. The results are the same as expected.
Just for clarification, the way I interpret the code for groupings is that if a species isn't in any of the groups, it is to be excluded?
Currently if a species is omitted from the array of groups
, it is excluded in the aero_state_mass_entropies
calculation but it isn't excluded from any aero_state_masses()
calculation. As a result, masses
and masses_of_avg_part
in aero_state_mixing_state_metrics
are incorrect as they are including species that do not appear in groups
. This is only correct if you also have specified to exclude
those missing species.
Currently if a species is omitted from the array of
groups
, it is excluded in theaero_state_mass_entropies
calculation but it isn't excluded from anyaero_state_masses()
calculation. As a result,masses
andmasses_of_avg_part
inaero_state_mixing_state_metrics
are incorrect as they are including species that do not appear ingroups
. This is only correct if you also have specified toexclude
those missing species.
Excellent catch! Let me see what I can do about that.
This extends the existing
group
mechanism when calculating the mixing state index to allow multiple groups, via a new optionalgroups
argument toaero_state_mixing_state_metrics()
. An example of using this new argument is provided inscenarios/1_urban_plume/urban_plume_process.F90
.