From esundqui at usgs.gov  Thu Aug  3 10:44:04 2006
From: esundqui at usgs.gov (Eric T. Sundquist)
Date: Thu Aug  3 11:27:05 2006
Subject: [CCSM-Biogeochemistry] Re: [CCSM-LandWG] Physical component biases
	and BGC
In-Reply-To: <44CE3584.7010807@ucar.edu>
References: <44CE3584.7010807@ucar.edu>
Message-ID: <44D227D4.9030902@usgs.gov>

Hi all -

Northern temperate midcontinent precip ought to be on this list.

Tropical oceans are a target without BGC input.  But will improving ENSO 
and ITCZ necessarily assure better representation of nutrient supply 
from upwelling?  Is there a metric (heat flux?) that would be a more 
direct assessment of upwelling?  What about metrics for boundary current 
upwelling?

Is there some way to assess representation of ocean mixing by cyclones?  
(Maybe this is more of a research question and can't be readily assessed 
at this time.)

We need some metrics for S. Ocean - perhaps basic distribution of SAMW, 
AAIW, AABW, CDW, NADW? - position of circumpolar front?  - heat flux 
(meridional and vertical)?

Also some metrics for NADW formation - perhaps distribution of its 
component waters?

(CFC will be a good diagnostic for mixing rates over decadal timescales, 
but not for deep water circulation rates.)

Cheers,
Eric

JoAnne Martin wrote:

> Hello!
>
> As we discussed during the CCSM joint working group meeting, we have 
> the opportunity to focus the attention of the physical models on 
> particular areas that are hurting our BGC simulations, but might not 
> be the highest priority in other groups.  We can probably give the 
> atmosphere model working group and the ocean model working group up to 
> 10 metrics to match. I think we can think about these similar to a 
> Taylor diagram, so we can ask them to match the mean, stddeviation and 
> correlation of the observations.
>
>
>
> For this first iteration, let's think big picture, and make sure we 
> are including everything we need, and then later we can define exactly 
> the regions.
>
>
>
> To Atmosphere:
>
> Precipitation:
>
> 1. Amazon
>
> 2. Tropical Africa
>
> 3. Indonesia
>
> 4. South East US
>
> 5. High latitude (>60N)
>
>
>
> x. Some measure of extreme events also, especially for Amazon.  How 
> should we phrase this?  matching the pdf of precip over 20 year time 
> period?
>
>
>
> Temperature:
>
> 6. High latitude surface temperature (>50 N?)
>
>
>
> Winds
>
> 7.  Surface winds (everywhere or some specific places?)
>
>
>
> To Ocean/sea ice:
>
> 1. Sea ice extent Arctic
>
> 2. Sea ice extent Antarctic
>
> 3. CFC simulation (we need to define exactly--this could be slightly 
> painful for them to do, but exceedingly important for us).
>
>
>
> Others?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Natalie
>
> for Scott Doney, Jim Randerson and Natalie Mahowald, co-chairs of BGC 
> working group.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCSM-Land mailing list
> CCSM-Land@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccsm-land
>

-- 
Eric T. Sundquist
U. S. Geological Survey
384 Woods Hole Road
Quissett Campus
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
USA

Phone	508-457-2397
Fax	508-457-2310


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/ccsm-biogeochemistry/attachments/20060803/59421e26/attachment.html