search

PNNL-TES / rcq10

1 stars 0 forks source link

Two-pool mixing model? #5

Open bpbond opened 5 years ago

bpbond commented 5 years ago

We could take the priors (i.e. Q10 data by RC_annual) and take a Bayesian approach to estimate 'pure' Ra and Rh values. Talk to Alexey about this?

jinshijian commented 5 years ago

Yeah, that will be great. A question on this, if we get the Rh and Ra Q10s from publication, will the Rh and Ra Q10 values from publication a support for the 'pure' Rh and Ra by Bayesian?

bpbond commented 5 years ago

I think they will help, yes. There will be many fewer data points, but they'll be a 'pure' estimate of Rh Q10.

jinshijian commented 5 years ago

Sounds good, you mentioned the 'publication list with Rh and Ra separated' yesterday, can you share that with me? I want to go through those papers and collect the Q10 of Rh and Ra if reported (if not reported, I will simulate an exponential equation and calculate the Q10 if enough data points available, n>7?). Do you think it worth to do it now? I don't think it will take too much time (depend on how many papers we have).

bpbond commented 5 years ago

Here's the list I've been keeping (numbers are SRDB study numbers):

    Separate R10, Q10 for Ra and Rh 
        #6540, #5526 #5524 #5522, #5317, #5824, #6090, 5866, 
        5927, 6029, 5876, 4340, 6334, 7517, 7587, 7150, 6548, 6822, 
        7491, 8896, 10087, 10104, 10342, 10075, 10351, 10362, 7527, 
        7868, 7477, 7721, 7678, 7689

We can probably find more via literature searches.

Yes, I do think it's worth it, and wouldn't take a lot of time. Maybe use a structure similar to SRDB (with Q10_0_10, Q10_5_15, R10, etc) but for RH only?

jinshijian commented 5 years ago

Thanks, will do, only for Rh is because Rh is usually directly measured, and Ra are calculated by Rs-Rh, right? But I may do both, we can decide whether to use the Ra data or not later?

bpbond commented 5 years ago

Right, and I agree, that makes sense.