search

forc-db / IPCC-EFDB-integration

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
4 stars 3 forks source link

check compatibility of variable definitions #3

Closed teixeirak closed 2 years ago

teixeirak commented 3 years ago

There are a few variables for which I want to check consistency of variable definitions between ForC and IPCC. See review.notes in ForC_variable_mapping.

I'm awaiting some info from Valentyna.

teixeirak commented 3 years ago

(We don't need to check all of these before we start delivering data, but do need to check whichever variables we deliver.)

teixeirak commented 3 years ago

There are a number of flux variables for which the equations may be inappropriate. I'm now waiting on feedback from Valentyna.

teixeirak commented 3 years ago

Here's my latest plan:

In this first batch, we’ll send just stock and increment variables (delta.agb; also NEE and NEP, both of which approximate ∆C). This means that we’ll probably send later more variables from some of the studies that we’re sending now.

I’m holding off on some that I’m pretty confident we’ll ultimately want to send (e.g., woody.mortality) because I’d like more time to be confident that we’re listing all the right equations. For example, for woody.mortality, I agree with you that the equation listed is appropriate, but it could also be used to get ∆C for the live aboveground biomass pool, alongside ANPP_woody_stem (woody productivity). I feel that it will make the process clearer if we just hold off on all fluxes (other than NEE and NPP) until we’re certain about which ones are useful.

Let’s get the others clarified relatively soon, and once that’s done we can start sending the fluxes.

teixeirak commented 3 years ago

In ForC_variaable_mapping, I've coded provide.to.IPCC as follows: 1- send now; 0.5- will probably want to send following a bit more review/ clarification; 0- hold off; -1 - I'm almost certain that variable will not be useful.