- Presentation (to be uploaded) in the land-atmosphere oral session, giving brief overview of DICE
DICE break-out: Tuesday 15th July 2014
Notes from discussion
- missing data and reruns
- Sanity check: please could all participants take a look at the above presentations and check that the results we are plotting for their model are consistent with how it looks to them
- stage 1a: LSMs resubmit including surface stress and skin temperature (both 2m and 55m forcing), if they haven't already
- stage 1a: could all LSMs submit their ancillary data (ie, number of tiles, tile fractions, LAI, green fraction, root depth, canopy height, etc as appropriate)
- stage 3b: SCMs will then need to rerun with consistent surface data from the LSMs
- points for further analysis:
- Stage 1a: should be straightforward to understand reasons for excessive u* in some LSMs
- Simply excessive z0? If so why (eg canopy height, LAI)?
- Stage 1a: u* distributions very different (fall into 2 groups)
- Could all groups provide u* from LSMs
- Stage 1a: some LSMs have different daytime fluxes forced by 2m and 55m
- Similarity theory not holding?
- Stage 2 coupling: some positive, some negative feedbacks on surface fluxes (cf stage 1a)
- Stage 2 coupling: net LW enhanced by day (increased upward LW) with less SHF
- implies change in near surface T gradients?
- Interesting soil heat flux "hysteresis" between day and night in some models
- Why this difference and what is the impact?
- Stage 1b,3b: why do some SCM mix out the inversion?
- Dependent on parametrization structure (eg non-local vs EDMF vs higher order)?
- Does it matter? Affects PBL budget so can effects be seen in going from stage 1a -> 2?
- next steps:
- Timetable for reruns:
- end August: additional data back from stage 1a
- start of September: release revised stage 3b forcing data
- end September: revised stage 3b runs submitted
- Martin and Adrian to write up intercomparison
- Overview paper plus two separate papers on LSM and SCM analyses, respectively
- Special issue (eg BLM): to include participants' own analyses, model sensitivities, etc
- DICE datasets: should submitted data be put on the web too?
- issues with lack of consistency in data formats between models, etc
- Martin/Adrian could send link to data on request?
- Possible follow-up workshop joint with GABLS4 in Spring 2015 (location TBD)
- Future case possibilities, extending to clouds and precipitation:
- based around the 4 AMMA sites in Couvreux et al (BLM 2014)
- another SGP ARM site case, potentially linked to CAUSES