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

Rotation (MULLER2019) #74

Closed
LewisAJones opened this issue Feb 4, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #75
Closed

Rotation (MULLER2019) #74

LewisAJones opened this issue Feb 4, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #75
Assignees
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@LewisAJones
Copy link
Collaborator

Documentation for the MULLER2019 model has been updated on GPlates Web Service stating that the MULLER2019 model covers 0--250 Ma (as the paper also states). However, the API service allows points to be reconstructed up to 540 Ma for this model. A little digging required...

This should be addressed for v1.1.1.

As a side note, the MULLER2022 model is also now available and perhaps should be incorporated down the line.

@LewisAJones LewisAJones added the bug Something isn't working label Feb 4, 2023
@LewisAJones LewisAJones linked a pull request Feb 4, 2023 that will close this issue
@LewisAJones LewisAJones added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request and removed bug Something isn't working labels Feb 4, 2023
@Buffan3369
Copy link

Hi Lewis,

Sounds weird yes, and I don't feel like MUL19 and MUL22 are not returning the same results for the given a present-day point... We should probably put an artificial constraint on the rotation age using MUL19, and definitely include the MUL22 for the v.1.1.1!!
I can maybe try to get in touch with Sabin to know what's going on here.

@LewisAJones
Copy link
Collaborator Author

LewisAJones commented Feb 6, 2023

MUL19 and MUL22 are using different continental polygons, so this would explain some differences. However, I agree that we should constrain MUL19 to 250 Ma as this is the intended time span of the model. Yes, please touch base with Sabin to find out why this is. It's possible that there is a bug on their end and it is calling the wrong model when using the API, or... MUL19 uses a different model past 250 Ma. Note, the API seems to have slowed down a lot as well in the past week. Might be worth asking about that too...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants