1

Software:Hymodelc stable, without signs of premature terminations.

Consider the latest bug fixes “serious” (i.e., meriting re-runs).Need to re-run a lot of cases (especially if we aim at an

inversion paper) - can we agree on a division of labor? BRAMS runs very time consuming.Inversion software ported and implemented at AER - can do with

WRF whatever we can do with BRAMS (but still somewhat CPU limited!)

Paper-writing:2 papers in the works (candidate results shown later in this

presentation):Technical paper describing WRF/STILT coupling (main “selling

points:” treatment of convection, quantification of RMS errors wrt to obs, time-reversibility - still need to couch it as “Part 1” to get through the review).Forward model paper (Part 2): comparison of Argyle and

airborne simulations with obs under different settings (WRF vs BRAMS, 40-km vs. nested, convection, CarbonTracker, model drivers vs NLDAS).Part 3 would follow very naturally (impact on inversions) -

but we need to finish the runs no later than May!

2

Loose ends:Calculate Strans using zi data from Dan and WRF and u calculated

by Thomas for BRAMS and WRF - do we want to do it now?CarbonTracker implementation?Do we need to look at other towers (WLEF), assess the impact of

vertical resolution on the nighttime spikes?

ROSES 2007:Reducing transport errors in regional top-down flux estimates

through a model intercomparison:Adam Hirsch, Scott Denning, and Marek Uliasz have expressed

interest - a good opportunity with critical mass of people and tools.How to scope scientifically: range from trajectory

comparisons through software integration with inversions (community model).How to scope geographically - Europe? Satellite data: OCO? AIRS? TES?

Another proposal to look at the regional CO2 and CH4 budgets using GEOS-Chem and TES?

3Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.

Time Reversibility

BRAMS and WRF comparable - no detrimental impact of coordinate transformation in WRF? No detrimental impact of nudging in BRAMS?Time-averaged mass-fluxes definitely help.

4Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.

Wind Comparisons with RAOBs

BRAMS better than WRF (nudging).Nudging available in WRF v. 2.2, not yet executed.Can use these numbers to compute Strans?

May need to do more - day-by-day synoptic evaluation?

5Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.

Trajectory Comparisons

Purple: WRF, green: BRAMS, blue: GFSIs this agreement significant: Dan has seen this in his thesis for situations of “regular” flow.

6Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.

Footprint Overlap (Inner Product)

Left: WRF vs BRAMS, right: WRF 40-km vs nested.More overlap between different models than between different resolutions?Are these plots educational?

7Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.

Argyle: Impact of Different Options

8Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.

Airborne: Impact of Different Options

CarbonTracker BC helps aloft, but degrades near the surface (implementation?)Models too diffusive at night?Beneficial impact of convection.

9Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.

CarbonTracker at Argyle (BRAMS run)