Hello,
Is there a way to write out elevation changes after each time step and/or the final timestep?
If not, is there a section in the code that can be modified since it displays the results, it seems that a write statement(s) can be added to write to file?
Jay
What you have specified as a model output is not precise enough as elevation change is calculated on a cell-by-cell basis. Elevation change varies spatially based on predicted accretion rates, spatially variable uplift or subsidence, and the SLR scenario utilized.
If you're talking about the eustatic SLR calculated for each time-step, that is output as part of the tables of output.
Is there an option to write ASCii maps of simulated MTL depths for each timestep specified ?
Not yet, but this is certainly a good idea. -- J
I agree that this would be a great idea. One thing coastal stakeholders are concerned about is where the new tide range will be, which isn't easy to depict based on the land cover outputs. However, having the predicted elevation map would facilitate adding and subtracting MHHW and MLLW from MTL, thereby showing the new tidal range.
So far the best I could come up with was a reclassification of the land cover to show four classes of 1) dryland, 2) non-tidal wetland, 3) upper tidal influence, and 4) below MTL. Basically all open water classes (i.e. 13-19) are considered Below MTL, while all other tidally influenced classes are in the Upper Tidal Influence (ie considered to be between MTL and MHHW). I'm not convinced this is accurate though. Advice is welcomed for depicting the tidal zone in the predicted outputs.
-Dean
I have added the elevation outputs to our new version "wish list."
With regards to the predicted tidal zones, Dean, I don't have any better advice than what you've already done, though it could be imprecise, especially if wetland ranges are allowed to range below MTL (which generally happens in microtidal regimes.)
Don't forget that SLAMM holds tide ranges constant over the simulation (despite potential hydrological changes due to SLR) so it has very simple assumptions with regards to predicted future tidal ranges.
Great news about the possibility of elevation outputs.
I agree with you, Jonathan, about the misrepresentation of possible wetlands below MTL in some areas. I've already gone back and recoded to show: 1) upland (aka dryland), 2) non-tidal wetland, 3) tidal wetland, & 4) open water. I feel like this takes care of the possibility of wetlands below MTL. The maps look the same, it's just a renaming, more than a recoding.
And yes, I haven't forgotten about SLAMM holding tidal ranges constant. That would be a hard one to predict!
-Dean