| | 4 | |
| | 5 | |
| | 6 | === On Wednesday, 30th November === |
| | 7 | |
| | 8 | With Nicolas, Didier and Marion. |
| | 9 | |
| | 10 | Two main points: |
| | 11 | 1. Difference in the transfer of information into a netCDF file. Two methods are used, it is necessary to understand why they give different results. A document will be written to explain them. It is important to know where the problem comes from because we want to use good reconstruction emissions in INCA after. |
| | 12 | |
| | 13 | 2. Black box model: from emissions, use a little model in order to reconstruct concentration. This works well from 1950 to the end of the period but we get a plateau before that. This plateau is explained by the constant emissions we have for this period. By making an inverted model, it is possible to reconstruct emissions from concentration (from observations in CMIP6). It shows we need to get two or three small bumps. The absence of these emissions in ours could result in an absence of ENSO for the oceanic part or in imprecise industrial emissions for this period or a modification in land use surfaces... |
| | 14 | |
| | 15 | __//**TO DO**//__ |
| | 16 | * Write a document explaining reconstruction methods and the transformation into netCDF file; |
| | 17 | * Investigate the difference between the two methods (either by region or by region+sector), a solution could by to use a weighted factor for the sector part; |
| | 18 | * Continue development on the coupled model. |
| | 19 | |
