overflow respiration bug fixes #3491

[wwieder]

Description of changes

Fixes overflow respiration error described in #3491

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any:

• @katierocci , @slevis-lmwg

CTSM issues resolved or otherwise addressed, if any:
Resolves #3491

If answers are expected to change, describe (delete this line otherwise):
Yes, reduces N limitation in MIMICS simulations

Any user interface changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)?
NA

Testing planned or performed, if any:

• Single point cases ran at East River and Cedar Creek LTER look improved

Requirements before merge:

• I have followed the CTSM contribution guidelines.

• The code in this PR branch builds with no errors.

• The code in this PR branch runs with no errors. Briefly describe tested configuration(s):

• This either (a) does not change answers, (b) it only changes answers at roundoff level, or (c) I have performed a scientific evaluation of the answer changes. Which?:

  • c, evaluated results in single point cases

• I have reviewed relevant parts of the CLM documentation Tech Note or User's Guide to determine if anything needs to be changed or added. If it does, describe:

  Documentation for MIMICS still needed, see Docs needed: MIMICS #3166

• This PR either (a) does not create a need to update the documentation or (b) includes required documentation updates (see guidelines for contributing documentation). Which?:

  Documentation for MIMICS still needed, see Docs needed: MIMICS #3166

[wwieder]

Minor change, do we need to request a review from someone else?

[slevis-lmwg]

Here and below: I decided to make them default active while we're testing. Can return them to inactive before merging if we prefer.

[slevis-lmwg]

Rather than adding a unique new loop to sum the c_overflow_hr_sum variable, I introduced partial sums in the existing loops. This line here is in the "is_soil" loop, next is the litter loop, then cwd, and last the is_microbe loop.

@wwieder based on what you said this morning, we may need to have this in one or some of those and not all, but I went for full coverage since I do not know.

[wwieder]

I think that's fine. I'm curious to see what the history files from MIMICS tests look like, once you are able to run them on derecho.

[slevis-lmwg]

I think that's fine. I'm curious to see what the history files from MIMICS tests look like, once you are able to run them on derecho.

@wwieder in the next post I have posted four mimics tests that you could look at in this directory:
/glade/work/slevis/git_people/wwieder/mimics_5.2.028_working/tests_0513-205326de/

[slevis-lmwg]

• aux_clm on derecho when the machine comes up: ./run_sys_tests -s aux_clm --skip-generate -c ctsm5.4.038
  Expected diffs:

FAIL ERP_D_P64x2_Ld3.f10_f10_mg37.I1850Clm60BgcCrop.derecho_gnu.clm-mimics BASELINE ctsm5.4.038: DIFF
FAIL SMS_D.1x1_brazil.I1850Clm60BgcCrop.derecho_gnu.clm-mimics_matrixcn BASELINE ctsm5.4.038: DIFF
FAIL SMS_Ld5_Mmpi-serial.1x1_brazil.IHistClm60Bgc.derecho_gnu.clm-mimics BASELINE ctsm5.4.038: DIFF
FAIL SMS_Ly5_Mmpi-serial.1x1_brazil.IHistClm50BgcQianRs.derecho_intel.clm-newton_krylov_spinup BASELINE ctsm5.4.038: DIFF

[slevis-lmwg]

@wwieder do you want to pick another reviewer? Maybe Sam R. would be a good option?

[wwieder]

@wwieder do you want to pick another reviewer? Maybe Sam R. would be a good option?

I think this makes sense. Should we see what derecho testing look like first, or just go ahead and request Sam's review?

[slevis-lmwg]

@wwieder do you want to pick another reviewer? Maybe Sam R. would be a good option?

I think this makes sense. Should we see what derecho testing look like first, or just go ahead and request Sam's review?

I say let's wait, just in case derecho testing discovers problems that require code revisions.