Rec. approach comments: not what I consider a good one, but working & moving quickly given simple models.
Working : concentrations โ (note: emissions calcd with diff units C/CO2. Also 5-year dt vs 1-year)
TODO forcing -> temperature via deep ocean ebm [right now, temperature and forcing tie exactly. note: 3.45 vs. 5 is log base 2 versus natural log.]
investigate: does margo have a (small) off-by(5 years) error in t_arr (i.e. labeling), or do I?
T rec is (V!) close, but check components. Small error due to dt=5? (Looks like no, from setting =1 consistent)
Code
# adapted from ClimateMARGO.jl/examples/default_configuration.jl Henri Drake, MIT licenseusingClimateMARGOusingJSONusingClimateMARGO.ModelsusingClimateMARGO.UtilsusingClimateMARGO.Diagnosticsinitial_year =2020.0# [yr]final_year =2200.0# [yr]dt =5.0# [yr]t_arr =t(initial_year, final_year, dt);present_year = initial_yeardom =Domain(dt, initial_year, initial_year, final_year);c0 =460.0# [ppm]r =0.5; # [1] fraction of emissions remaining after biosphere and ocean uptake (Solomon 2009)q0 =7.5q0mult =1.0t_peak =2100.0t_zero =2150.0q =ramp_emissions(t_arr, q0, q0mult, 2300.0, 2300.0); # DN flat 7.5 forverq_effective =effective_emissions(r, q, 0.0, 0.0) # No mitigation, no carbon removalc_baseline =c(c0, q_effective, dt)# These CO$_{2e}$ concentrations drive an anomalous greenhouse effect, which is represented by the radiative forcing# ```math# F_{M,R,G} = a \ln\left(\frac{c_{M,R}(t)}{c_{0}}\right) - G(t)F_{\infty} \, ,# ```# where $a$ is an empirically determined coefficient, $G(t)$ represents the effects of geoengineering, and $F_{\infty} = 8.5$ W/m$^2$ is a scaling factor for the effects of geoengineering by Solar Radiation Modification (SRM).a = (6.9/2.0) /log(2.0); # F4xCO2/2 / log(2) [W m^-2]Finf =8.5;#F0 =1.1# was 3F_baseline =F(a, c0, Finf, c_baseline, 0.0)ojs_define(c_baseline=c_baseline)ojs_define(F_baseline=F_baseline)