Second
GREENCYCLES MC-RTN Network Meeting Minutes
15th
- 18th February, 2006
Lisbon, Portugal
Host:
José M.C. Pereira, DEF, Instituto Superior de
Agronomia, Tapada da Ajuda 1349-017, Lisboa
Meeting
Venue: Vila Galé – Hotel Opera |
| Part
3: |
| |
| |
Allen:
|
how
to reduce processes to scale of GCMs, cannot plug regional
fire model into GCMs
Important that there is a feedback between vegetation
and fire, you cannot simply couple a detailed fire model
to coarse resolution GCM.
|
|
| |
Han: |
GC is about science, not development of a particular GCM |
|
| |
Sandy:
|
trying
to improve fire model (incl. human), as a forcing first,
than later for feedback. |
|
| |
Allen:
|
synergies
between ISPL and HadCM groups. |
|
| |
Sandy:
|
GC
debates science, coupling issues are a different ball
park. What is the neglected in fire model? |
|
| |
Allen: |
belowground carbon |
|
| |
Sandy:
|
how
to do that? Also, interaction between land management
and fire. What is the strategy for peat land burning,
what’s the key issues that need to be done? |
|
| |
Allen:
|
need
RS data, digital maps of peat and peat depth. How to model
moisture flux in climate variability. |
|
| |
Sandy:
|
Better
handle of peat land hydrology? Here the work of Roxana
could be of help! |
|
| |
Han:
|
A
lot of peat land drained, limited scope for hydrological
model, because this requires knowledge about the magnitude
etc. of drainage |
|
| |
Allen:
|
nobody
in GC doing this work. |
|
| |
Sandy:
|
There
could be a synergy with the QUEST work on wetland areas,
that could be looking on the hydrology side on this. Is
there anything that could help develop the burning modelling?
|
|
| |
Allen:
|
Water
table depth from rainfall data, but limited by precip.
data quality. Need alternative rainfall datasets. Outside
scope of GC. |
|
| |
Kirsten: |
Should concentrate on feasible exercises in GC: E.g. synthesis
of biomass burning from different sources (as planned
by Marlies). Great step forward to take agriculture burning
into account. Peat important, but beyond the scope of
what we can do here. |
|
| |
Allen |
:
Borneo data. Intercomparison? |
|
| |
Sandy:
|
Could
that be included in ER3 plan for Metoffice. Future emission. |
|
| |
Jose:
|
RS
link with Alcatel. EO tool are limited with hotspots,
e.g. deforestation locally, resolution problem, peat,
3D problem. Current limitation of RS could be a fertile
link for Alcatel to devise new sensor needs. |
|
| |
Allen:
|
Hotspots
and burnt area products should be explored in GC. |
|
| |
Sergey:
|
How
involve PhDs, what is doable? |
|
| |
Dorothea:
|
lost
the overall objective in fire issue. |
|
| |
Andrew: |
there is no GC objective to directly improve fire. Objective
is to reduce uncertainties in biogenic feedbacks in the
climate system. 6 science themes, on is fire. |
|
| |
Allen:
|
what
about the hotspots project? |
|
| |
Alberte:
|
fire
ok, synergies good but not the first objective of ER hotspots. |
|
| |
Jose:
|
overall
aim should be to strive for a coupled GCMs, but there
needs to be a specific objectives for small projects of
ESRs! Training network. |
|
| |
Han:
|
three
issues: 1) problem area where we don’t get it right
(e.g. tropical rainforests and peatlands) – fine
tuning the current estimates. 2) what drives the fires,
important for LSMs. 3) when we produce fire maps, global
inversions can constrain those. |
|
| |
Stephen:
|
specific
tasks for ER IV are emissions |
|
| |
Andrew:
|
inversions
pretty simple to use, not our job, but there is inversion
groups loosely involved (Valentina). |
|
| |
Sergey: |
get PhD advantages from existing fire models |
|
| |
Allen:
|
Should
revisit GC objectives. |
|
| |
Andrew
: |
that
was the point of the Greencycles fire workshop |
|
| |
Sandy:
|
Has
been done at the fire workshop. That strategy hasn’t
changed. |
|
| |
Kirsten:
|
But
the situation is better now. Yannick can look at climate-fire
interactions, PIK focuses on agricultural burning, ER5
in Bristol summarises this all. Kirsten offers to give
advice. |
|
| |
Allen: |
more
work on lighting needed. |
|
| |
Nick: |
two sets of data that don’t work individually, why
not use data assimilation? |
|
| |
Allen:
|
most
of the data we have are RS that doesn’t give processes.
Causes? Get different data sets together to see what drives
the RS patterns to better understand this from a statistical
point of view. |
|
| |
Jose:
|
Flashing
discussed with Yannick. Man-made vs. natural fire activity,
run the models with a world without humans |
|
| |
Alberte:
|
We
want to model fire that are related to land-use. |
|
| |
Andrew:
|
close
of fire discussion. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Open
discussion on remote sensing and potential interactions
with Alcatel, led by Jose |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Carole
Rosso presents Alcatel, the industrial partner of GC
Secondments:
Gives a list of contact person for individual secondments
(see her presentation)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Jose:
|
discussed
with Sandrine Mathieu on the scope of the collaboration
– interest of Alcatel in the construction of new
instruments. Unsure how that ties in with the PhD plans.
Unsure whether PhD students are appropriate for the ToK
from science to industry. |
|
| |
Andrew:
|
each
project is individual in the demand for science or technical
stuff. There should be intensive discussions with the
supervisors at Alcatel and the PhDs and their supervisor
to get benefit out for GC. This can be training or science
for their thesis. |
|
| |
Nicolas:
|
feeling
that it’s more a drain of time for PhD students. |
|
| |
Andrew: |
There is a commitment to the collaboration, but the scope
must be to the benefit of both. This is difficult to find
out… |
|
| |
Nicolas: |
I get to gain from going there, but PhD students not necessarily. |
|
| |
Andrew:
|
Plan
was made for those project that may be relevant for the
RS collaboration. In addition there will be some interaction
for the last annual meeting and hopefully some ToK on
this as well. Clearly there are some scientific interest
in the collaboration with a RS company, e.g. ocean colour.
For wetland it’s perhaps a different issue. This
needs to be discussed, and if there was no benefit for
either side, the secondment could be cancelled. |
|
| |
Sergey:
|
Is
the ToK doable for students? |
|
| |
Andrew:
|
Why
not. |
|
| |
Alberte: |
I gave info what I would be interested in, but no response. |
|
| |
Andrew:
|
Has
been a problem because the planned meeting in Cannes between
Andrew and Alcatel didn’t take place (availability
of persons). These questions should be sorted out bilaterally. |
|
| |
Allen: |
Sandrine (Alcatel) is also involved in Cyclops (Fapar
etc.) |
|
| |
Maciek: |
how does it work technically? |
|
| |
Carole:
|
Alcatel
has no laboratory but an office in Cannes. The idea of
these secondments is to get a feeling of the technical
limitation (and potentials) of RS data, and where they
come from – face reality, understand the problems
of the data. Collaboration of Alcatel mostly European,
but a lot. ESA, JRC… |
|
| |
Andrew:
|
for
ocean there seems a clear scientific interest. |
|
| |
Maciek: |
interested in data processing, and instruments. |
|
| |
Carole:
|
Alcatel
does not posses an image data base ifself, but some data
sets (?), but meris post processing tools to do atmospheric
corrections, fusion of for example landsat and meris data
set to improve resolution etc. |
|
| |
Maciek:
|
do
not see how to produce a paper. |
|
| |
Andrew: |
could be a paper on technical stuff, could be beneficial
nevertheless. |
|
| |
Dorothea: |
Could there be confidentiality issues? |
|
| |
Andrew:
|
Contract
states that all of the knowledge in the contract is freely
available to the network, so there should be no problem. |
|
| |
Alberte:
|
Work
done with instruments that you work with? |
|
| |
Carole:
|
Alcatel
doesn’t own the images that are made by the instruments |
|
| |
Allen: |
(not
entirely serious) but we want data! |
|
| |
Carole:
|
need
to discuss the contact person at Alcatel directly. |
|
| |
Andrew:
|
Dutch
centre of Meris ocean product, maybe facilitation of collaboration
due to Alcatel. More the post-processing side of things.
Alcatel seem to be now more interested in post processing
activities. Ocean biology interested in species detection
– not clear whether that can be done, could be a
small project on a limited set of data to test this. Other
issues? |
|
| |
Sandy: |
JRC would like to be involved in the RS part of Greencycles
meetings. (WS5: RS data and scaling, summer 2007) collaboration
established already, so JRC should be contacted in need
(Sandy is the contact person). |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Open
discussion Marine Carbon Cycle, led by Dorothea |
| |
|
Interactive
presentation on marine carbon cycle, C fluxes and dominant
processes. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Allen:
|
polar
icecaps effects of carbon sequestration in ocean? |
|
| |
Pierre:
|
sink
reduction due to themohaline circulation? |
|
| |
Allen:
|
and
for southern ocean? |
|
| |
Pierre: |
physics are the same in the north and south |
|
| |
Dorothea: |
in the south huge difference between models and observations |
|
| |
Pierre:
|
Still
there is an agreement between modelling and inversions,
are the data wrong? |
|
| |
Han:
|
If
you were to spend a lot of money, what would you do? |
|
| |
Dorothea:
|
Combination
of shipboard observations (time series) and modelling.
Make use of ships of opportunity if available. |
|
| |
Allen: |
Why is work on carbon cycle biased to NH? |
|
| |
|
... |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Open
Discussion Terrestrial Carbon Cycle, led by Han |
| |
|
Gives
a report on activities in CarboEurope. General issues:
land use, human dynamics in changes of land use, land
use management, what level of detail is required and meaningful
to simulate this is biogeochemical models. Drought effects
(extreme event 2003), real world experiment to test model
assumptions, CEIP intermodel comparison. Increasing CO2
rates has been 2ppm for 2002, 2003 and 2005. Causal mechanism
unclear, but the hottest years globally. Fire, soil?
Soil behaviour, stocks and lability uncertain (see GCB
special issue in Jan 2006).
How resilient is vegetation?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Alberte:
|
data
are important, results of carbon fluxes can be very different
based on different landuse data sets. Land management
representation may improve certain things, but as long
as the data are of poor quality, uncertainty remains. |
|
| |
Allen:
|
Inversions? |
|
| |
Pierre:
|
only
inferred regional carbon fluxes, but no process attribution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Trevor
and Josep present some work at CREAF with the GOTILWA+
model and experimental studies. Drought experiment data
available from CREAF – link to the secondment of
ESRI. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Friday,
February 17th |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Secondments |
|
| |
|
Suggested
length of secondments:
working paper: 3months
educationally: 1 month rest work per mail.
Problem for short stays: travel costs increase, difficult
to organise university housing
Secondments should conform to the networking idea of GC,
but make sure that the PhD gets the most of the network
for the course of their particular PhD goal.
Costs of the secondment are covered
from the 400 € monthly allowance for network activities.
The CDPs should consider this financial constraint,
even though it is not perceived as being a general limitation.
Any usage of financing above this frame needs to be
clearly justified by the CDP, and essential to the project.
Field studies are not included in this budget.
|
|
| |
Soenke:
|
Make
clear that CDP should be designed concerning the financial
limits
There is an extra budget for supervisors etc. (category
F), of which supervisors attendance at network meetings
should be paid. Soenke to put latest MarieCurie handbook
on the website. |
|
| |
Marcin:
|
Can
a secondment be outside the network? |
|
| |
Andrew:
|
Andrew
has contacted the PM. Response of PM : “Indeed secondments
should be at other nodes (contractors) of the network.
However and when it is justified and well described in
Annex I secondments can be performed in other institutions.
The role of this institutions is then marginal, it is
only for the purpose of a well specified training that
cannot be performed in the network, otherwise such institutions
would be part of the network as full contractors.” |
|
| |
Sandy:
|
As
a general suggestion, the secondments at MetOffice and
Bristol secondment could be merged to be organised from
Bristol with day trips to MetOffice for ease or organisation.
|
|
| |
Sergey:
|
But
what if necessary to stay more than one day at MetOffice. |
|
| |
Sandy:
|
there
is an en suite bedroom for greencyclist in Exeter available… |
|
| |
|
All
ERs and ESRs to inform Andrew and Soenke about the latest
developments of their secondments following the individual
discussion. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Secondments
in Lund: |
|
| |
|
Metoffice ESR: The planning should be earlier, possibly
early 2007, given all the administrative constraints that
apply for UK universities. Contact person in Lund: Almuth
Arneth. Care should be taken wrt university obligations
(must be after the first three months)
Roxana’s secondment should be moved to autumn 2007
[unsure if this wasn’t 2006, please clarify…].
Han and Torben to clarify the details of this secondment.
ER1: Something could be organised in terms of evaluating
nitrous oxides emissions from different soil types, possibly
also agriculture (VAU)? To be discussed offline between
Soenke and Torben. Timing stays as planned a month in
January 2007 |
|
| |
Sandy:
|
Roxana
is not visiting Bristol, but it may be useful for her
to have a short visit, because UBRIS are modelling CH4
on a global scale. Probably is would be useful for her
to visit Bristol early next year for a short time to catch
up with the global stuff, and this should be linked to
her visit to the MetOffice… |
|
| |
|
Marcin’s
secondments:
Join UBRIS and Metoffice to be around the same time,
with primary placement at UBRIS and visits to the MetOffice.
|
|
| |
Sandy: |
timing
should be flexible to the project |
|
| |
|
CEA
late in 2007? Or join with the Metoffice meeting to do
a half year on global modelling and be back for the field
season.
Idea: the methane model should be ready to run and then
he could do the evaluation for his sites.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Meetings
and Workshops |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Next
Annual Meeting |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Content
of next meeting: group presentations according to topics
with final discussion? Long discussion about 2-3 days.
|
|
| |
Sandy: |
EU reviewer will be there, hence there is a need to show
that we deserve money: mid-term review. Longer meeting
to have a chance to present all the work. |
|
| |
Andrew:
|
Some
people to coordinate topics about smaller presentation
to have all faces on the podium? |
|
| |
Stephen:
|
premeeting
discussion about content to be shown? |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Proposal:
2 days for science, 1 day for discussion+planning. Management
at the end of the meeting.
Proposal: Option to cut one day half
One potential design: 1 day science, one day mixed science
and management, one day discussion.
Interest in a field trip from Barcelona possible in one
day or half day (sandy would like to see a full day to
have a nice informative field trip)
|
|
| |
Maciek:
|
Could
the meeting be held in Eastern Europe (rural poland)? |
|
| |
|
9
ESRs are in favour of the Polish option against 4 ESRs
for Barcelona
Maciek to put together a proposal for closer evaluation.
[Barcelona will need to know in April]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
The
2008 meeting has to be before the EGU to prepare the session. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
...back |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
