Incorporate changes from PR #1564 into dynurb_mksurf_part2 branch

[olyson]

Description of changes

Incorporate changes from PR #1564 (Change renormalization of landunit areas in mksurfdata_map to be consistent with raw datasets) into dynurb_mksurf_part2 branch.

Specific notes

Contributors other than yourself, if any: @billsacks

CTSM Issues Fixed (include github issue #): Completely resolves #1555 (note that part of #1555 was split out into its own issue: #1556 )

Are answers expected to change (and if so in what way)? Yes, surface datasets will change.

Any User Interface Changes (namelist or namelist defaults changes)? No

Testing performed, if any: See description of testing in PR #1564

[olyson]

I've updated the initial PR comment.

[slevis-lmwg]

So, @mvertens and @slevisconsulting, I think the new plan is that you will make sure that all of the changes in #1586 and this PR have been incorporated into the new version of mksurfdata_map, at which point we can close this PR. Do you agree?

@mvertens alerted me to this when I met with her today, and I'm fine with incorporating #1586 and #1587 in #1663. I will get to that in the next few days.

[slevis-lmwg]

@ekluzek I saw that you merged #1586 to the first ctsm5.2.mksurfdata tag, and I wonder what should happen to this PR here.

[slevis-lmwg]

...to explain why I asked the above question: As with #1586 , I manually incorporated the code changes from #1587 in mksurfdata_esmf.

[ekluzek]

@slevisconsulting all of the work with mksurfdata should be rebased into the ctsm5.2.mksurfdata branch. That's where they'll actually get merged into and turned into alpha-ctsm5.2 tags. Since, mksurfdata_esmf is new code a lot of that work will need to be done manually. This one could still merge into dynurb_mksrf_part2, but dynurb_mksrf_part2 itself should be rebased to merge into ctsm5.2.mksurfdata.

[billsacks]

@slevisconsulting says this has been manually incorporated into the 5.2 mksurfdata branch. @olyson will confirm. Assuming these changes are all on the 5.2 mksurfdata branch, we can close #1555.

[olyson]

I've reviewed this. The only difference I see is that I believe this line in the ctsm5.2 mksurfdata branch:

           write (6,*) subname, 'Error: sum of special land units nearly 100% but none is >= 1% at ', &

should be:

           write (6,*) subname, 'Error: sum of special plus crop land units nearly 100% but none is >= 1.0% at ', &

given that suma is the sum of special plus crop. @slevisconsulting do you agree?

[slevis-lmwg]

I've reviewed this. The only difference I see is that I believe this line in the ctsm5.2 mksurfdata branch:

           write (6,*) subname, 'Error: sum of special land units nearly 100% but none is >= 1% at ', &

should be:

           write (6,*) subname, 'Error: sum of special plus crop land units nearly 100% but none is >= 1.0% at ', &

given that suma is the sum of special plus crop. @slevisconsulting do you agree?

@olyson thank you for checking and good catch! I will add this to a list of small corrections needed in the ctsm5.2 branch. At this morning's meeting I agreed to open a ctsm5.2 PR. I will address items on that list there.

And otherwise, feel free to close this PR (#1587).

[olyson]

Sam is fixing the item I identified on the branch. So I am closing this.