Fix bounds on several fields

[xylar]

Antarctic max elevation is ~5000 m, so give it some buffer.

Grounding line flux can occasionally go negative (e.g. at ice rises) so allow a small, negative flux.

[xylar]

@hgoelzer, let me know what you think of these changes. Feel free to suggest alternatives.

[hgoelzer]

Hi Xylar, here are a few more bounds problems reported by ISM_BERN we should address at the same time. Can you add those please?

• acabf variable, our minimum value in the simulation (-0.0004506820987444371) is out of range based on the file checker. Min value accepted: -0.0001: we think this our value is resulting from the climatic mass balance variable from the CESM2-WCCM ssp585 forcings. We checked the value of the SMB that our ISM reads as an input from the PISM ISMIP6 surface forcing scheme: in the last year of the future simulation it is lower than the lower accepted limit of -0.0001 kg m-2 s-1.

• libmassbfgr variabole, max value is out of range. Max value accepted: 0.0: same as in the historical simulation.

• strbasemag variable, max value (8963770.0) is out of range. Max value accepted: 300000.0: same as in the historical simulation.

• xvelmean variable, max value (0.0005406480049714446) is out of range. Max value accepted: 0.0004: same as in the historical simulation.

[hgoelzer]

See my comment in conversations with additional bounds

[xylar]

@hgoelzer, I'm seeing:
https://github.com/ismip/ISM_SimulationChecker/blob/main/conventions/ISMIP7_variable_request.csv#L7
so it looks like acabf has already been addressed?

For the others, I'm happy to adjust but please let me know what you want the new bounds to be.

[xylar]

libmassbfgr already has a non-zero upper bound:
https://github.com/ismip/ISM_SimulationChecker/blob/main/conventions/ISMIP7_variable_request.csv#L8

[xylar]

I made my best guesses with strbasemag, xvelmean and yvelmean. It doesn't look to me like acabf and libmassbfgr need further updates, but let me know.

[xylar]

@hgoelzer, this still needs attention when you have time.

[hgoelzer]

Hi Xylar, I think this is good to go. We may get some more feedback from groups as we go ahead as some bounds are dependent on the forcing, input data and model implementation.
We could try to give more context to the checker stating which checks are hard limits, while others are more like yellow flags for the modellers to take a second look at their submission.

[xylar]

@hgoelzer, I agree. It would make sense to have two classes of limits as you suggest.