1 / 25

Why are We in Paris? ………..again

Why are We in Paris? ………..again. Melbourne, 2001. Mon dieu! Australian wine. The next meeting must return to Paris!. Mon dieu! Only California wine. These poor Americans!. Fort Collins, 2002. Jena 2003. Crush the German beer! I am going mad!!. Tsukuba 2004. Only Sake??? I WILL DIE!.

jermaine-cherry
Download Presentation

Why are We in Paris? ………..again

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Why are We in Paris?………..again

  2. Melbourne, 2001 Mon dieu! Australian wine. The next meeting must return to Paris!

  3. Mon dieu! Only California wine. These poor Americans! Fort Collins, 2002

  4. Jena 2003 Crush the German beer! I am going mad!!

  5. Tsukuba 2004 Only Sake??? I WILL DIE!

  6. So, Paris it is………….But, where did we leave off?

  7. Tsukuba BBQ

  8. } IMU TransCom Diversity 1 Dutch = 2 IMU

  9. Matrix operations (1 Dutch)T = 1 IMU

  10. Shoichi’s party Ahh, just welby, you dag! And I though groundwater hydrologists were weird! Peter, piddy that gwondywon?

  11. Shiochi’s Party continued Just smile and pretend you don’t speak English These are dad’s friends?

  12. The Dessert that ate TSUKUBA! (1 dutch)T = IMU = 1 aggressive dessert

  13. The Australian that ate the DESSERT!

  14. The Europeans that ate .....the jar .....that held the DESSERT!

  15. Yes……… I brought my camera!

  16. Inversion Synthesis • Synthesizing independent atmospheric carbon inverse flux estimations in order to: • Test for robust results • Determine which methodological elements are “better” • Test full sensitivity space • Generate central flux estimates with comprehensive error statistics in relevant metrics

  17. Evolution • One of 4 new TransCom efforts proposed in Tsukuba • Tsukuba working group and plenary session generated some elements • Thus far, no funding acquired to cover 2/3 person-months/year (attempts were made) • Initial team led by Kevin Gurney, Anna Michalak, Ian Enting

  18. Good news/bad news • The bad news: • IPCC deadline passed (though there is no explicit carbon cycle chapter) • Little has been done since Tsukuba • The good news: • There is interest and enthusiasm - “kick-start” this effort • Synergize with T3L3 - a convenient test case

  19. TBMs Remote sensing Inventories Atmos inversion TBMs Remote sensing Inversion/assimilation Inventories Atmos inversion Emergence of assimilation estimation in Carbon Cycle Science Carbon flux estimation Global/Climate change Assimilation (“model-data fusion” etc.) is a way to optimally combine observations and process model to achieve the most complete central estimates with errors (PDFs)

  20. The “Pull” on inversion community • Decisionmaking communities are interested in inverse estimates • Misunderstanding – in particular, error estimation • Misuse – less robust/more robust • Mistrust – varying estimates combined with misunderstanding sometimes generate mistrust It makes sense to do a better job communicating what we do to a broader audience

  21. The “Push” from the inversion community • We want to know how to do inversions better • Go from“choices” to optimal parameters • Separate the “best” from the rest • Explore the full sensitivity space Develop leadership, resources, and methodologies to do this

  22. Diagnostics

  23. Synthesis product elements • Report with executive summary • Methodological introduction • Diagnostic methods and their results • Flux results • Comparable metrics – temporal means, interpretable IAV segments, regional comparison, errors • Intepretation – connection to climate variability, emerging methods, policy-relevant connections • Peer-reviewed “glossy” report, multi-ligual, website (tutorial info, references, links)

  24. Synthesis issues • Protocol? Specifies what is needed for inclusion in diagnostics and compare/contrast • Needed for diagnostics • Needed for results comparison • Background/misc info: model details, methods, etc. • T3L3? Use as test case? • In a useable form? • Obsolete now? • Volunteers to help? • Funding? • Timeframe?

  25. Sake…..Itshhh, shhtronger than beer…..right? The French are not affected.

More Related