Evergreen and deciduous forest fractions: inconsistencies? – in #9: CCLM

  @burkhardtrockel in #71a884f

<p> I just looked at the <span class="caps"> EXTPAR </span> source code. As far as I understand now I have misinterpreted the sentence <br/> <em> Values that depend on the plant cover, such as <span class="caps"> PLCOV </span> MX, <span class="caps"> PLCOV </span> MN, <span class="caps"> LAI </span> MN, <span class="caps"> LAI </span> MX, RS <span class="caps"> MIN </span> , <span class="caps"> FOR </span> E, <span class="caps"> FOR </span> D, <span class="caps"> ROOTDP </span> and z0, are weighted with the plant cover maximum in addition to the pixel area. </em> <br/> This seems to hold only for <span class="caps"> GLOBECOVER </span> and there is a general maximum plant cover in a grid cell defined for this. I mixed it up with the actual plant cover which is a different thing. Therefore I think you are right and for_e and for_d are fractions of the total grid cell and thus the long_names are OK. <br/> From this the equation for zsnow_alb is clear now and it fits to your example for vegetation fraction of 0.8, for_e = 0.4, for_d = 0.3 and veg_low = 0.1. <br/> What the equation for also concerns I can only suspect that the programmer assumed that the fractions for for_e and for_d hold also for the vegetation part not just for the whole grid cell. <br/> Would the following be more appropriate? <br/> <pre> zalso(i,j)= zsnow*zsnow_alb + &amp; (1._ireals-zsnow)* &amp; (for_e(i,j)*0.10_ireals + &amp; for_d(i,j)*0.15_ireals + &amp; (zvege-for_e(i,j)-for_d(i,j))*0.20_ireals+ &amp; (1._ireals-zvege)*zalso(i,j)) </pre> <br/> What do you think? <br/> Anyway, at the end the meaning can only be revealed by the programmer (whom I do not know). </p>