| 192 | | - Better understanding how is operating the ping files. There are few inconsistencies in the final files for example we have in the netcdf files: drydust but wetdustci and emidustci. Probably the ping files will resolve this in the last step but currently the netcdf variable names are somehow confusing. Similary we have drynh4 but wetnh4as as variable name. |
| 193 | | - Also the values of emioa is not full consistent with the aerocom simulation as we are not saving the msa fields. I have updated this and run a test to verify this issue. There were not saved modal information of NO3 for emission and depostion. The same for nh4. Although might not be necessary for official AerChemMIP variables, it would be useful for double checking. |
| | 192 | - A better understanding of how is operating the ping files. There are few inconsistencies in the final files, for example, we have in the NetCDF files: drydust but wetdustci and emidustci. Probably the ping files will resolve this in the last step but currently, the NetCDF variable names are somehow confusing. Similarly, we have drynh4 but wetnh4as as the variable name. |
| | 193 | - Also, the values of emioa is not fully consistent with the aerocom simulation as we are not saving the MSA related variables. It was agreed that the OA definitions on ping-files but for double-checking, we need the MSA related variables. I have updated this and run a test to verify this issue. There were not saved modal information of NO3 for emission and deposition. The same for nh4. Although might not be necessary for official AerChemMIP variables, it would be useful for double-checking. |
| | 194 | - The MDW variables were not saved => problem of communication. So I have uncommented the lines and added also number concentrations of the modes. |
| | 195 | - Preliminary analysis indicates that BC, SS, DUST, SO2 have reasonable values but OA need to be checked with MSA values. |
