Hi Stuart, I would need some way to test this to give any real answers. For now I can only ask questions.
It looks like you are somehow computing the 183 GHz line twice. This should not happen easily. Have you somehow made a copy-paste error that still retains a "complete" model in this setup? Are you using abs_xsec_per_speciesAddLines or propmat_clearskyAddLines? (It would be fantastic if you are using both, because then the error would be exactly that, but your ozone lines make it look like you are not computing them twice.) There are some small changes in abs_xsec_per_speciesAddLines. I don't think they should cause any issues, but change is change so it is a possibility. With hope, //Richard Den tors 17 mars 2022 kl 11:57 skrev Fox, Stuart < stuart....@metoffice.gov.uk>: > Hi ARTS devs, > > > > One of the recent-(ish) commits to ARTS has broken my simulations! With > the current head of master I get big differences in simulated brightness > temperature around a water vapour absorption line when I do simulations > that also include ozone (blue line in attached plots), compared to > simulations without (orange line). This didn’t use to be the case, at least > back at commit 3b6565f. Both water vapour and ozone in these simulations > are calculated using absorption line catalogues rather than “complete” > models – if I use a complete model for water vapour the problem goes away. > > > > Before I spend a bit of time putting together a simple test case and/or > trying to identify which commits caused the change, does anyone know > already what the cause might be, and what I need to do to fix it (e.g. > changes to controlfiles)? > > > > Regards, > > > > Stuart >