// 改行を反映するか
#setlinebreak(off)
**ILAMBメモ [#vb19b410]
***Day 1 [#g3a43b16]
- Jim Randerson
-- Goals:
--- Develop benchmarks for LM performance with forcus on C-cycle,
ecosystem surface energy, and hydrology.
--- Apply the benchmarks to global models
--- open source benchmarking software
--- strengthen
--Why benchmarks
--- Appeal the community
--- Diagnose impacts
--- Guide IPCC
--- Increase datasets
--- Identify gaps
--- MIP
--- Provide Weight （ショートタームに偏らないように、ということは確認された）
-- ILAMBは、あらゆるMIPが使用可能なopen-source softwareを作る。
-- Deadlines: July 2012 for AR5WG1
-- CDIAC / ORNL DAAC / LP DAAC / GMD / NEON
--- Fluxnet Transcom
-- ILAMB Carbon, ILAMB Land use change, ILAMB hydrology
-- Either coupled or un-coupled.

- Peter friedlingstein
-- history. 5 DGVMs in ENSEMBLES. C-LAMP, CCMAP, C4MIP.
-- Randerson et al GCB 2009, Cadule et al 2010 (C4MIP).
-- for AR5, evaluation (P. Cox), C-cycle (P. Ciais, C. Jones, S. Piao,
V. Brovkin), and Future projection (P. Friedlingstein) chapters.
-- GCP, 2010 Budget(?), RECCAP, TRENDY
-- In ENSEMBLES: fluxnet, river discharge, FAPAR, CO2 (JULES, LPJs, ORCHEEDEE)

- Eleanor Blyth CEH (JULES)
-- PILPS, GSWP, WATCH
-- soil drying
-- partitioning evaporation - how can we measure these?

- Forrest Hoffman, Oak Ridge National Lab., Carbon-Land Model
Intercomparison Project
-- CLM3-CASA' (Fung), CLM3-CN (Thornton)
-- www.climatemodeling.org/c-lamp
-- PCMDIにも格納。coupledランは、HadSSTをもちいたAMIP。
-- ILAMBのプロトタイプにしたい。
-- scoreは、データのバージョンにも依存する。
-- score時に、variable同士の依存性も考慮すべき。その関係性を評価することがCMIP実験では重要。
-- だれか不明だが（多分WATCH関係者）、GSWP3について言及。100-yr 0.5-degree forcing data for LSM
-- ILAMB softwareに、どのforcingを使ったかは関係ない

- Gab Abramowitz, PALS
-- http://pals.unsw.edu.au
-- データとモデル出力の両方をUpload。
-- google financeのグラフアプリを利用したい。
-- 基本的にFluxnet用。
-- Aerosolモデルの比較のページもあるよ。（CEOPの品質管理サイトにも似てる）

- NikとDiscussion
-- 前半と後半で様相が結構異なる。（20C Reanによるものか）
-- Oregon沖でDJFd18OとSSTに負の相関。その信憑性はどうか。
-- シミュレーションが止まることがある。

- Afternoon discussion
-- site-based: fluxnet(CO2, latent heat)
-- large scale: CO2 conc., Riverflow
-- remotely sensed: fAPAR, Tsfc, height, albedo, burned area, soil
moisture, snowcover/depth,


- Peter Thornton ORNL
-- NACPの話。MATSIROはおろか、SimCycleなんかもない。IsoLSMはある。

- Silvia Kloster, Burned area
-- GFEDv3

- Miguel Mahecha MPI

*** Day2 [#j261d507]

- Markus Reichstein, MPI, Fluxnet
-- http://www.fluxdata.org/
-- gridded product vs site-level product; scale issue
-- よくまとめられたな、という感想。関係者の人数が異常。

- Mac Post, ORNL, Soil data
-- Upgrade of HWSD with existing US, Canada, Aust databases
-- SOTER: Soil and Terrain Database
-- http://code.google.com/p/srdb/
-- Global Littermass and Litterfall Database: Also has nutrient measurements

- Philip Ciais, LSCE, Model evaluation, satellite.
-- Satellite datasets can differentiate model output, but data errors
to be accounted for.
-- Ecological databases need careful protocols because of age effects.

-午後は別の打ち合わせ@SIOのため早退。
*** Day 3 [#e00ba2e7]

- Etsushi Kato JAMSTEC, LUC
-- Houghton 2003がベースだが、多数のリビジョンがある。
-- Integrated Assessment Models (IAM) create land use, harvest,
bioenergy maps based on RCP scenarios.
-- VISITを使ってオフライン計算し、RCPから与えられているEmissionと比較。（？）
-- RCP3とRCP8.5がわりと似てる。
-- VISITとSEIBの関係がわからない。。。オフライン計算とESM計算の違いは？
-- 20C3Mでのラインの違いはなぜ？
--- ESMはRCPのCO2濃度とLand Useが使われている？
-- ”Harvested wood”を出力すべき？

- Elena Shevliakova
-- Why worry about Land Use?
--- LU C flux esitmates are required for
-- Emission driven ESM
-- Observations: National wood harvests, crops harvested,
deforestation rates, areas of crops, pastures, biomass accumulation,
...
-- George Hurtt et al., 2009がcommon dataset for historic and future.
-- Inconsistency between ESM-generated LU emissions vs externally prescribed

- Chris Jones, CARBONES; 20-year carbon reanalysis

- Break-up session on metric components
-- Hydrology and Energyに参加。RiverflowにSeasonalを入れない、というのはどうかと思ったが、Human
interventionがあるから、という理由もわかるので了承。他はまっとうに最低限、という感じ。
-- 新たなランを強制しない、すでにあるランのBenchmarkingができることが最重要。
--- river flow
--- global runoff from ocean balance (lower priority)
--- albedo
--- soil moisture/wetness
--- column water (GRACE)
--- snow cover
--- snow depth / SWE
--- Tair and Precip --> Fluxnet
--- lE and H; cost function incorporated
-- Fluxnet
--- NEE, GPP, Re, H, lE
--- fAPAR, P, T, vegetation map
--- site-to-site; LAI, NPP, C stocks, soil moisture, soil respiration
-- ecosystem group
--- SoilC
--- Litter C
--- Soil respiration
--- fAPAR
--- NDVI
--- Biomass+Change
--- Canopy height
--- NPP
--- WUE
-- Vegetation group
--- MODIS vegetation  (Hansen et al.)
--- GFEDv3 burning area

- Michael Prather, UC
-- Chapter 12のLA。Annexも担当？

- Discussion on software design
-- Rを使う
-- Private Modeとして、各自のシステムにインストールしてモデル評価・開発に用いる。Public
Modeとして、CMIP5のモデルの一気評価に用いる。
-- Data使用のパーミッションは？Aknowledgment systemで対応

- ESSのセミナー発表のため退席。特に荒れることなくあっさり終了。
#setlinebreak(default)
CENTER:

RIGHT:
&size(10){category:[[Meeting>:config/plugin/calendar/_category/Meeting]] author: ''kei'' at 2011-02-10 (Thu) 17:12:34};
//-- comment --
----
- Charles,The future is never clear, oivlousby. The only cases that involved only 1150 MW of additional nuclear generation (WBN2 only), were the cases with little to no demand growth. The IRP is merely a guide. If WBN2 comes in at around the budget and close to on schedule, TVA will be more likely to add more nuclear, when generation growth is needed/warranted. Additionally, SMR technology is not quite far enough along in development (in regulatory terms, at least) to be included in this study to a large degree. If the initial deployment(s) of SMR(s) are wildly successful, I could see TVA eventually adding more than 5900 MW of new nuclear capacity between now and 2039. TVA, at this point, appears likely to be the utility that will first deploy SMRs.For you to criticize TVA for not including enough nuclear in their IRP, which is merely a guide, when TVA is at least as active if not moreso than any other American utility in the nuclear space, seems rather off-base to me. -- [[Sandra]] &new{2012-08-19 (Sun) 18:50:12};

#comment2_kcaptcha