GOALS FOR THIS MEETING

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 GMIs 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
IPCC TIMELINE
7
QUADRENNIAL OZONE SYMPOSIUM
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
PAPERSFIRST 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