1 / 17


GOALS FOR THIS MEETING. Assess transition, report on working groups Specific, “nuts and bolts” definition of ongoing and future problems to be carried out. Specific scientific/assessment problem. Which simulation results and diagnostics are required: do we have them, can we get them.

Télécharger la présentation


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. GOALS FOR THIS MEETING • Assess transition, report on working groups • Specific, “nuts and bolts” definition of ongoing and future problems to be carried out. • Specific scientific/assessment problem. • Which simulation results and diagnostics are required: do we have them, can we get them. • What input do we need for a specific problem (for example, METEOROLOGICAL FIELDS, emission inventories...). • In case of a new module, what can of interface do we envision with GMI; what variables are needed from meteorological fields, others... • What is the expected time line, point person.

  2. GOALS FOR THIS MEETING (II) • Continue exploration of GMI’s future contributions, IN ADDITION TO ASSESSMENT. Research tool? User support?

  3. UEET • Conference on Aviation in the Atmosphere and Climate (AAC), Friedrichshafen, 7/03 • Extended abstract submitted on chemical perturbations • Peer-reviewed paper based on abstract? (Dec. 31) • Report from TRADEOFF • Changes in radiative forcing from contrails, cirrus • Assessments • Sulfate/soot perturbations from aircraft (2004) • “Final” assessment (mid-2006) • Decide on “best” set of meteorological fields, other? • Use GMI for exploring flight parameters – flight altitude, routing, emission indices… • UEET Forum 10/30/03

  4. Mannstein, AAC Conference, 2003

  5. What will GMI do for UEET Final Assessment? • Use coupled trop/strat model • Chemical Perturbations • Aerosol Direct Effect • Sulfate • Soot • First indirect effect? • Aerosol-cloud interaction? (Nenes) • Cirrus? (Not funded…) • Contrails?

  6. Apr 2003 First scoping meeting Sep 2003 Second scoping meeting Nov 2003 Panel approval of outlines for reports Apr 2004 Lead author teams selected by WGI Bureau Sep 2004 Lead Author meeting 1 (Trieste) Feb 2005 Zero order draft complete May 2005 Lead Author meeting 2 (Beijing) Aug 2005 First draft complete Dec 2005 Lead Author meeting 3 (Christchurch) Feb 2006 Second draft complete Jun 2006 Lead Author meeting 4 (TBD) Jan 2007 WGI panel IPCC TIMELINE


  8. FOR ALL WORKING GROUPS • Specific tasks/point persons • Timelines – 18 mos. • Met. Fields • Model Resolution • Specific needs (for NRA, website) • Define “routine” diagnostics • User support – Needs from “core” group. “Proposal?”

  9. WORKING GROUPSI • GSFC with Dan to sort out existing I/O issues – • Synthetic runs (Prather) • Stratospheric group • Status of current manuscripts • Do timelines make sense? • Analyses needs we do not have • Model resolution • WHAT DO WE DO NEXT IN STRATOSPHERE • Aerosols • Refine paper suggestions - IPCC • Look very carefully at timelines AND priorities • Aircraft-related issues: contrails, cirrus, what is possible? • Diagnostics; analyses needs • Wet scavenging schemes • Putting in microphysical package: issues • Photolysis? • Radiative forcing

  10. WORKING GROUPS(II) • Strat-trop • Mechanism • Testing strategy (tracers, full chemistry) • Unify treatment of photolysis, hydrological cycle • Scavenge additional species • Short-lived compounds (A “quick” application?) • Troposphere • DEFINE FIRST GENERATION OF MANUSCRIPTS • Additional diagnostics • What do we do with boundary layer • Outline manuscript (When?) • DEFINE SECOND GENERATION OF PROBLEMS – IPCC!? • Hindcast • Lightning • HNO3/NOy, PAN/NOy • HC ratios

  11. WORKING GROUPS(III) • Aircraft • Specific proposal for GMI work for final assessment • Numerical issues • Multiprocessors • TPCORE, resolution, etc.

  12. TROPOSPHERIC WORKING GROUPBOUNDARY LAYER MIXING • Look at profiles - Harvard (GISS CO, where disagreement is worst) • Dan will get monthly average maximum BL height from GISS ? met. Fields • Conference call with interested parties- Decide on strategy, implement, rerun full chemistry runs • Need to look at simple tracer runs to make sure things are ok. • Start runs by ????? • Put bulk of comparisons on web site

  13. DIAGNOSTICS • Monthly averaged rates for all thermal and photolytic processes in model – Need post-process Ox (to be defined by Harvard), HOx, P and L of CO, Harvard – Code? • 3-D vertical advective fluxes (monthly average) • 2-D tendencies for each operator (latitude and “height”} • Deposition fluxes • Emissions • WANT: Global budgets of ozone, CO, methane, HOx…. • Diagnosing met. Fields: water vapor, clouds, cloud cover (see papers • WE HAVE SUFFICIENT DIAGNOSTICS FOR FIRST GENERATION OF MANUSCRIPTS

  14. PAPERS“FIRST GENERATION” – NO NEW MET FIELDSDRAFTS BY MARCH 31 I. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL COMPONENTS OF MODEL, DIFFERENCES AMONG MET. FIELDS (Considine) • Model Description (Rodriguez) • Met. Field comparison/validation for chemistry (H2O, convective mass fluxes, clouds, boundary layer) (Prather, Rodriguez, Bergmann,Penner) • Rn, Pb 7Be III. DESCRIPTION OF CHEMICAL COMPONENTS OF MODEL/MET. FIELD DIFFERENCES (Rodriguez; Jacob) • OH, CH3CCl3 lifetimes • Global budgets of O3, CO, CH4… • 2-D tendencies II. Comparison to data (Logan) (Put bulk of comparisons in web site) • MOZAIC (Prather, Harvard) • Use simple tracers for examples • Chatfield, Wang, etc IV. Numerical paper using simple tracers (Prather) • Does it improve comparison to observations?

  15. Second Generation Papers SECOND GENERATION V. Compare two chemical mechanisms (Considine) Second generation • NO NEW MET. FIELDS VI. Lightning (Pickering; Chatfield) Sensitivities GEOS-TRMM 1998-2001; others;? VII. Sensitivity to wet scavenging (in conjunction with aerosols?) VII. Hydrocarbon ratios (Wang) (Need HCs at each time step; Fields? C2Cl4, CO, Jacob) VIII. IPCC Impact – Prather, Jacob, Stratospheric people?, Rodriguez • Methane feedback lifetime • Future changes in ozone, CO, • Future OH – Lifetimes • Air quality; intercontinental transport? • Update GCM fields in view of future climate forecasts Which ones? Find out: Daniel: GISS; Prather: UKMet; NCAR: Logan; fvGCM: Rodriguez

  16. More generations? • Hindcast 15-40 years? NCEP – MATCH (Logan) • Specific campaign/satellite data • 2000-2001 (EC-Oslo; NCEP; fvDAS) Compare all three for campaigns during this period • OSSEs • GMAO

  17. NEXT MEETING • May 10-12 East Coast. Daniel for meeting committee • Different format – one day of working groups, one day of presentations (more scientific) – Invite larger scientific community. • Steering Committee: March m Telecon

More Related