Changes between Version 39 and Version 40 of ESM2025-N-cycle

Timestamp:

10/19/22 14:09:57 (19 months ago)

Author:

klaurent

Comment:

--

ESM2025-N-cycle

@@ -15 +15 @@
 
 == Last meeting ==
-=== On Wednesday, 5th October === 
+=== On Wednesday, 19th October === 
 
-In person with Didier and Nicolas. 
+In person with Juliette, Didier and Nicolas. 
 
-Review of the latest results for the present day run (because Didier wasn't present at the last meeting), with:
-  1. Data used (BBG, NAT and ANT);
-  2. Results of vertical profiles and total loss for 2000 (year with an imposed rescaling at 316 ppb);
-  3. Results over the whole period (2000-2007) with vertical concentration, surface concentration, total loss and burden.
+Look on comparison of EDGAR inventory and the one of CEDS. Globally, their emissions are similar but if we look by sectors, there are different. In EDGAR, apparently, it could be better to drop fertilizers and biomass burning categories.
 
-Show first result of countries/great regions repartition. Mainly, discussion due to a reduction in seasonality when removing soil emissions from the agricultural sector (with the help of a factor). Interrogation of which repartition country/great region to use: the EDGAR/Minx one (more precise and fine than the other two found in CEDS/Hoesly articles).
-
-What to do before 1970? Discussion on reconstruction emissions for pre industrial period (from a proxy or with surface concentration + total loss):
-  * The idea of a proxy from NMVOC/CEDS could be interesting because the evolution of emissions seems to be similar between NMVOC and N,,2,,O (by great regions and/or sectors). 
-  * An other idea (but more atypical) could be to see the difference between burden and total loss to the atmosphere in order to determine the sources. And then, using natural and biomass burning emissions (considered as good), we can determine emissions from anthropogenic sources (globally, not sector by sector).
+Use of NMVOC proxy: seems to be a good idea but have to drop some sectors already taken into account in orchidee dataset. NMVOC better than NH,,3,, because too related to agricultural sector, neither to CO because too related to industry, then NMVOC seem to be the less polluted by one particular sector.
 
 __//**TO DO**//__
- * Continue to explore the CEDS inventory and the analysis by country (aggregate by great region and then use mask to reconstruct global emissions).
- * Make a test: from total loss distribution and burden (of CMIP6 simulation): try to recover anthropogenic emissions.
- * Use a proxy-like from NMVOC to reconstruct anthropogenic emissions from 1850 to 1970.
- * Compare EDGAR emissions and CEDS emissions (global and by great regions).
+   * Comparison of emissions (without soil emissions and fertilizers) and understood relationship between their subcategories;
+   * Have a look on geographical repartition (in order to see if patterns are similar);
+   * Proxy to recompute without soil emission and without domestic sector. (from 0 Tg/yr in 1750 to little in 1850);
+   * See with Anne to come into coupled model.
 
-The main objective of the coming weeks will be to have natural, biomass burning and anthropogenic emissions from 1850 to 1970 (in order to use them into the coupled model).
-
-For the next ESM2025 meeting, maybe prepare some slides (on subject: //Forcing  data and emissions compiled and harmonized (i.e. any new forcing not available from CMIP6 - e.g. anthropogenic CH4 emissions) for use in XCA2 demonstration simulations//)
-
+A few words on the next MERMAID meeting (December 14) with a presentation of N,,2,,O cycle and my work (introduction with Tian graph).
 
 == Last intermediate conclusions ==