Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

corrected mb_climate_on_height for hydro month = 1 and qc as diagnostics #1351

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Dec 15, 2021

Conversation

lilianschuster
Copy link
Member

@lilianschuster lilianschuster commented Dec 14, 2021

when using match_geod_pergla, so far, the MB mean from 1999 to end of 2019 was calibrated to match the geodetic estimates. Normally it should be 2000-2019, but mb_climate_on_height falsely used the year before y0 even if hydro_month is equal to 1. This resulted in a not perfectly calibrated mb model and was found out during the development of this notebook: https://nbviewer.org/urls/cluster.klima.uni-bremen.de/~lschuster/error_analysis/working_glacier_gdirs_comparison.ipynb#id-dmdt-dmdtda-qc3. I proposed a correction for that. All old tests of OGGM still pass with this correction. If I am right and the corrections have to be done, we need to recalibrate the preprocessed gdirs above level 2 that use match_geod_pergla !

I also wrote a test that checks if the 20-year modelled specific mass-balance is now equal to the reference geodetic calibration data. Now it perfectly matches, however, and this is also tested inside of OGGM:

  • For the test, we need the newest climate data (till end of 2019), however inside of https://cluster.klima.uni-bremen.de/~oggm/test_climate/, for both ERA5 and CRU, the climate goes only till 2018 or 2014,
    • Therefore, I use process_dummy_cru_file to create a climate in the right time range and to test then if the calibration has worked
    • I will create new pre-processed directories without the small error, for that I also added the climate_qc_months to the diagnostics if historical_qc_months is called!

@pep8speaks
Copy link

pep8speaks commented Dec 14, 2021

Hello @lilianschuster! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2021-12-15 08:06:04 UTC

@fmaussion fmaussion merged commit 1c387d9 into OGGM:master Dec 15, 2021
@fmaussion
Copy link
Member

Fantastic! Thanks @lilianschuster

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants