the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Aug 2024
The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK)
Abstract. The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK) is a Python library designed for building and analyzing box models in Earth science. It uses a modular, object-oriented approach to study topics like the long-term carbon cycle and the impact of atmospheric CO2 changes on seawater chemistry. ESBMTK allows users to define models in a straightforward and readable way, which also serves as documentation. These model definitions are then converted into equations and solved using standard numerical libraries. The toolkit includes features for common box modeling tasks such as gas exchange between the ocean and atmosphere, marine carbonate chemistry, and isotope calculations. ESBMTK has been effectively used in both teaching and research settings. While the library is continually being improved, its core interface is stable and comes with extensive documentation.
- Preprint
(732 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 Dec 2024)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1864', Astrid Kerkweg, 06 Sep 2024
reply
Dear authors,
in my role as Executive editor of GMD, I would like to bring to your attention our Editorial version 1.2: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/12/2215/2019/
This highlights some requirements of papers published in GMD, which is also available on the GMD website in the ‘Manuscript Types’ section: http://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/submission/manuscript_types.html
In particular, please note that for your paper, the following requirement has not been met in the Discussions paper:
- "The main paper must give the model name and version number (or other unique identifier) in the title."
Please add a version number for ESBMTK in the title upon your revised submission to GMD.
Yours, Astrid Kerkweg (GMD Executive Editor)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1864-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Ulrich Wortmann, 06 Nov 2024
reply
will do
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1864-AC1
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1864', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Nov 2024
reply
Wortmann et al. present the Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK), which is a Python library designed for building and analyzing box models in Earth science. It uses a modular, object-oriented approach to study topics like the long-term carbon cycle and the impact of atmospheric CO2 changes on seawater chemistry. ESBMTK separates model geometry from the underlying numerical implementation, and thus allows users to focus on the conceptual challenges, rather than mathematical theory. Such a tool is very useful for teaching and research requiring fast conceptual models. In addition to predefined setup, the user can customize rather easily his/her own model such as the number and volume of boxes/reservoirs, the flux between them, the isotope species, ... This tool will be very useful for the climate community, and I therefore recommend publication after minor revisions.
General remarks
- Several species are already defined in species_definition.py such as stable water isotope 2H and 18O, 13C, ...  I would recommend to add the 14C because it is quite usual to use ocean box modeling to model Δ14C, especially in the framework of IntCal. See for example Bard et al. (1997, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(97)00082-4).
- In my opinion, it would be beneficial to give more details on the modeling of stable water isotopes 2H and 18O, and not only on the carbon-related species. The transport between the ocean box models are quite simple in that case (one to one), but the authors could mention how to set up a simulation when considering fractionation effect between atmosphere and ocean boxes e.g, the evaporation from the ocean to the atmosphere.
- The authors discuss the ESBMTK results with Boudreau et al. (2010a) model. They show the good ability of ESBMTK to replicate other models, which is important to encourage potential users to switch to ESBMTK. One other important aspect is to show how realistic model results are. Is there any way for the authors to compare the ESBMTK results with observations for a typical simulation (or with the setup of Boudreau et al. (2010a))?
Minor and technical comments
- Line 49: a point is missing.
- Legend of Figure 1: remove ". caption".
- Lines 62-63: In the following, we only describe the pertinent implementation details.
- Table 2: I would show the information for the all the fluxes, and in the order F1, F2, F3, ..., F9.
- Legend of Table 3: all parameters are after Boudreau et al. (2010a).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1864-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 272 | 56 | 34 | 362 | 3 | 4 |
- HTML: 272
- PDF: 56
- XML: 34
- Total: 362
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1