liangch@illinois_edu
New Member
Hello all,
I am running CESM 1.0.4 with the F2000 component set. I tried to plot the global LAI map based the the variables PCT_PFT (percent plant functional type of gridcell) and MONTHLY_LAI(monthly leaf area index) in the surfdata (the one I used is surfdata_0.9x1.25_simyr2000_c091006.nc).
LAI = sum(MONTHLY_LAI for each PFT * percent PFT / 100)
However, the calculated LAI is very low (see the map attached).
I also checked the CLM output in my run and plot the variable TLAI (total one-sided leaf area index). Its value is also much lower than the CESM1.0 Experiment results on the UCAR website (such as, http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/experiments/cesm1.0/diagnostics/b40_20th_1d_b08c5cn_139jp/lnd_1981-2005-obs/set2/set2_ANN_TLAI.gif).
I am wondering if there is anything wrong with the surface input data of the CLM model.
Additionally, I compared the surfdata in 2000 with surfdata in 1850. There is no change in MONTHLY_LAI from 1850 to 2000. Is this correct?
Thanks in advance to all,
Best,
I am running CESM 1.0.4 with the F2000 component set. I tried to plot the global LAI map based the the variables PCT_PFT (percent plant functional type of gridcell) and MONTHLY_LAI(monthly leaf area index) in the surfdata (the one I used is surfdata_0.9x1.25_simyr2000_c091006.nc).
LAI = sum(MONTHLY_LAI for each PFT * percent PFT / 100)
However, the calculated LAI is very low (see the map attached).
I also checked the CLM output in my run and plot the variable TLAI (total one-sided leaf area index). Its value is also much lower than the CESM1.0 Experiment results on the UCAR website (such as, http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/experiments/cesm1.0/diagnostics/b40_20th_1d_b08c5cn_139jp/lnd_1981-2005-obs/set2/set2_ANN_TLAI.gif).
I am wondering if there is anything wrong with the surface input data of the CLM model.
Additionally, I compared the surfdata in 2000 with surfdata in 1850. There is no change in MONTHLY_LAI from 1850 to 2000. Is this correct?
Thanks in advance to all,
Best,