HI @RachelLaw
Here is a quick analysis:
NBP_Method2_vs_Method3_Comparison.pdf (543.8 KB)
I did compare method2 and method3 and found an inverted correlation, I also think method3 may need land fraction normalisation.
What do you think?
I think the 1-1 line is dominated by all the places where land-use change isn’t taking place and therefore nbp = nep. When I plot up the fld_s03i262-fld_s03i293+fld_s03i100 and compare that with the wood respiration term, then I see the mismatch more clearly.
Also where does the 3.169e-14 number come from? There is 1e3 for g to kg and 1/(365.252460*60) for years to seconds but that only gets me to 3.149e-11.
Finally I think I’ve worked this out. The wood resp fields (907-909) should not be multiplied by tile fraction.
Oh, no idea what happened here.
Should be
1/ (1e3 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365.25)
3.168808781402895e-11
Where do you see 3.149?
NBP_Method2_vs_Method3_Comparisonb.pdf (546.9 KB)
Updated @RachelLaw
That looks better indeed
You meant divided by tile fraction right?
@rbeucher - sorry, the 3.149 was just a typo - should have been 3.169.
Yes - you can just use the fld_s03i100 version for calculating nbp.