New Experiment 1pctCO2-bgc #15
Comments
github-actions
bot
changed the title
Validation failed:1 issues found. Validation Errors
|
|
@ChrisJones-MOHC can you correct the branch date in submission text above when you are ready. The description of the format is given in the form https://github.com/WCRP-CMIP/CMIP7-CVs/issues/new?template=cmipld_experiment.yml @matthew-mizielinski can you advise if different. |
|
I think this might be a problem with our form. For his experiment, Chris Jones has correctly stated the constraint on the Start Date and Branch Date, which are up to the data provider (within those constraints). Also, I'm not sure what the difference is between "start date" and "branch date". Is that made clear somewhere? |
github-actions
bot
changed the title
|
@wolfiex , I've removed the information from the start and end dates to follow how this was done in CMIP6. I think this is the simplest way to address this if you are going to automatically pull information from issues. @taylor13, branch date is the point in the parent experiment from which the initial conditions are to be taken (e.g. for scenarios it should be end of the historical). While I'm very used to this (it had to go in file metadata last time around) it didn't appear in the CMIP6 experiment CV. Chat with @wolfiex about removing it if you see fit. |
|
For any simulation initialized from the control run, we cannot specify a "branch_date" and I agree, it shouldn't appear in the experiment CV. However, for anyone wanting to analyze CMIP experiments, the "branch_date" is an essential piece of information, which is why it must be recorded as a global attribute in files. |
|
In which case I suggest that |
|
I don't think some MIP planners know what is meant by "parent experiment". They might think it refers to the experiment that the new experiment is patterned after. Perhaps more guidance should be provided on the form soliciting registration information. Otherwise, we'll have to iterate correcting obvious mistakes. In any case, someone knowledgeable will need to review the information gathered. Likely that will fall on the CV task team, so I think we should review the form before it is distributed. |
Validation failed:1 issues found. Validation Errors
|
|
New Pull Request: #63 |
Experiment ID
1pctCO2-bgc
Experiment Title
biogeochemically-coupled version of 1 percent per year increasing CO2 experiment
Description
1pctCO2-bgc is retained from CMIP6.
It is a simulation which branches from piControl with a 1% per year increase in CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels, with the CO2 “biogeochemically-coupled”. This means that only the model’s carbon cycle components (both land and ocean) respond to the increase in CO2, whereas the model’s radiation code uses a constant, preindustrial concentration of CO2.
The 1pctCO2 DECK simulation is required for comparison. This experiment is designed to isolate carbon-concentration and carbon climate elements of the global carbon feedbacks. It will also enable calibration of climate emulators.
See Jones et al 2016: https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/9/2853/2016/ , especially section 3.2.3
Example of use/analysis is Arora et al. 2020: https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/4173/2020/
MIP / Activity ID (registered)
C4MIP
MIP / Activity ID (unregistered)
No response
Parent Experiment
piControl
Custom Parent Experiment
No response
Sub-experiment
none
Priority Tier
1
Source type codes for required model components
AOGCM, BGC
Source type codes for additional allowed model components
AER, CHEM, ISM
Start Date
none
Branch Date
No response
(Minimum) Number of Years
150
Issue Type
experiment
Issue Kind
new
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: