You are right, the cross dependence would still be there, and come through the
dry pressure, which gets smaller when there is more water vapor.
Overall, I also still like the option to rescale the VMRs better.
/Stefan
On 16 Sep 2021, at 21:34, Patrick Eriksson wrote:
> Stefan,
>
>&
principle, this should even be in the Jacobian, as a
cross-term. With more water, the lines of all other gases get weaker.
It is true that if there is more of the one there has to be less of the other,
but argh, this is so ugly.
Perhaps the deeper reason why AER went for the other definitio
e due to the rescaling.
As you write, in principle, this should even be in the Jacobian, as a
cross-term. With more water, the lines of all other gases get weaker.
It is true that if there is more of the one there has to be less of the other,
but argh, this is so ugly.
Perhaps the deeper reason why AER w
ground. That is, a VMR rescaling
would not be something completely new, as I see it.
Bye,
Patrick
On 2021-09-16 15:01, Stefan Buehler wrote:
Hej,
With our present definition of VMRs, we agree on that having 78% N2, 21% O2 and
e.g. 3% H2O is unphysical? That with a lot of H2O (or any o
Hej,
> With our present definition of VMRs, we agree on that having 78% N2, 21% O2
> and e.g. 3% H2O is unphysical? That with a lot of H2O (or any other non-fixed
> gas) the standard values of the fixed gases should be scaled downwards. In
> the example above, with 0.97. Do you ag
Hej,
No time for writing a lot. Right now just want to make a basic check of
our understanding.
With our present definition of VMRs, we agree on that having 78% N2, 21%
O2 and e.g. 3% H2O is unphysical? That with a lot of H2O (or any other
non-fixed gas) the standard values of the fixed
I’m too lazy to look at the link above
> that @Robert Pincus provided, but I hope it is has dry air in the
> denominator. So much easier to simply specify evenly mixed gases, such as
> 400 ppm CO2 (and, 20 years from now, 500 ppm CO2).
> >
> > I’ve never considered tha
(and, 20 years from now, 500 ppm CO2).
>>
>> I’ve never considered that one could define it this way. Perhaps this
>> convention explains, why VMRs in climatologies like FASCOD add up so poorly
>> to 1.
>>
>> I’m not suggesting that we change our behaviour, but want to make you aware
>> that this convention is in use. (Or perhaps you already were, and just I
>> missed it.)
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Stefan
>>
now,
500 ppm CO2).
I’ve never considered that one could define it this way. Perhaps this
convention explains, why VMRs in climatologies like FASCOD add up so poorly to
1.
I’m not suggesting that we change our behaviour, but want to make you aware
that this convention is in use. (Or perhaps
tion explains, why VMRs in climatologies like FASCOD add up so poorly to
1.
I’m not suggesting that we change our behaviour, but want to make you aware
that this convention is in use. (Or perhaps you already were, and just I missed
it.)
All the best,
Stefan
10 matches
Mail list logo
