CCI CMUG Integration Meeting #10 Cryosphere
Description: CCI CMUG Integration Meeting 10 Cryosphere breakout session, 05 October 2021 (10:40-11:40 am BST) Discuss result of the Science highlights. What highlights have been missing? What should have been done instead? How can we build on this?
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"CCI CMUG Integration Meeting #10 Cryosphere" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. CCI CMUG Integration Meeting #10 Cryosphere breakout session, 05 October 2021 (10:40-11:40 am BST) Discuss result of the Science highlights.
What highlights have been missing? What should have been done instead?
How can we build on this?
Brief summary of what has been done in CMUG on Cryosphere (Andreas slides):
Consistency CCI SM, Permafrost, SWE and LAI ïƒ
Thomas L. asked to know more on observational uncertainties to climate model scales ïƒ Is it fair to say that CMUG need to talk to ECV projects, because some were not aware of certain studies? More than just at CMUG Integration meeting?
CMUG has used these cryosphere ECVs: Snow, Permafrost, Sea Ice
-Louise S. mentions there is not much done on ice sheets ïƒ why, is it a scale issue? Or is it a problem of expertise within CMUG?
-Gabi S. is any of the model waiting on Snow Cover Fraction? The current model uses Snow Water Equivalent. Is there any communication between CMUG scientists and CRG ïƒ we need CMUG scientists to come to CRG meetings to improve communication, it would really benefit all.
-CMUG is useful because it brings the integrative approach on case studies that are our of the scope of the individual projects
-Thomas L.: We need to follow up on CMUG meetings. Because ECV projects pick up new ideas and CMUG integration and this then needs to be followed up.
-Thomas N. we are missing mountain regions. Experiments related to mountain regions would be very interesting and again quite a few ECVs could contribute to this so it’s more in the remit of CMUG to bring different data sets together.<br>
slide2. CCI CMUG Integration Meeting #10 Cryosphere breakout session, 05 October 2021 (10:40-11:40 am BST) What are other ways of making cooperation closer?
Do we need guest meetings?
Gabi S.: User workshops response is always low from CMUG. Is it time? Or is it expertise? But how do we get CMUG to come to the ECV User workshops? Are there any ideas for new experiments, or are they fixed?
Louise S.: Is it the right way to ask EO RS scientists for input on what the experiments should be? They might not be the correct ppl. to ask about what should be done in terms of models.
Frank P.: In the future, will we need a Cryosphere modelling group, not just a climate modelling group for the new ESA Climate programme? Bridging scales is difficult. We will need some budget allocation for cryosphere modelling then.
Thomas N.: Has CMUG thought about recommendations to ESA about how to improve the project in the new Climate programme? Because the ECV projects could give feedback on how experiments are designed, and how the ECV projects could better interact with CMUG because at the moment the way the CMUG and ECV projects are set up might not be the most effective way to communicate with each other.
Chris D.: Modelling experiments tend to come up from the modelling centres themselves: MIPs are designed and then you figure out the Observations. In CCI it’s the other way around which is also not . Need to do observationally informed modelling. Probably communication between the two groups is still crucial to be able to move observational and modelling communities better together.
This highlights the question: How do we take advantage of the CMIP project office?
Thomas L.: A useful deliverable was the adequacy report from CMUG! Receiving the document in advance would be good, to give feedback on that report before it is handed in to ESA.<br>
slide3. CCI CMUG Integration Meeting #10 Cryosphere breakout session, 05 October 2021 (10:40-11:40 am BST) Main take away points:
For cryosphere it would be nice to include ice sheets, glaciers and more snow too.
This might need cryosphere modelling group in the future climate programme (modelleg across scales)
Communication between CMUG and ECV projects is still not necessarily as good as it could be. CMUG joing ECV meeting very imporatant, even if no work is ongoing yet. Perhaps this is also how the CCI programme has been structured: Might be worth talking to each other and finding out how to recommend structuring EO-modelling activities in the new Climate programme
We need to think about how to take advantage of the CMIP Project Office which will be based at ECSAT: Anything to get the EO scientists and modellers closer together.
Useful CMUG deliverables for ECV projects was the adequacy report.<br>
What highlights have been missing? What should have been done instead?
How can we build on this?
Brief summary of what has been done in CMUG on Cryosphere (Andreas slides):
Consistency CCI SM, Permafrost, SWE and LAI ïƒ
Thomas L. asked to know more on observational uncertainties to climate model scales ïƒ Is it fair to say that CMUG need to talk to ECV projects, because some were not aware of certain studies? More than just at CMUG Integration meeting?
CMUG has used these cryosphere ECVs: Snow, Permafrost, Sea Ice
-Louise S. mentions there is not much done on ice sheets ïƒ why, is it a scale issue? Or is it a problem of expertise within CMUG?
-Gabi S. is any of the model waiting on Snow Cover Fraction? The current model uses Snow Water Equivalent. Is there any communication between CMUG scientists and CRG ïƒ we need CMUG scientists to come to CRG meetings to improve communication, it would really benefit all.
-CMUG is useful because it brings the integrative approach on case studies that are our of the scope of the individual projects
-Thomas L.: We need to follow up on CMUG meetings. Because ECV projects pick up new ideas and CMUG integration and this then needs to be followed up.
-Thomas N. we are missing mountain regions. Experiments related to mountain regions would be very interesting and again quite a few ECVs could contribute to this so it’s more in the remit of CMUG to bring different data sets together.<br>
slide2. CCI CMUG Integration Meeting #10 Cryosphere breakout session, 05 October 2021 (10:40-11:40 am BST) What are other ways of making cooperation closer?
Do we need guest meetings?
Gabi S.: User workshops response is always low from CMUG. Is it time? Or is it expertise? But how do we get CMUG to come to the ECV User workshops? Are there any ideas for new experiments, or are they fixed?
Louise S.: Is it the right way to ask EO RS scientists for input on what the experiments should be? They might not be the correct ppl. to ask about what should be done in terms of models.
Frank P.: In the future, will we need a Cryosphere modelling group, not just a climate modelling group for the new ESA Climate programme? Bridging scales is difficult. We will need some budget allocation for cryosphere modelling then.
Thomas N.: Has CMUG thought about recommendations to ESA about how to improve the project in the new Climate programme? Because the ECV projects could give feedback on how experiments are designed, and how the ECV projects could better interact with CMUG because at the moment the way the CMUG and ECV projects are set up might not be the most effective way to communicate with each other.
Chris D.: Modelling experiments tend to come up from the modelling centres themselves: MIPs are designed and then you figure out the Observations. In CCI it’s the other way around which is also not . Need to do observationally informed modelling. Probably communication between the two groups is still crucial to be able to move observational and modelling communities better together.
This highlights the question: How do we take advantage of the CMIP project office?
Thomas L.: A useful deliverable was the adequacy report from CMUG! Receiving the document in advance would be good, to give feedback on that report before it is handed in to ESA.<br>
slide3. CCI CMUG Integration Meeting #10 Cryosphere breakout session, 05 October 2021 (10:40-11:40 am BST) Main take away points:
For cryosphere it would be nice to include ice sheets, glaciers and more snow too.
This might need cryosphere modelling group in the future climate programme (modelleg across scales)
Communication between CMUG and ECV projects is still not necessarily as good as it could be. CMUG joing ECV meeting very imporatant, even if no work is ongoing yet. Perhaps this is also how the CCI programme has been structured: Might be worth talking to each other and finding out how to recommend structuring EO-modelling activities in the new Climate programme
We need to think about how to take advantage of the CMIP Project Office which will be based at ECSAT: Anything to get the EO scientists and modellers closer together.
Useful CMUG deliverables for ECV projects was the adequacy report.<br>