Add CMIP6_AERmon table

[oyvindseland]

The following fields were defined in the NorESM CMOR table but not included due to an error in the definition of the added variables. Corrected in the table but also included here Used in monthly mean files (h0)

drydust : DST_A2DDF+DST_A3SDDF+DST_A2_OCWDDF+DST_A3_OCWDDF wetdust: DST_A2SFWET+DST_A3SFWET+DST_A2_OCWSFWET+DST_A3_OCWSFWET

Needed for AerChemMIP, RFMIP and CMIP simulations, LM and MM, although not included in all ensemble members.

@YanchunHe @DirkOlivie @MichaelSchulzMETNO

[YanchunHe]

Should DST_A3SDDF be DST_A3DDF for the drydust?

[oyvindseland]

Yes. it should be DST_A3DDF. Sorry

[oyvindseland]

corrected also in the excel sheet

[YanchunHe]

Thanks, @oyvindseland !

A bunch of files for NorESM2-LM historical are cmorized under: /projects/NS9034K/CMIP6/.cmorout/NorESM2-LM/historical/v20210319

could you have a quick look if they looks OK?

Here I attached some time series of these variables:

dryss

dryoa

dry dust

wetdust

[oyvindseland]

Hi

The best check is to plot emidust-drydust+wetdust

This should be quite close to zero at least when averaged over a year. The same holds true for all the other variables as well (emi-dry+wet) @YanchunHe

As you can see dry and wet both goes to the surface but are defined with different signs so that is the reason why it is emi-dry+wet.

Øyvind

[YanchunHe]

Thank, looks like the arithmetic emi-dry+wet of global average is of 10^-4 magnitude smaller than the mean. So I assume they are quite closed (though note the mean is not zero).

[oyvindseland]

Yes and also both positive and negative so the long-terrm average should be even lower. There may be a slight trend inn the emissions and together with not perfect masse conservation I think it is fine.

[YanchunHe]

Datasets have been recmorized for the above-referred datasets (mainly CMIP and ScenarioMIP experiments) and are now in the queue to be republished to ESGF.

I close the issue now, and reopen when necessary.

Relates to commit: c4d6aa1