Provide a clear and concise overview of the new feature requested.
We plan to retire the CH4, CO2, and tagCO simulations in GCClassic and GCHP in favor of the carbon simulation, which can be run in joint-species or single-species mode. See https://github.com/geoschem/geos-chem/issues/2387 for more details.
This would include retiring the simulation type "CO2 w/ CMS-Flux emissions" from GCHP's createRunDir.sh script. That simulation was introduced for the purposes of developing the GCHP adjoint, but it would be best if further work on the GCHP adjoint used the carbon simulation.
If CMS-Flux emissions should be included as the default or as an option in the carbon simulations then that should be introduced in it's own pull request.
@kbowman77 I believe you have plans to continue work on the GCHP adjoint so please feel free to tag the relevant developers here for awareness and discussions if needed.
Your name
Melissa Sulprizio
Your affiliation
Harvard
Provide a clear and concise overview of the new feature requested.
We plan to retire the CH4, CO2, and tagCO simulations in GCClassic and GCHP in favor of the carbon simulation, which can be run in joint-species or single-species mode. See https://github.com/geoschem/geos-chem/issues/2387 for more details.
This would include retiring the simulation type "CO2 w/ CMS-Flux emissions" from GCHP's
createRunDir.shscript. That simulation was introduced for the purposes of developing the GCHP adjoint, but it would be best if further work on the GCHP adjoint used the carbon simulation.If CMS-Flux emissions should be included as the default or as an option in the carbon simulations then that should be introduced in it's own pull request.
@kbowman77 I believe you have plans to continue work on the GCHP adjoint so please feel free to tag the relevant developers here for awareness and discussions if needed.
Reference(s)
No response
Will you be implementing this feature yourself?
Yes
Additional information
No response