[Liwg-core] co-chairs notes

Bill Sacks sacks at ucar.edu
Tue Jan 24 11:03:52 MST 2017

Most relevant notes are:


CAM topography

Julio: Thought that the new topo software was responsible for higher counts of SSWs. But going back to an older control run, found that that had high SSWs, too. The bottom line for him is that these SSW counts seem to be very flaky. He's looking into this with others.

Julio is doing some runs to see if it's robust that adding the new Greenland topography reduces the SSW count – because the run with new Greenland topography with the May topo generation tool is the one recent run where they saw low SSW counts. But that was only a 25-year run. Julio believes this may have been a fluke.

JF: It seems that a slight modification of the state makes a huge difference in the count. Julio: that's right: it can; this is partly related to how you do the counts.

JF: So what's the approach for choosing something at this point?

Julio: Whatever happened to the SSW count seems to have come between the summer version of CAM and the recent version – this does not seem to be due to the new topo generation.

Andrew: Need to know what our deadline is for making a decision on this.

Gokhan: What are the implications of this count?

Julio: Feels we need a better diagnostic, such as looking at the impacts on chemistry, rather than just looking at these counts.

Joe: The real metric should be what ozone looks like in the Arctic in March – since that's really the critical aspect.
Mike: But we're not planning to do a run where we could diagnose that until we start the real CMIP runs.
Julio: Proxy could be some high latitude temperature; Joe agrees

Rich: What do you see in CAM5 in terms of inter-decadal variability of SSW counts? i.e., how much can we rely on a 50-year run? 
Andrew: Most runs we've done don't have the necessary output.
Rich: What about CESM1-WACCM control simulation?
Andrew: Good point: we could look at those, or Last Millennium with WACCM.

Andrew: To put this in perspective, any of the runs we've looked at are better than where we were in the past in terms of SSW counts.


Winter WG meetings

Generally speaking, it seems like interest is low this year. Probably partly because we're at an in-between time now: Nothing final for people to analyze, but new developments haven't started yet.

Bette: For people who she knows won't be able to come in person, she's offering that they can do remote talks in order to increase the number of talks. The one reservation some people express is this may decrease attendance; Bette is being careful to only 

Gokhan: Do we really need this meeting?
JF: What do other working groups think?
Generally people say interest is low this year
JF: Wouldn't scrap the whole meeting, but if individual working groups want to cancel their own WG's meeting, that's fine.

Would there be value in sending out run 125 for people to do preliminary analyses of???



Barbara: Breckenridge people gave us about 5 different choices to work around the collapsed 10-mile room.

The only time we really need a big room is the opening sessions. The best-seeming option is that we may be able to use the Riverwalk Center, which is a very nice facility. They need to see whether it's available at the times we need it.

For WG meetings that are usually in the 10-mile room: we could put a big tent out in the central plaza (would be heated).

There's still the possibility of Center Green, though JF doesn't like that idea.

Also looking into other resorts. Also looking into other more local options – but many things are booked.

This will likely be a problem for 2018, too, because it will take them a while to rebuild – so we may look into other resorts for 2018.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/liwg-core/attachments/20170124/6821b56f/attachment.html>

More information about the Liwg-core mailing list