►
From YouTube: CESM Whole Atmosphere Working Group & Chemistry Climate Working Group - 2020 CESM Workshop Day 2
Description
2020 CESM Workshop Day 2 - Tuesday, 16 June 2020 - 13:00-16:30 - Whole Atmosphere Working Group & Chemistry Climate Working Group
The 25th Annual CESM Workshop will be a virtual workshop with a modified schedule on its already scheduled date. Specifically, the virtual Workshop will begin with a full-day schedule on 15 June 2020 with presentations on the state of the CESM. On 16-17 June 2020, working groups and cross working groups have half-day sessions, some with presentations and some that are discussion only.
More information about the CESM Whole Atmosphere Working Group:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/Whole-Atmosphere/
More information about the CESM Chemistry Climate Working Group:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/Chemistry/
More information about the workshop:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/events/workshops/2020/
Talks included:
Development of a unified CESM "workhorse" model
-Vertical resolution in the troposphere and lower stratosphere
-Simulation of the QBO
-Implications for middle atmosphere modeling at NCAR
Development of aerosols and chemistry
-Simpler chemistry; TUV
-MAM5; CARMA
-Land-atmosphere coupling (fire emissions, soil emissions, etc.)
-Variable and high horizontal resolution
-Schemes for nudging to meteorology
-Chemical forecasts
A
A
B
A
B
A
C
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
D
B
B
What
I
wanted
to
say
is
that
we
will
start
by
asking
you
guys
the
audience
whether
there
were
any
pressing
topics
that
you
want
to
into
and
discuss.
You
have
the
ability
to
do
that
by
voice
or
you
can
support
it
using
slides,
in
which
case
you
will
be
sharing
your
screen
after
you
are
done,
making
your
point
you
will
on
share
the
screen,
or
you
know
your
stop.
Sharing
so
at
the
next
person
can
go
if
nobody
has
any
remarks
to
make
to
begin
with.
B
I
think
I'll
get
you
thing
rolling
by
showing
some
of
these
things
I
presented
yesterday
in
the
in
the
reports
from
the
various
working
groups
and
what
I
think
are
the
the
big
things
have
facing.
Welcome
and
the
foremost
fear
working
group
at
the
moment.
So,
ok,
two
more
minutes
and
that's
what
we
are
going
to
do
it
so
think
about
what
you
want
to
do
any
particular
way
you
want.
You
have
a
topic,
hot
topic
that
you
would
like
to
see
discussed
here.
So
you
know
how
Wacom
works
in
the
fusion.
B
D
B
I
will
repeat
once
again
what
I
said
two
minutes
ago,
which
is
we
haven't
done
this
before,
so
we
are
going
to
wing
it,
and
the
first
thing
I
wanted
to
ask
is
whether
anybody
has
any
specific
things
that
they
want
to
bring
up,
say
topic
of
discussion,
and
if
so,
you
have
the
ability
to
just
censor
in
words
or
if
you
have
a
slide
or
two
to
support
what
you
want
to
say.
You
can
share
your
screen.
B
Anybody,
okay,
so
I'm
gonna
get
the
air
and
the
thing
rolling
myself
then
I
am
going
to
let's
see
if
I
can
figure
out
how
to
do
this
share
my
screen
and
which
thing
do
I
want
to
look
at.
Let
me
see
right,
okay,
I'm,
going
to
share
this
one
now-
and
this
is
from
yesterday's
from
yesterday's
working
group
reports
or
an
updates
and
I
think
the
number
of
issues
are
facing
wagon.
B
Perhaps
the
most
important
one
is
what
the
future
of
the
model
is
in
a
world
where,
as
CSM
has
been
asked
by
the
scientific
steering
committee
to
come
up
with
a
new
version,
what
they
call
a
workhorse
model
that
will
be
the
official
anchor
CSM
all
for
a
future.
Sip
exercises,
okay
and
I
think
we
finally
conan
through
to
to
the
community
that
a
model
that
doesn't
generate
a
realistic
QBO
internally
is
behind
the
times
and
that
that
is
required.
Alright.
B
B
We've
done
lots
and
lots
and
lots
of
simulations,
and
what
we
have
found
out
is
that
if
you
want
to
get
a
QB
or
we're
explicitly
represented,
Kelvin
waves
have
a
substantial
role
in
driving
the
oscillation
in
the
lower
stratosphere
and
in
particular
below
50,
to
70
hectopascals.
You
need
a
vertical
resolution.
B
B
Presumably
you
have
a
may
for
some
applications
and
I
know
that
the
chemistry
kind
of
working
group
people
are
trying
to
look
at
some
kind
of
simplified
chemistry
scheme
to
make
it
less
expensive
that
the
SML
T,
okay,
two
things-
are
a
model
with
enhanced
vertical
resolution.
That
is
that
it
can
simulate
a
realistic
video,
but
we
are
finding
also
that
eating
Group
C
dynamics
in
the
free
troposphere.
In
particular,
the
mjo
looks
a
heck
of
a
lot
better
than
in
ever
tip
in
any
of
the
CSM
balls
until
now.
So
that's
a
plus.
B
Imagine
us,
of
course,
is
that
this
model
will
not
be
suitable.
For
me,
the
atmosphere,
studies,
I
think
I
will
be
myself
will
be
comfortable
using
a
more
like
this
to
stall
in
the
troposphere,
maybe
stratosphere.
Once
you
get
into
the
mesosphere,
you
are
beginning
to
treat
that
as
a
sponge
layer.
There
are
caveats
to
that,
but
essentially,
if
you
want
to
do
missus
very
close
or
not
very
science,
you
need
a
real
wagon
and
the
idea
is.
B
You
have
to
build
up
more
on
this
workhorse
model
that
shouldn't
be
too
difficult
nor
too
different
from
what
we
have
been
doing
up
to
now,
but
but
obviously
a
model
that
has
a
top
errata
kilometers
and
where
the
resolution
degrades
rapidly
evolve.
A
mid
stratosphere
is
not
gonna,
be
suitable
for
a
lot
of
these
things
that
wagon
is
being
used
to
today.
B
So
those
are
the
pluses
and
those
are
the
minuses.
There
are
other
implications,
but
before
I
go
into
those
I
would
like
to
know.
If
anybody
has
any
comments,
you
also
have
other
presentations
which
I
can
turn
to
where
I
can
show
you
the
kind
of
level
schemes
we
have.
We
are
looking
at
the
kind
of
resource
we
are
getting
for
the
for
the
role
of
the
resolve,
coming
waves
in
the
QBO
and
so
on.
B
So
I
can
show
of
that
if
people
want
to
put
before
I
do
any
of
that
and
before
I
get
into
this
question
of
what
I
think
the
implications
of
this
workhorse
mower
are
for
the
future
of
Wacom
I
wanted
to
open
it
up
for
any
comments
that
you
might
have
now.
Let's
see,
I
need
to
stop
sharing,
which
I
have
just
done
so.
B
There
are
questions
in
the
chat,
let's
see
from
how
much
of
an
enhanced
resolution
is
desired.
How
is
this
determine
how
much
additional
computer
time
will
be
required
to
run
the
model
with
a
hands-free
solution?
Okay,
so
right
now
we
horizontal
resolution
is
1
degree
approximately,
and
there
are
no
immediate
plans
that
I
know
of
to
change
that
vertical
resolution
in
our
standard
models,
both
cam
and
wagon
in
the
lower
stratosphere,
is
a
very
kilometer
and
a
quarter
that
resolution
you
cannot
produce
a
realistic
UVO.
B
You
can
get
something
in
there
that
looks
like
UVO,
but
in
the
lower
stratosphere.
It's
not
realistic.
So
the
idea
of
500
meter
resolution
from
the
top
of
the
boundary
layer
through
the
mid
stratosphere
comes
from
the
need
to
to
simulate
Acuvue.
So
we
know
that
we
need
that
and
that's
how
that
was.
He
turned
as
to
the
cost
for
these
things.
B
What
is
linear
in
the
number
of
levels
so
I
mean
the
carrying
wagon
has
70
levels,
so
a
workhorse
model
that
ended
at
80
kilometers
will
have
about
80
to
90
levels
depending
on
how
many
levels
they
add
in
the
boundary
layer.
So
in
terms
of
wacom,
it
will
not
work
in
terms
of
welcome.
The
workhorse
model
will
not
be
a
big
change.
B
B
The
other
comments
are
high.
Vertical
resolution
shows
important
for
high
class
I
agree
and
if
any
you
TLS
processes
are
going
to
be
much
better
represented
and
I.
Just
clouds
for
also
the
position
of
the
tropopause
in
Contra,
proper
post,
the
distribution
of
of
chemical
species
in
the
near
term,
post
region
are
going
to
be
much
better.
We
saw
at
500
meters.
B
You
said
yes
to
the
Grimaud
has
been
validated.
Have
you
look
going
from
one
degree
to
2
degree,
impacts
on
the
Korean?
No
I
have
not,
and
in
fact
I
think
jaga.
Maybe
around
I
know
that
she
hasn't
attempted
to
do
the
QE
or
a
high
vertical
resolution
at
two
degrees
with
probably
make
success
yeah.
If
you
are
there
to
you,
comment
on
that.
Yeah.
G
F
B
That
two
degree
model
where
we
notice
the
QB
of
course,
is
based
on
the
70
level
model,
so
course
vertical
resolution
through
the
lower
stratosphere.
So
you
wouldn't
get
a
really
any
Q
anyway.
However,
the
idea
that
you
might
try
to
get
the
two
degree
model
and
see
if
you
can
generate
a
realistic
q
bo
is
something
that
ought
to
be
tried.
B
There
is
two
possibilities
there
that
the
four
horizontal
resolution
over
damp
CQ
beyond
simple,
because
this
is
such
a
equatorial
e
confined
phenomenon
that
needs
high
horizontal
resolution,
in
addition
to
a
high
vertical
resolution,
or
it
may
be
that
one
one
goes
to
an
ST
version
which
is
much
less
numerically
diffusive
than
FV
aq,
you
might
be
possible
even
at
two
degrees.
So
that's
definitely
on
the
agenda
of
things
to
do.
Thank
you,
okay,
March
to
everyone.
B
On
the
flip
side,
those
interested
in
strat,
meso,
chemistry
using
st
or
space
weather
may
not
want
the
additional
cost.
So
we
need
the
flexibility
of
choice
in
the
number
of
layers.
Yeah
I
completely
agree,
so
I
mean
you
can
always
revert
back
to
a
70
layer,
configuration
and
then
Stephanie
to
everyone.
How
OSI
model
do
with
respect
to
Asia,
fair
I,
don't
know
and
I'll
tell
you
why
I
don't
know
it's,
because
it's
shown
you
we
are
just
finding
out
right
now.
It
may
have
some
impacts,
a
range
of
fair,
so
yeah.
B
B
But
this
is
what
I
was
sharing
before
the
me.
Let
me
see
this
is
what
I
want
to
share?
Okay,
let's
see
okay.
So
this
is
further
to
the
question
of
how
the
number
of
layers
affects
the
QBO,
and
all
this,
of
course,
is
in
the
context
of
the
of
the
so
called
workhorse
model,
with
a
with
a
relatively
low
top
to
it.
B
So
when
you
see
in
your
in
your
screen,
right
now
is
the
grid,
so
we
have
been
looking
at
a
lot
of
our
experimentation
where
we
determine
that
a
resolution
of
about
500
meters
was
necessary
through
the
lower
stratosphere
was
in
the
context
of
what
is
Mark.
There's
L
91,
that's
a
91
level
to
80
kilometres
and
has
a
resolution
of
500
M
down
below
tapering
off
to
a
coarse
resolution
of
three
kilometers
away,
the
errata
kilometers
with
them
home.
B
B
The
91
levels,
of
course,
was
deemed
to
be
too
many
levels,
so
people
started
to
experiment
with
that
tapering
to
a
coarser
resolution
at
the
top,
and
that's
what
you
see
there
in
the
green,
blue
and
red
dots,
the
red
one
was
discarded
immediately.
It
didn't
I
think
it
even
failure
to
produce
a
queue
at
all
the
blue
one
produced
a
whim.
Peculiar
I
will
show
you
that
as
well
and
the
green
one
produces
a
QB
I'll
do
realistic
in
the
lower
stratosphere.
B
Poor
lost,
amplitude,
higher
altitudes
and
I
will
show
you
a
comparison
next
this.
This
is
a
comparison
of
all
of
these
cases,
always
at
operatic
kilometers,
but
with
tapering
at
different
places,
and
you
can
see
that
the
one
in
blue
is
when
we
taper
2
to
3
kilometers
at
80,
kilometers
in
the
red
and
the
orange
we
taper
to
a
resolution
of
6,
kilometers
or
80
kilometers.
B
All
of
them
happy
give
you
a
period
that
looks
reasonable
compared
to
the
observations
in
the
black
dots
and
they
have
an
amplitude
that
looks
not
good
when
you
type
Eric,
20
kilometers,
it
looks
okay
in
the
lower
stratosphere.
On
your
table,
225
body
loses
amplitude
in
the
opus,
rellis
fear,
and
then
those
can
be
compared
with
the
blue
curve.
I
am
referring
now
to
the
right
panel
of
this
figure.
B
They
can
be
compared
to
a
blue
curve
where
we
taper
to
3
kilometers
at
the
top,
and
that
one
has
an
amplitude
in
the
upper
stratosphere.
That
is
consistent
with
observation,
so
you
know
you
get
what
you
pay
for,
and
the
idea
is
that
you
have
to
both
have
high
vertical
resolution
of
the
sphere
and
not
overdo
it
with
two
cores
vertical
resolution
at
high
altitude.
Let
me
see
what
else
I
have
here.
Well,
this
antiquated
QBO
looks
in
all
of
these
cases.
B
B
Think
I
would
like
to
see
the
workhorse
model
not
to
adopt
any
of
these
papers
are
too
dramatic
because
it
would
make
it
more
difficult
to
peel
what
on
top
of
that,
where
I
would
prevail
or
not,
we'll
see
you
know,
but
we
will
certainly
try
to
do
this.
This
is
probably
too
technical,
so
I'm
not
going
to
show
you
here
and
I'm.
Just
gonna
give
you
my
conclusions.
B
Uses
a
number
of
levels
263
and
71
respectively,
but
at
the
cost
of
essentially
having
a
stratosphere
that
is
not
realistic.
Tempering
from
25
kilometers
to
6
kilometers
is
compared
to
the
best
case
in
the
lower
stratosphere.
It
is
not
so
good
in
the
upper
stratosphere,
and
you
can
ignore
the
next
moment,
because
I
haven't
really
covered
that,
and
there
is
also
another
way
to
to
address
that
and
is
to
look
at
new
grids
and
not
do
not
degrade
resolution
so
drastically.
25
kilometers-
and
this
is
something
that
was
proposed-
put
a
little
raita
kilometres.
B
Don't
count
any
of
these
little
crosses
above
80
kilometers,
and
the
blue
curve
in
this
figure
shows
a
grid
that
tapers
to
6
kilometers
from
25
to
long
as
standard
25
kilometers.
That
grid,
as
I
have
mentioned
already,
has
a
qbo,
that
is
wisdom
and
aloha
stratosphere
is
the
amplitude
egress
in
the
upper
stratosphere.
So
the
question
is
for
that
purpose
and
also
so
how
we
can
believe
anything
that
any
of
the
simulations
in
the
upper
stratosphere?
B
I
think
it's
about
81
levels
in
both
cases,
and
the
only
difference
is
that
the
blue
goes
to
80
kilometers
but
tapers
to
very
poor
resolution,
whereas
the
red
goes
to
75,
kilometers
and
tapers
to
too
much
much
finer
resolution,
three
and
a
half
kilometers
at
the
top
boundary
tests
with
the
red
grid
are
being
conducted
right
now.
We
will
see
how
well
the
QB
orders
in
that
case
in
the
upper
stratosphere
and
see
if
I
have
anything
else.
B
Right
now,
gravity
waves
will
only
get
you
so
far.
So
we
have
found
this
that,
if
you
and
make
the
resolution
to
course,
you
will
be
able
to
get
a
QBO
simply
by
enhancing
the
gravity
wave
force.
However,
the
key
was
not
realistic
because
to
achieve
realistic
period,
it
eq
beyond
us
and
descend
close
to
70
hecto
Pascal's.
B
If
you
force
it
to
lose
so
by
really
enhancing
the
interactions
of
the
gravity
wave
with
a
mean
flow,
you
can
get
a
qbo
to
descend
below
70,
hecto
Pascal's,
not
very
realistically,
and
also
you
shorten
the
period
to
about
24
months.
So
it's
like
you
cannot
have
both
things
in
a
model
where
resolve
waves
do
not
play
a
role.
B
H
B
E
B
B
E
You
asking
for
suggestions
on
topics
other
than
the
QB:
oh,
yes,
yeah,
okay,
so
I
really
think
we
should
be
talking
about
the
transition
to
the
spectral
element.
Great
Dicor
and
I
understand.
Finite
volume
is
going
to
be
the
the
workhorse
model
for
cam
and
I,
guess
Wacom,
but
but
cam
can-
and
this
is
the
Wacom
cam
cam
working
group
discussion.
E
His
gun
is
moving
to
spectral
element
because
of
the
regional
refined
capability
and
so
or
you
know,
is
at
least
putting
a
lot
of
effort
into
two
into
looking
at
those
that
model,
and
so
question
is:
are
we
staying
and
with
the
cam?
You
know
our
efforts,
gonna
be
more
along
with
cam
lines.
Are
we
gonna
be
trying
to?
E
Influence
on
the
MLT
structure
in
the
regionally
refined
area,
so
so
I,
you
know
what
it
seems
to
me
that
we
need
to
have
some
discussion
about.
You
know
what
priority
migrating
to
se
is
I
mean
SC
is
a
potential
pathway
to
non-hydro
static,
or
you
know
whether
we
skip
over
SC
and
go
to
M
pass.
You
know,
there's
another
question:
if
we
really
want
to
get
down
to
high
res,
so
just
you
know
future
directions,
you're
talking
about
and
just
thought
that
those
are
talking
soon.
We
should
be
discussing
right.
B
Okay,
so
the
answer
is
yes:
now
I
will
elaborate
on
that
a
little
bit.
Obviously
one
thing
the
wagon
cannot
afford
to
do
is
to
try
to
do
our
our
own
software
engineering
I
mean
I,
don't
think
we
can,
because
we
don't
have
the
resources,
so
in
some
sense
we
have
to
stay
with
what
cam
is
doing.
However,
the
push
with
what
this
workhorse
model
is
to
eventually
realize
it
in
the
context
of
an
SP
core.
So
that's
what
I
say.
B
B
I
I
It
isn't
to
mention
the
dynamical
core,
we're
making
progress,
but
we
are
at
the
simpler
models,
age
of
testing,
and
we
don't
expect
to
have
like
a
fully
coupled
can
version
of
Empires
ready
on
tow
like
early
21
and
that
there
are
some
science
issues
we
need
to
think
about
since
M
pairs
on
a
different
vertical
coordinates.
You
have
to
make
sure
that
that
works
properly
so
realistically
in
the
next
half
year
or
longer,
I,
don't
think
we're
going
to
be
able
to
run
realistic,
wacom
simulations
with
what
M
pass.
B
B
Yeah
I
mean
I,
don't
really
have
a
personal
opinion
on
any
of
these
I
mean,
aside
from
the
fact
that
I
think
welcome,
needs
to
stay
whether
to
whatever
kam
is
doing
again,
because
I
don't
see
how
we
can
go
off
and
develop
our
oil
or
give
it
the
fact
that
we
have
essentially
zero
resources.
However,
you
know
CSM
seems
to
be
moving
towards
SD
I,
don't
know
what
role
impact
will
play
and
I.
B
Don't
know
what
the
trade-offs
between
se
and
M
pass
are
so
yeah
I
guess
these
are
things
will
be
seen
in
the
future,
but
in
the
context
of
either
one
of
those
two
dynamic.
Of
course,
I
presume
you
have
the
ability
to
the
regional
refinement.
Sc
is
much
farther
along.
It
has
already
been
shown
to
work
both
in
the
context
of
chemin
wacom
and
in
the
context
of
regional
refinement.
So
I
think
that
maybe
the
next
four,
but
who
knows
I,
don't
call
the
shots
on
that
any
other
time.
The.
I
Attractors
each
of
em
passes
that's
been
developed
at
the
weather
scale
or
non
hydro,
static
scales,
one
advantage
getting
that
into
ski
at
them
is
that
you
want
to
do
not
add
a
static
model
at
each
the
time,
the
core,
that's
what
it's
been
developed
for.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
everybody
knows
that.
That's
that's
not
going
to
happen
within
the
next
three
months.
Six
months,
a
little
further
out.
The
interim,
maybe.
B
S
e
continues
to
be
used,
and
even
otherwise
it
continues
to
be
used
in
the
same
way
of
F
bees,
I
mean
with
where
the
covering
mapping
right.
So
it's
a
hashtag.
Morally,
that's,
okay!
So
that's
what
we
are
with
that
I.
Don't
know,
then.
If
that
answers
your
question
I
mean
I.
You
know.
Obviously
there
is
not
completely
definite
Eve
answer,
except
that
I
think
in
graphs
a
whole
is
moving
the
weight.
You
should
just
move.
E
Or
you
know
we
need
to.
If
se
is
the
future,
you
know
I
just
wonder
if
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
devote
a
lot
of
time
to
F
V
once
you
know
you
sent
alone
and
workhorse
model
I
feel
like
we're
getting
pulled
in
two
directions.
If
the
future
of
cam
ham
is
definitely
gonna,
be
as
CRR
and
cam
is,
is
you
know
maybe
behind
cam
cam
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
sticking
with
FV
for
things
like
sub
seasonal
indicator
prediction,
then
then
you
know:
where
do
we
sit.
I
G
Can
I
yes
I?
This
is
Julio
III
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
convinced
that
FV
is,
is
the
you
know
the
workhorse
being
considered
by
by
anyone
in
the
next
two
years.
I
think
our
intention
is
to
move
away
from
FV
as
soon
as
possible
in
in
the
next
phase
of
model
development,
so
I
think
as
of
release,
2.2
I
think
within
amp
we'll
be
focusing
our
efforts
on
on
SC,
not
FV,
including
the
vertical
resolution
development
right,
yeah.
B
I
mean
I
had
to
say
that,
but
maybe
being
saying
as
plainly
as
well,
you
said
we
have
been
working
with
heavy
because
that's
what
we
have
now
and
where
we
have
some
background
I
think
any
of
these
results
will
be
easily
transferable
to
SC
I
mean
in
fact
the
simulation
of
the
QB
or
the
Peter
produce
already
shows
you
that
you
can
do
that.
So
I
will
expect
that
workhorse
more
once
this
release
will
be
spectral
elements
model
for
impasse.
I,
don't
not
privy
to
what
do
you
think
it
is
to
win
done?
Michael.
E
E
B
Once
you
begin
to
get
mostly
not
thank
you
no
matter
saying
you
really
need
to
be
thinking
or
hydrostatics,
so
that
much
is
true
yeah
anyway,
that's
like
the
promised
land
like
Moses
I,
only
wanna
see
from
afar.
So
it's
for
you
guys,
but
obviously,
if
you
want
which
I
suppose
I
see
fusion
in
some
sense
that
will
have
to
be
impasse,
but.
I
J
Have
a
question
for
maybe
for
Julio
at
the
end
of
this
morning's
a
mwg
session,
I
think
coca
was
saying
that
decisions
will
not
be
made
to
probably
next
January
or
something
about
the
future
dynamical
course
weather.
As
your
other
course,
maybe
I
misunderstood
that
you
just
said
that
you're
committed
to
to
as
well.
I
It
I
didn't
get
to
mention
that
everybody
ought
to
know
that
the
SSD
would
like
to
decide
on
a
workhorse
dynamical
for
like
early
2021
and
when
I
think
workhorses
like
what
standard
I
declared
type
applications.
So
it's
likely
no
one
degree
model
with
an
X
number
of
vertical
level.
That's
going
to
be
useful,
fully
couple
of
elements
and
that's
why
we're
looking
at
at
the
attempt.
As
with
that.
I
E
I
B
Well,
all
this
that,
if
I
the
responses
seem
a
little
bit
murky,
I
guess
it's,
because
they
are
I
mean
in
an
ideal
world.
We
will
be
saying
se
and
that's
it,
and
you
know
we
will
know
what
the
direction
is,
but
the
desire
at
some
point
to
go
static
means
at
impasse.
I
guess
comes
into
consideration.
My
personal
assessment
of
this
is
that
the
workhorse
mode
will
be
released
as
an
st
base
model
and
beyond
that
I
don't
know
so.
B
B
Okay,
I
am
going
to
introduce
another
topic
which
is
just
pertains
to
Wacom,
and
it
has
to
do
again
with
vertical
resolution.
If
you
look
at
the
two
grids
shown
in
this
picture,
the
black
one
is
our
current
110
level
grid.
That's
the
one
where
we
get
very
nice
results
for
EQ,
Bo,
and
otherwise
the
resolution
is
similar
to
what
we
have
in
Indy
70
layer
model
actually
a
little
bit
better
as
you
go
to
the
model
top
that's
110
levels,
okay,
and
so
it's
a
factor
of
110
over
70,
more
expensive
to
run.
B
Then
then
the
standard
wagon
but
I
think
for
many
purposes.
He
may
be
worthwhile
looking
into
the
further
future.
What
presumably
we
might
have
more
commutation
of
resources.
It
has
occurred
to
me
that
tapering
to
a
final
vertical
resolution
at
the
top
might
by
you,
do
things
the
ability
to
begin
to
see
what
the
SAO
do
to
resolve
waste
might
be
doing
these
models
and
having
a
missus
field
or
thermosphere.
B
There
is
no
well
vertical
if
result,
so
that's
where
I
think
researches
in
the
mid
honest
we
are
using
wagon,
ought
to
be
going
to,
of
course,
other
people
who
have
different
ideas,
including
well.
We
can't
afford
it,
but
I
will
argue
that
the
differences
between
110
836
level
grid
are
not
enormous.
Under
936
is
about
twice
the
cost
of
what
we
are
running
now.
We
should
have
a
new
machine
here
within
the
next
year
or
two.
B
So
this
is
something
that
folks,
who
have
been
working
with
Wacom
in
that
time
frame
and
want
to
look
at
the
physics
of
the
stratosphere
and
mesosphere
may
want
to
consider.
So
this
is
apropos
of
nothing
but
I.
Think
and
our
results
on
the
importance
of
vertical
resolution
have
opened
a
new
realm
of
physics
that
ought
to
be
looked
at
as
I
mean
looked
at
before
by
anybody
and
out.
G
B
And
we
can
certainly
look
into
that.
The
point
of
110
is
because
our
yeah
is
referring
to
an
NSC
proposal
that
was
just
approved
where
we
want
to
compare
simulations
of
Wagoner's
at
70
levels
versus
hundred
ten
levels.
We
are
trying
to
leverage
stuff
that
has
already
being
done
and
for
the
purposes
of
simit
we
have
run
the
70
layer
mode.
B
I
think
we
have
at
least
three
realizations
and
we
want
to
have
like
a
five
member
and
sam
well,
then
we
have
to
do
something
similar
with
110,
for
which
I
think
we
have
one
relaxation
so
of
the
historical
period
I
am
referring
to
now,
and
so
you
know,
the
question
is:
if
you
now
move
to
this
more
expensive
grid,
of
course
you
are
bringing
in
additional
cost
for
an
industry
proposal
that
was
not
funded
before
request
anyway.
I
will
certainly
be
willing
to
discuss
that
with
you,
and
you
know
it's
a
possibility.
B
B
This
is
a
little
bit
like
the
promised
land
in
the
sense
that
now
that
we
know
the
importance
of
vertical
resolution,
we
have
a
whole
realm
of
physics
that
we
ought
to
be
looking
at
and
that
perhaps
the
way
to
look
at
is
with
these
grids
that
have
a
finer
vertical
resolution.
High
above
I
mean
that
sense.
I
look
at
this
as
a
separate
issue
from
what
we
wanted
to
put
into
the
research
that
is
being
made
possible
by
the
NSC
proposal
that
was
just
funded.
B
B
But
no
I
haven't
checked
what
the
SAO
may
look
like.
There
are
all
reasons
why
an
essay
on
my
notarized,
regardless
of
resolution,
and
that
may
be
that
the
confectional
schemes
in
our
current
models
do
not
excite
high
frequency
Kelvin
waves
efficiently,
and
that's
something
that
has
worried
me
for
the
last
25
years.
It's
never
been
addressed
because
we
don't
control
what
what
candles,
but
you
know
it's
a
definite
possibility.
E
So
I
mean
you're
almost
getting
to
the
resolution
of
Wacom
X
in
the
mesosphere,
so
why
commences
for
grid
points
to
scale
high
you're?
Looking
so
that's
1.75,
you're,
saying
2
kilometers
here.
Yes,
the
idea
that
Wacom
X
is
built
on
top
of
Wacom
and
if
you're
going
to
be
tuning
things
to
produce
the
best
possible
tides
and
everything
else
that
then
propagate
into
the
space
weather
region.
E
There
could
be
an
argument
for
you
know,
sucking
it
up
a
little
bit
and
just
adding
a
few
layers
to
get
this
to
1
to
4
grid
points
with
scale
height,
as
opposed
to
two
limits.
So
much
more
I,
don't
know
how
many
levels
it
would
add,
but
you
know
I
mean
if
a
lot
of
the
workhorse
simulations
are
going
to
be
done
with
cam
75
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
it.
Lid
75,
80,
kilometer
lid.
Then
we
really
are
talking
about
Wacom,
focusing
on
the
MLT
or
at
least.
E
B
Right
I
mean,
let
me
make
a
dreamer
got
an
answer
to
then
and
then
I
know
that
Simona
has
raised
her
hand.
There
virtual
hand
she
gets
to
go
next,
but
that's
definitely
a
good
proposal.
I
hadn't
thought
about
that.
When
I
construct,
the
discrete
it
was
assuming
to
give
us
an
example
of
where
we
may
get
one
to
go.
The
fact
that
it
will
dovetail
with
a
Wacom
X
is
doing
is,
in
fact,
are
considering
something
like
this.
B
In
addition
to
the
possibility
of
improving
the
SAO,
in
addition
to
improving
the
simulation
of
the
tides,
so
I
think
there
is
a
lot
of
wins
for
Wacom,
but
it's
gonna
have
to
be
our
model.
I
mean
CJD
is
not
gonna
help
with
anything
beyond
above
30
kilometers.
So
essentially
we
keep
the
workhorse
grid
to
30
kilometers
and
we
take
off
from
there
for
our
own
purposes.
That's
the
way,
I
see
all
of
this
I,
don't
know
how
else
you
can
fit
all
of
these
interlocking
parts
together.
K
This
is
also
the
great
because
he
just
said
I
mean:
do
we
merge?
My
cam
was
like
a
mix
or
X,
or
do
we
merge
it
with
the
10
model
with
the
workhorse
model,
because
I
thought?
The
reason
was
the
lower
I
mean
the
higher
vertical
resolution
in
the
stratosphere
is
that
it
can
then
right
away,
merge
two
words:
wacken.
B
Right
so
I'm
not
completely
sure
when
you
are
saying
so,
let
me
go
buy
parts
I.
Think,
there's
no
question
that
you
must
build.
Welcome
on
the
CSM
workhorse
model
and
I
will
propose
that
the
grid
match
exactly
the
CSM
workhorse
through
30
kilometers
25,
whatever
it
is,
that
they're
beginning
the
taper
right,
but
any
of
those
tapers
to
the
upper
boundary
are
80.
Kilometers
are
not
going
to
be
suitable
for
meteor
studies,
yeah.
K
That
was
my
question,
I
guess,
because
if
you
do
taper,
that
means
that's
not
what
what
my
cam
will
follow
on,
so
it
will
not
just
be.
Why
can
we
not
just
follow
above,
like
it
does?
Currently,
we
are
not
just
sitting
on
top
the
levels
of
the
current
of
the
lower
Tamala.
Basically,
the
new
not
well.
B
I'm
doing
even
now
doesn't
follow
the
cam
levels
of
I.
Don't
know,
probably
20
hectopascal
on
something
like
that.
Essentially
current
cam
chance
at
top
I
think
around
1
hectopascal,
or
something
like
that.
Yeah
I
can
correctly
the
grace
resolution
very
rapidly.
The
upper
stratosphere
can
and
welcome,
doesn't
do
that.
So
in
that
sense,
this
will
not
be
a
change
in
operating
procedure
for
purposes
of
climate,
whether
you
have
a
finer
grid
of
30
kilometers
or
the
strongly
Corson
agreed
that
the
workhorse
model
will
have
I.
B
Don't
think
that
will
be
a
major
impact,
but
to
do
minimis
fear
science,
you
cannot
work
with
such
a
core
screen
in
the
upper
stratosphere
mesosphere.
So
this
is
what
I'm
saying
that
wagon
will
have
to
be
built
on
top
of
the
CSM
workhorse
and
we'll
have
to
keep
I
mean
will
be
desirable,
that
it
keep
the
same
level
structure
to
about
the
point.
The
level
where
the
workhorse
begins
to
the
great
resolution.
We
don't
want
to
decorate
a
solution
so
much
okay.
So,
let's
see
why
I
see
I
mean
it's
up
to
you.
B
E
B
E
That
we
got-we
we
limit
the
workhorse
cam
model
to
no
larger
than
two
grid
points
for
scale
height,
because
I
didn't
really
see
the
point
of
having
an
extended
sponge
layer
where
it's
really
stopping
at
80,
but
only
in
name
only
I
mean
it.
That's,
you
know
really
I
mean
I'm,
so
cutting
keeping
it
a
2
grid
points
of
scale
high,
but
taking
off.
5
kilometers
from
the
top
seems
a
bit
more
scientifically
defensible
model
than,
and
you
know,
and
just
sort
of
burning
computer
time
to
have
a
a
model
that
you
know.
E
I
wouldn't
even
want
to
look
at
about
40
kilometers
or
something
like
that.
So,
oh,
so
that's
the
reason.
Now
you
know
I'm
arguing
I,
agree
that
that's,
maybe
not
consistent
with
the
idea
of
running
Wacom
and
Wacom
X
on
the
same
grid,
but
I'm
still
thinking
a
six
kilometre
spacing
is
my:
is
you
know
of
no
use
to
us
in
tuning
the
what's
coming
in
to
the
lower
mesosphere
and
maybe
a
three
and
a
half
kilometer
grade
and.
B
That's
what's
shown
in
this
slide
and
that
is
currently
on
screen.
The
blue
crosses
are
what
CJD
have
proposed
and
we
have
actually
run
some
experiment
with
that
which
I
discussed
earlier,
and
the
red
crosses
is
what
Dan
proposed.
There's
a
grid
like
that
is
being
tested
right
now.
I
expect
that,
but
the
qyo
will
look
better
in
the
upper
stratosphere.
B
I,
don't
know
you
know
if
it
will
be
totally
comparable
to
the
one
that
can
level
three,
even
when
you
shot
that
over
80,
but
at
least
it
will
have
a
resolution
that
is
credible
in
terms
of
what
do
you
expect
the
dynamics
that
we
do
in
there?
If
you
go
to
a
six
kilometre
taper,
what
you
are
saying
is
the
entire
mesosphere
is
especially
so.
Why
do
that
is
preferable
to
just
give
up
five
kilometers
on
the
top
and
instead
taper
to
three
and
a
half
instead
of
to
six
kilometers?
B
B
J
Yes,
first
I
want
to.
Second
what
and
Dan
mentioned
on
the
you
know
higher
vertical
resolution
for
resolving
tithe.
That's
exactly
why
we
want
to
increase
our
Wacom
X
vertical
resolution
to
four
quarter:
scale
height,
a
vertical
resolution-
so
what
we
will
do,
probably
if
we
want
to
merge
with
the
workhorse
model,
we
need
to
kind
of
merge
down
and
increase
the
resolution
at
lower
altitude.
So
I
don't
know,
maybe
you
will
have
a
170
level
model
or
something,
but
that's.
Okay.
One
thing
is
if
you
are
using
wagon,
not
like
a
mac.
J
If
you
are
using,
welcome
and
try
to
get
a
better
tide,
maybe
you
should
also
consider
merging
I
mean
increase
the
vertical
resolution
to
quarter
scale
height
and
and
then,
if
you
do
that,
maybe
it's
also
important
to
have
another
kind
of
tapering
at
the
last
few
levels
so
that
those
tides
will
be
damped
at
higher
altitude,
because
you
have
a
stronger
ties.
You
may
have
more
reflection
from
the
artificial
boundary,
not
right
now.
B
Alright,
so
two
responses
to
that.
First
of
all,
if
if
you
look
at
this
line
on
the
screen
right
now
and
if
you
look
at
the
red
curve
and
that
one
papers
to
two
kilometers
I,
that's
about
a
quarter
of
the
scale
hi,
once
you
get
into
the
into
the
lower
thermosphere,
where
the
temperature
is
now
increasing
and
increasing
rapidly
towards
the
top,
so
I
think
then
we
go
here
mean
is
already
if
no
man
close
to
being
met
by
this
grid.
B
But
surely
you
can
adjust
that
and
the
other
question
you
raised
is:
what
do
you
do
near
the
top?
Because
if
you
have
a
strong
tire,
you
may
have
reflections.
It's
not
clear
to
me
whether
the
best
way
to
control
that
is
by
coercing
the
resolution
or
by
having
a
suitable
damper
say,
diverge
in
center.
That
turns
up
steeply.
As
you
go
to
the
you
know,
to
the
Opera
couple
of
scale
Heights
or
something
like
that,
the
idea
we
that
ties
are
diverging
waves
and
gravity
waves.
They
will
be
strongly
damped
by
a
virtual
Center.
B
J
B
You
know
essentially
so
far
as
you
cannot
impose
a
radiation
boundary
condition
on
both
sides.
Is
you
have
to
damp
things?
You
know?
That's,
you
know,
that's
that's
life,
so
in
more,
like
wagon
I
never
believed
the
upper
to
scale
heights.
In
any
case,
so
you
know
we
normally
use
this
more
in
a
credible
way
to
maybe
under
and
thank
you
know,
matters
and
I
vote
that
you
know
it.
You
get
what
you
get
so
so
that's
one
thing.
B
The
other
thing
is,
of
course,
two
kilometres
is
already
about
a
quarter
fiscal
height,
and
the
third
thing
is:
how
do
you
actually
control
reflections
from
the
top,
which
would
be
unavoidable,
I
think
we
will
leave
it
to
the
software
engineer
and
the
numerix
people.
You
know
it
may
be
that
strong
divergence
Tampere,
so
you
need.
It
may
be
that
you
also
need
the
additional
dissipation
implied
by
a
course
and
in
degree.
B
A
J
B
You
know
I
will
make
sure
Hanley
you
may
want
to
work
with
that.
Peter
Lauridsen
I
mean
he
certainly
has
been
very
interactive
on
there,
trying
to
get
wagon
simulations
standard
wagon
simulations
that
work
well
in
SC
and
in
fact,
I
I
think
he
has
succeeded
to
a
large
extent.
You
know
there
were
a
lot
of
technical
products
that
are
now
overcome,
so
I
don't
think
this
SE
model,
although
it's
not
an
official
model
right
now,
I
can
be
used
as
a
research
testbed.
To
look
at
all
these
things.
Yes,.
B
Okay,
anything
more
on
the
question
of
vertical
resolution.
I
mean
I.
Think
to
summarize
the
way
we
look
at
it,
I
think
going
to
high
resolution
in
the
free
troposphere,
lowest
IOC
has
a
major
breakthrough
in
terms
of
our
understanding
of
how
the
atmosphere
works
in
in
the
region
of
the
cube
meal
and
in
the
lower
region
of
Asia,
but
also
in
the
troposphere
I
mean
I.
I
have
been
shown
any
pictures
of
that,
but
I
have
seen
the
results
for
the
celling
isolate
the
mjo.
B
It
looks
heck
of
a
lot
better,
the
high-resolution
that
it
does
at
the
normal
resolution,
and
in
fact
you
can
see
why
I
mean
in
so
far
as
these
oscillations,
even
in
the
troposphere,
are
mediated
by
waste.
If
you
resolve
the
voice
better,
you
are
likely
to
have
a
better
result.
So
I
think
this
is
a
win-win
both
for
us
and
for
the
traverse
right
people
and
is
something
that
has
been
only
later.
Inka
inka
has
like
way
behind
and
the
state
of
the
art
in
terms
of
vertical
resolution.
B
C
I
B
B
Parameterizations,
including
decisions
unfortunately
appear
to
be
sensitive
to
time,
step
how
that
will
be
adjusted
I,
don't
pretend
to
know
what
I
think.
Definitely
it
needs
to
be
initially
addressed
right
now.
All
of
these
stories
we
have
been
doing
with
this
task
team
have
been
in
the
context
of
the
F
be
model
as
it
exists
right
now,
including
the
title.
B
B
B
H
Think
this
is
great
that
we're
going
to
higher
resolution
in
the
you
TLS
region,
for
numerous
reasons
from
a
chemistry
standpoint,
one
is
to
look
at
heterogeneous
chemistry,
influence
the
gravity
waves
and
also
to
support
aircraft
missions
like
a
clip
and
I.
Think
it's
it's
we're
going
in
the
right
direction
here
and
I'm
really
pleased
to
see
that
this
could
be
the
future
of
Wacom.
That's
my
big
steel
o'clock.
B
Here,
I
have
a
few
other
topics
to
bring
up
so
yeah
I
agree,
no
I
mean
I.
Think
we
are,
we
are
all
on
the
same
page.
On
that
I
mean
the
benefits
of
high
resolution
are
not
just
QBO,
they
are
the
Kyuubi
or
they
are
thomas
fiering
circulation,
heidi
MJ,
oh,
and
they
are,
they
are
also
in
the
realm
of
the
simulation
of
the
troposphere.
B
B
Welcome
coach
I
mean
how
much
we
are
working
group
co-chairs
I've
been
doing
this
for
two
years
and
you
know:
I
am
not
even
supposed
to
be
working.
Full-Time
and
I
find
the
I
find
that
I
want
to
get
some
papers.
Written
and
I.
Think
it's
time
for
me
to
step
down.
I
am
thinking
that
a
good
time
to
do
that
is
sometime
early.
This
fall
when
the
testing
work
is
done
and
I
can
fold
that
into
what
the
thermosphere
working
group
has
been
doing.
B
Internal
co-chairs,
444,
mafia
working
group,
I
have
one
volunteer
mentioned
things
right
now
and
you
know
I
would
encourage
you
to
think
of
a
volunteer
or
asking
some
of
your
colleagues,
especially
the
younger
colleagues,
to
volunteer
for
that.
I
will
be
glad
to
do
whatever
I
can
in
transferring
what
knowledge
I
have
acquired
in
the
last
two
years,
which
have
really
been
educational.
B
So
you
know
that's
one
thing
about
being
co-chair
of
this
thing:
it's
a
painting
behind,
but
it's
also
fairly
educational,
so
that
I
think
it's
worthwhile
and
then,
when
Jessica
new
news,
our
external
co-chair
I,
don't
know
what
she
said
this
meeting.
But
in
any
event,
my
recommendation
would
be
to
ask
her
where
she
wants
to
react.
If
we
she
doesn't.
Of
course,
we
need
nominations
for
an
external
code
share
as
well,
so
both
her
term
and
our
mind
and
this
fall
so
I
didn't
hear
you
London
is,
but
you
know
Jessica's
here,
yeah.
A
B
We
are
always
happy
to
have
people
react,
especially
people
who
are
using
the
mall
who
are
strongly
involved
in
it.
Who
are
you
know,
leaders
in
their
field?
So
you
know,
external
coach
here
is
not
hard
to
find.
The
only
difficulties
are
sometimes
I,
say
well,
I've
done
this
enough.
It's
ample
time
for
somebody
else
to
do
it,
but
if
you
are
willing
to
consider
it
I
think
we
can
probably
consider
that
closed,
but
we
still
need
an
internal
coach
here.
Ok,
so
you
guys
need
to
be
thinking
about
that.
C
F
F
B
B
Seriously
speaking
I
mean
that
has
been
a
tradition
to
rotate
the
eternal
co-chairmanship
amongst
the
three
divisions,
and
you
know,
are
no
possibilities.
We
have
two
internal
co-chairs
number
of
the
other
groups,
do
it
and
that
would
lessen
the
work
that
is
required
because
the
internal
codeshare
does
have
to
attend
all
of
the
co-chairs
meetings
and
those
are
usually
once
a
week.
So
you
know
we
share
that
burden,
so
you
know
think
about
it.
B
I
mean
I'm
going
in
the
future,
I'm
going
to
be
talking
to
people
saying
you're,
a
calm
and
so
on
see
what
we
can
come
up
with
with
a
succession.
There
is
no
immediate
Harry,
as
I
say:
I
am
more
than
willing
to
stay
through
September
or
even
a
little
bit
later
until
the
work
of
the
task
team
is
completed
and
things
are
in
good
shape
to
be
handed
off
to
the
to
the
next
person,
but
I
do
not
intend
to
serve
another
filter.
B
B
It
is
not
suitable
for
research
in
the
mesosphere
thermosphere
and
it
requires
a
future
versions
of
where
complete
built
on
them.
We
have
already
discuss
all
of
that.
Okay.
Now.
My
concern
is
last
bullet
point
there,
which
is
will
welcome,
be
marginalize
within
the
institution
because
number
one
it
is
no
longer
essential
to
submit.
So
you
know,
maybe
we
don't
have
a
strong
CJD
motivation
for
the
for
the
importance
of
welcome
and
also
because,
in
my
estimation,
most
much
of
the
work
being
done.
B
Alaikum
doesn't
care
about
the
missus
fear
and
let
alone
the
thermosphere
okay.
So
my
question
is,
we
welcome,
remain
relevant
in
the
institution,
obviously
is
relevant
to
us,
but
will
it
be
relevant
and
therefore
would
it
be
able
to
to
garner
resources
from
the
institution
if
it
becomes
of
no
importance
to
unleash
two
labs
that
I
can
think
of
a
common
CJD
I
think
you
will
always
be
important
to
assure
because
they
cannot
do
space,
whether
otherwise,
so
that's
my
question.
B
Our
wing
danger
of
weapon
becoming
less
than
essential
to
the
work
of
anchor
laboratories
like
I,
said
think
so
fishy.
All
the
answer
Paulo
will
be
no
poor
in
the
case
of
the
other
two
labs
cgz
and
an
income
I
am
not
so
sure
so.
I
wanted
to
throw
that
out
there
for
discussion.
I
know
that
time
I
sound
like
a
bit
of
a
radical
idea,
but
I
think
you
have
to
be
thinking
about
that.
B
E
B
E
B
E
I
think
that
wacom
will
still
have
a
lot
of
interest
in
anyone
interested
in
stratospheric
composition.
I,
don't
think
you're
gonna
get
anything
like
their
proper
deep
branch
of
the
residual
circulation
you're
not
going
to
get
the
water
vapor
up
high
enough
to
be
phone
alized,
so
your
Hawks
will
be
wrong
in
the
high
latitudes.
Your
CFCs
will
be
wrong
right
there,
everything
else
that
requires
that
you
actually
get.
E
You
know
the
the
transport
up
into
the
into
the
MLT
region
that
shortens
the
life
time
and
that
sort
of
thing
that
you're
not
going
to
get
your
Co
right,
maybe
I
mean.
Maybe
maybe
you
can
get
all
this
right.
If
you,
if
you
start
still
running
wacom
it
the
work,
you
still
need
to
run
welcome
in
order
to
to
provide
boundary
conditions
for
the
workhorse
model.
You
know,
so
I
still
think
there's
gonna
be
a
strong
need
for
wacom
and
that,
of
course,
you
know
its
niche
is
still
gonna.
E
Be
that
it's
it's
the
only
it's
the
base
of
space
where
the
model
the
most
successful
space,
with
the
models
that
goes
from
the
service,
all
the
way
up
to
700
kilometers
with
chemistry,
so
I
still
think
we
have.
Our
niche
I
still
think
there
will
be
a
lot
of
people
interest
in
using
wacom
I.
Do
think.
Also
that
you
know
we
haven't
talked
about
it
very
much,
but
there's
probably
half
the
use
of
Wacom
be
using
specified
dynamics.
E
So
you
know
the
discussions
that
grits
are
all
well
and
good,
but
really
way
to
be
running
this
model
on
the
merit
for
a
long
time.
So
you
know
in
our
current
configuration
I
think
for
SD
Wacom.
So
I
still
think
that
there's
there's
there's
a
strong
need
for
Dicky
Wacom
around
and
it
won't.
It
won't
be
supplanted
by
a
combination
of
Wacom
and
sorry
extended,
cam
and
and
Wacom
X
people
who
just
can't
afford
to
run
Malcolm
X.
Okay,.
B
Well,
I
mean
you're
more
sanguine
about
it
than
I
am
I
mean
I
agree
with
your.
You
know
the
points
you
made
about
that
getting
the
chemistry
in
circulation
in
the
mesosphere,
correct,
but
I
think
a
lot
of
people.
Don't
care
I
mean
for
a
lot
of
people,
the
atmosphere
inside
a
Honda,
hecto
Pascal's
for
some
other
events
around
one
hecto
Pascal's,
and
you
know
in.
A
A
C
A
A
G
That's
why
we
provide
input
to
go
kannan
people
are
asked
in
sessions
like
this
one
and
I
guess.
It
would
be
curious
what
the
chemistry
working
group
is
thinking,
whether
they
would
think
that
the
workhorse
model
is
enough
or
whether
they
would
actually
continue
using
Wacom
I
think
there
would
be.
You
know
for
things
like
geoengineering
and
other
chemistry,
climate
interactions
with
the
work
horse,
the
low
top
model
be
enough,
or
would
you
still
want
to
be
using
welcome.
B
If
I
maybe
quickly
answer
both
questions,
the
last
point
that
I
yeah
I
made
is
an
excellent
one.
Reason
can
come
in
now
or
because
we
are
actively
running
out
of
time
here
right.
We
are
supposed
to
stop
at
what
at
2:30
I
think
so
we
have
another
15
minutes
or
so.
Maybe
that
question
is
best
taken
up
during
the
second
half
of
this
session,
which
will
be
led
by
Louisa
as
co-chair
for
the
climate
chemistry
group.
But
it
is
a
good
point.
B
Would
people
working
on
most
very
chemistry,
a
tinkerer
care
about
anything
about
the
strata
post
requests
in
the
yeah?
The
answer
is
not
clear
to
me,
so
we
have
to
bear
that
in
mind
now
to
go
to
to
chorus
question.
I
know
that
there
is
a
number
of
people
in
the
community
who
can
and
want
to
use
them
all
the
most
in
this
field
or
thermosphere
properly
and
I.
Think
that
is
a
good
argument
to
bring
up.
Rinka
I
am
just
telling
you
what
is
reality.
B
Sara
says
here:
okay,
essentially
in
three
years,
a
lot
of
the
people
who
have
been
supporting
working
or
having
working
on
Wacom.
That
icon
will
disappear
one
way
or
the
other,
and
there
is
absolutely
no
plans
to
replace
any
of
us.
So
I
mean
this
is
what
I
say
you
know,
because
we
straddle
the
divisions
we
end
up
not
being
necessarily
and
the
main
concern
of
any
of
them,
and
this
is
I
think
the
main
threat
to
the
survival
of
Wagon
I
think
an
inker.
The
middle
hemisphere
is
viewed
as
a
fringe
field.
B
B
Well,
I
don't
seem
to
be
getting
anything
that
allows
me
to
stop
sharing.
So
oh
here
we
are
stop
share
all
right.
So
now
I
can
see
all
of
you
now
and
I
will
just
ask
you
where
you
have
in
your
comments
that
you
want
to
make.
If
not
I
mean
we
are
almost
at
the
end
of
the
session
or
the
allotted
time
for
the
session
anyway,
so
we
can
take
a
little
bit
longer
break
before
we
compete
for
the
second
half,
which
begins
Windows,
CE
begin
and
a
second.
B
We
begin
at
3
o'clock
and
we
go
on
till
4:30
for
the
second
half
of
this
joint
session
and
again
that
would
be
the
we
sir
will
be
meeting
that
lisa
says
we
have
another
10
minutes
or
so,
if
you
care
to
make
any
comments
on
how
you
see
the
relevance
of
a
malama
sphere
model
for
the
kind
of
chemistry
work
that
you
or
people
in
your
group
are
doing.
This
possibly
will
be
a
good
time
to
to
bring
this
over.
D
Not
sure
I
have
much
to
say,
but
I
might
ask
Simona
and
Mike
if
they
want
to
say
anything
about
the
applications
for
geoengineering,
since
you
brought
that
up
there.
Certainly
you
no
need
to
have
the
stratosphere
properly
resolved
for
tropospheric
chemistry
applications,
but
there's
a
lot
more
in
chemistry,
climate
interactions
that
might
where
Wacom
would
be
applicable,
I.
K
Can
start
I
did?
Actually
it
is
really
the
question
which
we
haven't
answered
yet
well.
This
model
be
appropriate.
All
those
studies
we
I
think
we
have
to
see
once
it's
done.
We
have
to
compare
how
well
it
compares
to
the
current
Wacom
model,
because
you
know
without
having
the
model,
we
cannot
test
it.
So,
in
that
regard,
I
don't
know.
G
D
That's
certainly
more
the
focus
in
a
common,
so
that
certainly
seems
to
be
where
there'll
be
a
lot
of
support,
but
I
think
Cora
brought
up
a
good
point
of.
We
do
need
to
support
the
community
and
we
tried
to
have
a
we
sent
out
a
survey
after
the
March
meeting
and
tried
to
get.
You
know,
feedback
on
various
things,
but
maybe
a
community
poll
of
how
would
you
like
to
use
the
models
and
what
you
need
a
high-top
model
for,
or
what
do
you
need
one?
D
B
Told
you
we
don't
have
those
toppers,
okay
off
the
top
of
my
head
of
the
users
of
wagon,
about
50%
we're
doing
mineral,
sheer
studies
that
means
Mississippi
on
evolve
and
the
other
half
we're
doing
mostly
stellosphere
on
below.
So
the
I
mean
the
demand
is
day,
I
mean
and
this
amongst
the
people
who
responded
to
a
poll.
What
is
not
there
is
internal
support.
A
tinkerer
like
I,
say
because
wagon
was
started
in
prehistory
about
20
years
ago
as
a
3d
vision,
multi-divisional
effort.
B
I
have
had
this
discussion
with
a
lot
of
people
and
I
have
not
gotten
yes,
yes,
I
have
commitment
to
say
we
need
to
renew
ourselves
so
for
where
America
is
not
gonna,
be
an
icon,
I
mean
that's
movie
and
I
could
be
wrong,
but
that's
maybe
right
now
we'll
see
who
the
new
director
is
when
they
come
in
and
so
far
I
haven't
heard
anything
that
makes
me
very
sanguine
about
ok.
So,
as
my
concern
going
into
the
future
with
young
people
or
younger
people
who
are
working
with
wagons
should
be
keeping
in
mind.
J
D
F
The
on
the
question
whether
we
need
a
wacom
or
a
so-called
high
table
model
for
geoengineering
or
volcanoes
I
think
it
depends
on
what
what
the
low
top
model
is.
If
the
low
top
model
moves
up
to
80
kilometers
that
might
be
workable
for
geoengineering
and
volcanoes,
especially
if
it
has
interactive
chemistry,
but
if
it
stays
at
45
kilometers,
it's
inferior,
I.
B
Mean
III
would
agree
that,
with
about
80
kilometers
and
resolution
that
does
not
degrade
radically
towards
the
top
boundary
in
might
in
fact
be
suitable
for
a
kind
of
study.
I
mean
it
remains
to
be
seen
by
suitable
comparisons
with
a
to
high
top
model,
but
in
a
sense
we're
trying
to
keep
CG
the
honest,
not
letting
tend
to
reduce
resolution.
So
much
that
the
mesosphere
becomes
irrelevant.
B
B
If
some
of
us
have
not
insisted
that
you
need
to
go
to
higher
resolution
to
get
up
some
of
these
physical
phenomena,
one
director
pascal's,
we
will
still
be
selling
Miriam
and
you
know
once
we
are
gone,
there's
no
one
who
is
going
to
up
OK
for
those
things.
So
again
you
guys
young
people
have
to
think
about.
You
want
to
deal
with.
B
Yeah
I
mean
we
do
have
to
agree
more,
and
the
two
green
wall
is
roughly
a
factor
of
eight
cheaper
than
the
one
degree
more
I
mean.
Horizontal
resolution
is
much
much
more
costly
than
30k
resolution,
because
it's
chaos
essentially
almost
as
the
cube
of
the
increasing
resolution,
because
a
factor
of
4.
Why?
For
the
for
the
space?
And
then
you
have
to
also
deal
with
the
reduced
time
step
to
meet
the
CFL
criterion,
so
it's
very
expensive.
B
So
after
we
went
to
a
2
degree
model,
I
am
myself
using
that
for
a
Stoney's
of
the
last
millennium.
Okay,
the
one
thing
that
we
have
not
really
looked
at
in
the
context
of
this
model
if
we
can
get
a
decent
queue
below
by
suitable
turn
tuning.
We
just
this
is
an
old
problem
with
Wagga.
We
just
don't
have
the
personnel
to
cover
all
the
bases,
I
mean.
Obviously
this
ought
to
be
being
done,
but
who
do?
And
so
we
do
what
we
can.
But
one
side,
your
question
specifically:
yes,
there's
a
two-degree
model.
B
I
B
B
B
Yeah
I
should
have
a
glass
of
water.
You
know
throw
this
karate,
but
anyway,
thank
you.
Everybody
I
think
it's
been
an
interesting
discussion.
I
think
people,
you
know
continue
them
well.
I
am
happy
to
to
see
that
that
there
is
an
interest
in
this
and
we
will
see
what
we
can
take
it
from
here
and
beyond
that
we
have
I,
think
a
half-hour
break
and
that
what
do
we
say
three
o'clock
we
reconvene
here
in
your
inbox.
B
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
Couple
slides
and
we
can
go
back
through
the
presentation
I
showed
yesterday.
If
people
want
to
hear
about
things
in
more
detail
and
if
anybody
has
anything
they
would
like
to
share
about
the
research
they're
doing
or
development
or
any
other
activities
that
they'd
like
to
share
with
the
group
we'd
love
to
hear
about
them.
D
If
anybody
would
like
to
hear
more
about
them,
we'd
be
happy
to
go
over
the
recent
changes
and
what
we're
planning
and
with
the
newest
thing
is
an
incorporation
of
mamb
five
to
take
care
of
the
stratospheric
sulfate
aerosol,
as
well
as
mosaic
that
we've
been
talking
about
for
quite
some
time,
but
I
think
it's
really
quite
close
to
being
released.
Luise.
D
K
So
that's
in
development
I
would
say,
and
it
will
take
a
while
at
least
we're
starting
to
look
into
it
because
yeah
as
people
know,
chrome
is
a
sectional
model
and
at
the
moment
we
do
not
have
a
comma
version
that
works
actually
for
the
fall,
troposphere
and
stratosphere
in
replaces
ma'am
fully
and
I
mean
I'm
happy
if
mike
wants
to
end
something
about
that
or
if
other
people
have
any
questions,
but
at
this
stage
we're
just
starting.
So
it's
still
a
long
way
before
it
will
work.
C
F
B
Yeah
the
question
was
I
mean
with
karma
I.
Think
a
number
of
us
have
used.
It
continues
to
work
with
it,
but
I
mean.
Presumably
this
will
continue
to
be
an
optional.
Aerosol
parameter
is
Asian
for
for
Wacom
or
chemcam,
or
both
right
I
mean.
My
impression
is
that
in
general
it
is
too
expensive
to
run
as
your
standard
parametrization
unless
you
need
it
for
specific
purpose.
K
B
K
I
mean
you
can
see
it
more
like
if
done
properly
as
a
benchmark
version
to
evaluate
the
main
model.
We
assume
that
a
sectional
model
is
better
and
represents
the
results
other
than
man.
If
you
can
run
them,
maybe
even
probably
not
parallel,
but
it
you
know
specified
dynamics
or
so
side-by-side.
You
can
hopefully
learn
something
also
for
the
current
model
version.
K
Certainly
it's
way
too
expensive
for
climate
models
and
it's
not
planned
to
have
any
karma
model
version
at
anytime
in
climate
runs,
but
what
we
are
really
interested
is
the
Geo
engineering
part
and
the
representation
of
volcanoes.
So
if
that
answers
changes,
answers
and
it's
important
to
know,
and
so
that's
why
we
think
it's
really
important
to
have
that
model.
It's
also
for
supporting
eventually,
like
the
aircraft
campaigns.
A
clip,
but
you
know
we'll
have
to
see
where
we
are
at
the
time
in
a
clip,
is
away,
is
happening.
C
F
C
So
we
will
be
continuing
to
to
use
the
Karma
model
and
different
flavors
of
the
Karma
model.
So
not
necessarily
the
same
version
of
karma
that
Simone
and
Mike
are
working
on,
which
is
Pung
phase
aerosol
model,
that's
in
a
complete
replacement
for
ma'am.
What
I've
been
doing
is
more
of
a
smoke
model
that
layers
on
top
of
ma'am.
D
D
So
there
are
a
number
of
developments
that
are
not
they're
very
close
to
being
in
the
model,
but
the
model
is
not
fully
tuned
with
all
of
these
aerosol
changes.
So
we
are
going
to
do
that
over
the
next
few
months
and
be
able
to
release
them
in
CSM
2.3,
and
so
they
include
mosaic
which
allows
the
simulation
of
ammonium
and
nitrate
handling
the
gas
aerosol
exchange
mam,
5
some
aerosol
wet
scavenging
improvements
in
convective
clouds
and
the
brown
carbon
radiation
effects
that
hunter
Brown
put
in
and
also
a
new
dust
emission
scheme.
D
D
We
have.
They
find
good
agreement
with
observations
improved
over
the
previous
scheme,
and
so
that
will
also
be
going
in
at
the
same
time,
and
one
thing
nice
about
this
is
it
will
not
require
a
soil
erodibility
map,
so
we'll
be
able
to
use
it
for
any
resolution
for
our
variable
resolution,
whatever
without
having
to
regrade
the
soil
maps.
K
K
No
I
can't
I
keep
track
of
it.
Okay,
good!
Let
me
know
yeah,
so
there's
from
Nikolas
I
think
a
postdoc
in
Sheila
working
with
dust,
aerosols
I'm,
under
the
impression
that
man
five
cannot
represent
dust
aerosols,
larger
than
10
microns
I
would
like
to
represent
atmospheric
transport
of
aerosols
with
up
to
40
microns.
Is
that
possible
I?
C
We
tested
that
we
have
the
testing
machine
over
the
test
size
larger
than
10
micron.
That
thinks
the
model
just
basically,
the
test
is
for
the
big
size
tossed
the
they
sell
him
pretty
fast.
So
the
basically
that
the
task
over
the
oversize
came
back
home
Ryan
from
Edith
can
be
important,
maybe
only
originally
over
the
Tufts
oscillating
there.
Once
it's
transported
air.
This
very
large
sized
task
can
sediment
sediment
out
pretty
quickly
from
the
animals,
fear
so
yeah.
C
So
you
can
you
can
test
and
they're,
so
we
might
group
assuming-
and
he
had
did
something
like
adding
their
the
Supercross
dust
in
a
model,
but
the
model.
Basically
the
task.
The
said
I
mean
pretty
quick,
Guardians,
big
sized
particles,
I,
don't
know
if
yeah
yeah,
so
you
can
it's
a
what's
testing
but
yeah
so
by
the
model.
Right
now
is
it
over.
The
basin
did
show
some
cosmic
dust
like,
but
the
observation
model
still
have
yeah
haven't
treated
that
because
maybe
there's
some
mechanism,
we,
the
model,
hasn't
included
our
control.
D
D
D
To
her
about
looking
at
by
Jim
geochemical
responses,
so
if
there's
interest
in
that,
we
can
include
that
in
the
model
we're
still
working
on
tuv
I've
been
doing
a
little
work.
Looking
at
simpler
chemistry,
Becky
chuan
tez
has
been
putting
in
more
detailed
chemistry
and
our
postdoc
when
foo
has
been
working
on
really
looking
at
coupling
the
fire
missions
from
CLM
into
cam
cam.
D
So
there
are
a
number
of
and
I
also
just
talked
with
Alex
Gunther,
and
hopefully
we
will
work
soon
on
getting
Meghan
3
into
CLM,
so
that
we
can
use
the
latest
version
of
biogenic
emissions
from
that
I
have
done.
I
might
as
well
show
you
what
I've
done
with
the
simpler
chemistry
what
he
has
their
comments.
D
D
For
climate
studies,
so
with
fewer
levels,
it'll
be
cheaper
but
also
simpler,
chemistry,
but
the
current
cam
chemistry
with
specified
oxidants
is
really
not
adequate
for
doing
a
lot
of,
but
really
it
you
can't
pops,
it
probably
simulates
secondary
Ganic
aerosols,
and
you
cannot
calculate
nitrate
and
ammonium
aerosols
without
having
NOx
chemistry.
So
this
is
just
a
summary
of
the
number
of
species,
so
we
currently
have
230
with
our
220
and
cam
chem.
D
187,
transported
and
mosaic
would
add
another
15
species
to
that,
so
it
would
be
nice
to
have
something
less.
So
the
middle
atmosphere
mechanism
has
the
detailed
stratospheric
chemistry
and
just
methane
chemistry
in
the
troposphere,
but
that's
not
quite
enough.
We'll
need
something.
A
little
bit
more
so
I've
been
looking
at
maybe
going
back
to
the
Mozart
2
scheme,
which
is
essentially
what
the
GFDL
earth
system
model
is
using
now,
so
that's
63
species
in
the
troposphere
and
we'd
add
to
it
our
70
species
from
the.
D
There's
another
mechanism
used
by
the
UK
Earth
System
model,
which
has
a
total
of
84
species
for
the
troposphere
and
stratosphere
so
I
was
looking.
I
was
thinking
about
looking
at
incorporating
at
least
some
of
that
chemists,
further
reducing
the
isoprene,
oxidation
and,
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
I
don't
know
if
anybody
has
any
thoughts
on
what
level
of
complexity
is
needed
or
how
other
suggestions
for
benchmarks
to
make
sure
that
a
cheaper
chemistry
is
still
giving
reasonable
results
would
be
happy
to
discuss
that
here.
Any
opinions.
D
H
Alfonso's
group,
actually
today
and
I,
asked
him
what
the
status
was
because
I
did
the
initial
work
to
kind
of
get
it
to
going
in
there
they're
doing
some
final
tunings
and
stuff,
and
so
it's
it's
probably
another
month
or
so
out
before
we're
gonna
really
have
that
VSL,
bromine
and
ID
in
chemistry
for
the
troposphere
in
line
so
I.
Think
at
that
point,
then
we
can
maybe
talk
to
Alfonso
on
others
to
see.
If
we're
gonna
have
a
s'more,
simplified
version
of
that
and
cut
down
on
the
costs.
C
D
C
Yeah
I'm
here
this
is
this-
is
Peter,
so
hi
Louisa
hi
everyone
yeah.
So
we've
been
working
with
CLM
to
print
agricultural
ammonia
emissions
into
into
the
CLM
model,
so
interfaces
with
the
crop
model,
it
does
not
do
I'm
knocks
I'm,
like
Maria
scheme
does,
but
we
do
do
ammonia
on
both
from
into
our
applications
and
from
synthetic
fertilizer.
C
H
H
K
Currently,
actually,
these
emissions
go
from
2000
to
2019,
but
then
we
also
got
a
new
version
from
clear
from
2020,
which
we
added
and
my
understanding
is
it's
really
a
scaling,
a
trend
that
is
applied
to
the
emissions,
so
I
mean
I.
Suppose
those
2020
emissions
right
for
the
whole
year
were
provided
already
by
the
beginning
of
2020,
even
though
we
don't
know
so,
it
doesn't
include
any
changes
due
to
Kuwait
or
anything
like
that.
K
That's
the
first
thing,
so
the
question
is
really
what
will
be
provided
if
they
provide
another
set
of
permission
for
2021.
It's
probably
the
same
way.
They
will
scale
in
some
way
the
emission.
So
that's
probably
what
will
be
there
I,
don't
think
we
have
anything
that
is
like
the
fire
emissions
which.
A
K
H
For
everybody,
one
of
the
things
that's
happening
this
summer
is
we're
going
to
have
a
dry
run
again
of
the
Asian
monsoon
season
and
we're
going
to
be
used
for
casting
with
lakum
and
the
Gio's
assimilation
model
and
ECMWF
one
of
the
things
I'm
going
to
be
really
nice
is
not
to
have
to
have
the
emissions
that
are
not
reduced
due
to
co
viet
for
that
season,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
talk
to
Claire
grande
or
whoever's.
It's
part
of
that
to
get
that
update
you.
H
K
D
Yeah
I
think
there
are
a
number
of
activities.
There's
a
group
in
the
UK
who's
coming
up
with
something
to
do
some
IPCC
type
simulations,
so
it
that's
just
a
scaling
starting
from
IPCC,
and
then
there
are
other
groups
that
have
been
doing
data
assimilation.
So
there
may
be
more
realistic
of
actually
what
actually
happened.
D
D
So
I
think
there
are
but
I
think
if
the
community
is
interested
in
doing
kovetz
and
simulations
impact
simulations,
it's
good
to
coordinate
and
make
sure
you
know
we
can
share
emissions
files
and
not
duplicate
efforts,
but
people
who
are
interested.
We
could
certainly
try
to
coordinate
some
forum
to
discuss
that.
D
K
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the
comp
sets
and
so
on
usually
are
not
using
really
emissions
that
go
to
present
day,
but
we
do
develop
wiki's.
We
do
have
a
wiki
for
chemcam
and
we
will
develop
a
wiki
for
Louis.
For
me,
music,
maybe
at
least
I
will
talk
about
it
later
to
point
people
to
those
new
emissions.
So
if
you
can
actually
use
those
something
we
are
planning.
D
C
D
D
If
that's
still
too
expensive
for
people,
we
can
work
on
making.
You
know
further
shrinking
the
tropospheric
chemistry.
I
asked
Doug.
If
we
could
simplify
the
stratosphere
at
chemistry-
and
he
told
me
I
could
take
out
odd
fluorine,
so
I
did
that,
but
there's
still
a
few
species
there
and
and
and
and
calculating
the
stratospheric
ozone
and
the
ozone
hole,
is
really
important
for
the
climate.
D
So
it
seems
important
to
leap
in
not
take
shortcuts
there
I
suppose
there
will
still
be
a
workhorse
cam
model
that
reads:
specified
accidents
for
people
who
really
want
something
simpler
or
they're,
not
interested
in
simulating
SOA
and
nitrate,
but
I
think
for
state
of
the
art
climate
model.
It's
important
to
have
those
in
there.
K
D
Well,
yeah
I,
haven't
I,
didn't
get
very
far
and
actually
comparing
this
to
AUB's,
but
that
is
certainly
one
of
the
goals
that
would
be
one
of
the
metrics.
So
this
plot
is
the
surface
ozone,
zonal
average
and
it's
essentially
the
same,
but
certainly
to
look
at
it
more
in
more
detail
compared
to
observations
is
the
next
step
and
so
I'd
hope
that
that
would
be.
K
K
D
As
long
unless
you
want
to
look
at
it
new
come
newer,
newer,
CFC
replacement
then,
but
for
so
I,
think
I
think
we
should
keep
in
a
model
a
library
of
mechanisms.
Depending
on
the
questions
you
want
to
ask,
but
it
is
good
to
have
some
standard
ones
that
we
verify
and
scientifically
validated
for
people
to
use
and
then
I
see
Dan
asked.
Are
we
exploring
machine
learning
approaches
that
is
there?
D
D
D
In
March
we
talked
a
little
bit
about
a
couple:
ocean-atmosphere
coupling
things:
Xiao
Hong
is
working
on
marine
organic
aerosols.
We
have
a
yuan.
Wang
has
an
online
ocean
emission
module.
That
I
think
will
be
released
in
two
point:
two
for
doing:
DMS
and
organics
from
the
ocean:
that's
coupled
to
sea,
surface
temperature
and
the
and
the
model,
but
not
the
full
ocean
model.
So
it's
a
an
improvement
from
what
we've
been
doing.
Oh.
D
D
K
Maybe
I
can
say
something
more
about
that,
so
people
will
are
used
to
check
out
the
model.
They
are
usually
getting
these
f
as
the
concepts
FC
as
the
concept,
chemistry,
so
specified
dynamics,
that's
on
the
levels
of
mirror
or
Gio's.
Five
and
yeah
de
Lisa
had
a
slide
on
that.
Now
we
are
calling
the
new
comes
to
distinguish
between
the
old
ones,
FC
notched
so
because
they
are
specified
dynamics
in
a
way.
F
So
this
is
Jeff
Anderson
I
just
want
to
remind
you
that
you
have
a
comprehensive,
state-of-the-art
data
assimilation
capability
too,
so
you
don't
have
to
nudge
to
someone
else's
reanalysis.
You
can
use
the
observations
effectively
and
you
can
do
that
just
for
the
meteorological
variables
or
you
can
also
do
it
for
the
chemistry
variables
and
people
like
then
Gobert
have
been
doing
a
lot
of
work
on
that,
but
the
data
assimilation
capability
for
for
the
dynamics
is
I
think
really
a
much
better
way
to
go
than
nudging
at
this
point.
F
In
addition,
we've
generated
some
long,
reanalysis
and
Kevin.
Rader
will
talk
about
those
at
the
new
working
group
meeting
in
the
morning,
some
of
those
reanalysis
there
from
cam
and
some
of
them
you
might
be
able
to
nudge
to
them,
even
without
going
to
full
data
assimilation
of
your
own.
So
there's
a
lot
of
options
available
here
that
will
get
rid
of
a
lot
of
these
challenges
with
going
to
a
foreign,
reanalysis
and.
K
That's
really
good
to
know.
I
mean
know
that
this
is
going
on
and
at
this
point
I
mean
one
one
reason
we
really
didn't
or
didn't
have
those
available,
I
guess
and
if
they
are
available
it
would
be
great
to
test
them.
The
other
question:
are
you
running
I
mean
I,
suppose
you're
running
forecast
as
well?
Is
that
correct
so.
F
J
F
Kevin
will
point
out
that
that's
trivial
to
do
so.
The
analyzed
ensemble
initial
conditions
are
available
and
we
have
the
capability
to
do
this,
with
cam,
with
Wacom,
with
Wacom
X
and
with
any
of
the
three
proposed
dynamical
cores
right
now,
so
the
SE,
the
FB
and
M
pass.
We
can
do
any
of
those
three
there's.
No
doubt
that
working
with
chemistry
with
some
of
those
would
be
something
that
hasn't
been
done
yet,
but
the
mechanistically
it's
available
now
yeah.
C
F
So
we'd
probably
have
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
in
detail,
but
essentially
the
dissimulation
is
using
the
available
observations
either
and,
let's
start
with
just
saying
up
the
meteorology,
the
same
ones
that
are
used
by
n,
separate
MWF
and
they
are
constraining
the
cam
model.
To
look
like
an
analysis
that
you
would
get
by
working
off
of
the
reanalysis
of
any
one
of
those
operational
centers.
But
the
process
is
consistent
with
the
dynamics
of
your
model
and
it
will
be
the
advection
that
you
would
get
that
makes
cam
look
consistent
with
the
observations.
C
F
K
Yeah,
we
think
about
something
like
a
clip
right.
We
do
right
now
use
the
analysis
they're
provided
by
marriages,
fight
for
something,
because
we
can
just
download
the
data
in
one
hour
and
start
running
our
forecasts,
and
then
we
can
actually
provide
like
up
to
ten
days,
and
the
question
is:
how
practical
is
that,
especially
if
you
think
about
that,
this
is
a
model
we
need
for,
for
the
Middle's
I
mean
at
least
in
the
stratosphere
as
well,
since
it's
focusing
on
the
you
Telus
region,.
F
So
any
of
the
things
you're
describing
are
possible
whether
they
are
possible
within
your
resource
limits
and
whether
they
are
possible
in
real
time
or
discussions
that
would
have
to
be
tailored,
but
certainly
for
investigating
the
advantages
by
looking
at
some
past
cases,
it
is
pretty
straightforward
and,
as
I
said
for
lower
level
stuff,
we
already
have
archived
reanalysis
data
of
various
forms
available
to
explore
again.
The
full
forecasts
aren't
necessarily
there
too
long
times,
but
that
would
be
easy
to
extend.
F
Long
stuff
we've
done
is
for
the
cam
top
model.
Other
people
have
done
shorter
periods
with
various
other
models
and
Nick
Pettit
Ella
from
Ajo
in
particular,
did
some
work
with
Wacom
and
is
actually
working
with
Wacom
X
nail.
So
both
Nick
and
Ben
have
again
significantly
more
physical
science
expertise
here
and
would
need
to
be
involved
in
a
discussion
to
temper
my
optimism
but
I'm
pretty
optimistic
about
at
least
being
able
to
test
these
methods
as
good
alternatives.
D
D
H
C
So
there
are
a
couple
of
things
here
peaking
at
between
just
over
the
new
note.
Gene
is
on
the
same
number
of
layers
than
two
wicked
on
Campton,
so
that
we
can
directly
compare
nudging,
Geo's
or
computing
or
doing
the
data
assimilation.
We
would
be
on
the
same
plate.
Then
what
I've
been
trying
to
look
at
is
to
nudge
to
my
own,
we
analyzes,
and
that
was
not
as
good
as
doing
the
ensemble,
but
my
ensemble
was
just
winning
with
30
members
of
champion
and
I
believe
given
has
been
running
80
members.
C
F
C
F
E
This
is
Danis,
there
been
any
discussions
with
the
initialized
seasonal
prediction
and
ends
being
conducted
by
yoga
and
those
in
CJD,
because
I'm
a
little
worried
now
that,
when
they're
proposing
to
add
many
many
layers
in
the
troposphere
and
lower
stratosphere
that
the
disconnect
between
the
reanalysis
used
as
an
initial
condition
from
mera
in
the
number
of
levels
and
the
model
grid
of
the
model
used
for
the
forecast
will
be
quite
large.
So
it
seems
like
they
would
be
the
ones
it
should
be.
F
F
F
Glen
roaming
did
a
significant
period
of
real-time
numerical
weather
prediction
stuff
in
M
cubed
a
few
years
ago,
and
so
these
things
can
be
done
and
we
could
certainly
do
whatever
grid
the
details
of
the
grid
are
almost
irrelevant
mechanistically
to
doing
the
data
assimilation,
so
whatever
configuration
Yaga
is
working
with
moving
in
the
fort
or
other
folks,
we
can
test
the
data
assimilation
exactly
how
that
fits
with
people's
funding.
Views
with
how
often
they
want
to
do
it
and
with
computational
constraints
are
things
that
need
to
be
discussed.
F
We
are
preparing
to
float
the
idea
of
a
sort
of
revolutionary
project
to
do
a
long
period,
coupled
assimilation
over
decades
over
the
next
few
years
to
support
primarily
CSM
sub
seasoned
with
the
longer
prediction,
but
that
tool
would
be
valuable
to
a
whole
bunch
of
other
players,
including
chemistry,
folks,
for
these
purposes,
so
we're
gonna
start
floating
those
ideas.
Again,
we
did
float
them
with
Joe
trivia,
as
the
CTD
lead
about
five
years
ago,
and
we're
gonna
be
thinking
about
those
things
again.
I
mean.
K
F
There's
no
doubt
that
this
would
be
on
the
timescale
at
the
workhorse
model,
because
there
are
also
data
assimilation,
issues
that
are
being
pursued
for
the
couple
data
assimilation
by
folks
and
sizzles,
cjd
and
elsewhere,
and
so
I
think
on
a
sort
of
two
year
time
scale
at
which
such
a
project
could
come
maturity,
one
of
the
possibilities
and
again
I'm
getting
a
little
ahead
of
myself.
But
one
of
the
possibilities
is
to
try
and
sneak
this
in-between
before
the
CMM.
Seven
compute
eats
the
next
machine.
D
Great
any
other
questions
about
data
assimilation
and
nudging
nudging
does
work
4sc
spectral
element
also
going
back.
There
was
a
question
about
land.
Modeling
dry
deposition
is
calculated
in
the
land
model
and
then
the
velocities
are
passed
back
to
the
atmosphere
model.
There's
always
room
for
improvement
if
anybody's
interested
in
helping
work
on
that
welcome
collaboration
on
that
I.
K
Think
we
had
discussions
in
the
Wycombe
group
about
community
needs
and
I
wonder
what
the
community
things
outside
in
Kahn.
What
is
required?
What
is
the
development
and
there's
a
lot
of
development
going
on,
of
course
outside,
and
it
would
be
bit
you
know
or
yeah
just
to
hear
about
things
that
I
knew
if
anybody
wants
to
say
something.
Yes,.
D
D
H
E
Yeah
we're
working
on
several
ways
of
improving
on
that.
In
terms
of
specification
of
the
input
flux,
we've
got
a
funded
NSF
project,
looking
using
Firebird
data
and
the
Van
Alen
pro
data
and
working
with
several
colleagues
in
Scandinavia
and
on
the
improving
the
specification
and
input.
So
obviously,
if
we
get
something
that
is
suitable
to
replace
our
current
input
files,
which
would
seem
like
six
files
we'll
make
those
available
and
if
you
want
to
do
the
not
only
the
precipitation
right.
E
E
Now
one
question
there
is
that
you're
gonna
have
to
figure
out
how
to
if,
for
music
asset
size,
you
know
80
or
75
kilometer
chemcam
you're,
going
to
want
to
get
that
upper
boundary
condition
correct
for
NOx,
so,
in
which
case
yours
we're
still
gonna
have
to
that's
a
general
topic.
How
are
you
going
to
handle
the
upper
boundary
and
is
that
still
a
situation
where
you're
gonna
have
to
pick
you
back
run
wacom
first
before
you
can
run
cam
cam
to
get
your
upper
boundary
forcing
or
do
you?
E
C
D
I
was
just
trying
to
answer
when
I'd
lost
my
mute,
so
we
there
are
tools
to
create
these
grids
and
we
are
putting
together
a
webpage
and
github
links
and
things
to
help
the
community
have
access
to
them.
But,
yes,
you
can
make
a
grid
pretty
much
a
refined
region
for
whatever
you
want.
You
have
to
do
a
little
bit
of
work
to
make
sure
it's
stable.
They
know.
They're.
D
This
grid
nicely
goes
mostly
over
the
ocean,
we're
trying
to
figure
out
a
new
grid
for
Asia
and
dealing
with
the
Himalayas,
so
in
general,
it's
flexible,
but
at
the
moment
you
then
also
have
to
create
the
emission
files
on
that
grid
and
we're
putting
together
the
set
of
programs.
You
need
to
do
to
generate
the
emissions
on
the
grid,
so
in
general,
it's
it's
doable
and
hopefully
we'll
put
together
some
documentation
and
tools
that
will
make
it
easier
for
people.
C
So
you
have
last
night's
resigns
about
tonight
tonight:
Raider,
nad,
flossing
and
I
think
yeah.
That
is
a
different
time
period,
though
this
is
most
easy
for
the
the
nitrate
director
radiative,
forcing
the
period
from
75
to
to
2010,
and
then
it
can
be
more
important
for
nitrate
and
in
the
future-
and
this
is
the
fourth
reactor
ready
the
closing
and
they,
the
Claude
40
news
can
be
also
comparable,
even
RJ.
Originally.
K
C
D
D
D
Chemistry
and
Wacom
have
always
been
a
pretty
small
portion
of
the
tutorial
and
we're
hoping
that
the
musica
tutorial
will
be
something
that
addresses
the
needs
of
the
chemistry
modelers
in
the
future,
but
also
with
all
this
lack
of
ability
to
meet
in
person.
We're
thinking
about
different
ways
of
having
tutorials
and
interacting
with
the
working
groups.
I
think
they're
going
to
be
questions
in
the
survey
that
everybody's
asking
it's
going
to
be
asked
to
complete
after
the
meeting,
but
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
that
there.
D
D
We
might
have
it
try
to
have
a
webinar
sort
of
online
activity,
but
mostly
or
a
virtual
meeting
sort
of
tutorial,
but
most
of
it
hopefully
we'd
have
documents
on
a
website
that
people
can
learn
how
to
run
the
regionally
refined,
chem
chem
and
get
started
that
way.
Instead
of
having
a
a
group
of
people
come
in
and
in
person
helping
each
person,
but
so
I
don't
know
if
anyone
has
any
thoughts.
K
D
K
K
D
One
last
question
about
aqueous
chemistry:
I,
see,
I,
think
that's
gonna
be
well
I,
don't
know
anyone
want
to
say
anything
about
that.
That's
a
I,
don't
think
there
are
immediate
plans,
but
certainly
something
we'd
like
to
add
to
the
model.
I
know
there
will
be
activities
as
part
of
the
musica
working
group,
I
think
to
look
into
implementing
aqueous
chemistry
on
particles
and
clouds,
so
sign
up
for
the
appropriate
musical
working
groups
and
be
in
touch
with
people
there
try
to.
C
C
D
D
D
Impacts
they
weren't
very
specific.
They
weren't.
They
were
proposing
you
running
for
20
years
and
we
suggested
that
might
be
more
appropriate
if
CSM
to
did
some
short
one
or
two
year,
more
ensembles
member
simulations
to
look
at
a
radiative
impact,
but
I
think
that's
all
up
in
the
air.
We
were
waiting
for
the
emissions
which
seemed
to
have
just
been
chaired,
but
I.
Think
there's
gonna,
be
some
group
trying
to
do
something
over
the
next
couple
of
months.
C
K
Yeah
this
is
challenge
because
their
missions
will
be
in
somewhat
somewhat
uncertain
when
they
are
just
arrived.
You
know
from
estimates
of
reductions
in
different
sectors,
on
the
other
hand
has
been
already
mentioned.
They
are
the
top
down
from
satellite
data.
I
guess
estimates
that
are
more
realistic,
and
so
this
is
all
taking
more
time.
I
don't
know,
then,
if
you
want
to
elaborate
somewhat
more
on
that,
what
you're
planning
to
do.
K
C
D
Well,
I'd
certainly
don't
feel
a
need
to
stay
here
until
4:30,
everybody's,
tired
and
nobody
else
has
any
other
questions.
Encourage
everybody
to
participate
in
musica.
However,
you'd
like
and
check
out
our
web
page
for
working
groups
and
if
you
have
any
other
questions
and
developments
for
cam-cam
get
in
touch
with
us,.
D
D
A
Thanks
to
Lisa
thanks,
Elizabeth
I
just
did
another
download
of
the
chat.
I
don't
know
if
that
would
be
useful
to
you.
But
if
you
have
your
chat,
open,
there's
three
little
dots
on
the
right-hand
side,
oh
yeah,
and
then
you
can
download
it
too
and
okay.
If
you
grab
that
blue
link
it'll,
take
you
right
to
where,
on
your
computer,
it
saved
it.
Oh
yep,
good.