| | 4 | |
| | 5 | === On Wednesday, 22th November === |
| | 6 | With everyone. |
| | 7 | |
| | 8 | Comparison of lifetimes between run of Prather with and without nudging. |
| | 9 | Try to understand results for the coupled model (fully coupled, only ocean/atmosphere coupling, only land/atmosphere coupling, no coupling). It stresses on the initial state (restarts). |
| | 10 | |
| | 11 | __//**TO DO**//__ |
| | 12 | * Interpolate the oxidants in the CMIP6 simulation using Olivier's script, |
| | 13 | * Run simulation of Prather with these oxidants, |
| | 14 | * Run simulation with Prather advective scheme (no nudging), |
| | 15 | * See if a stable initial state for the ocean exists (with Christian and Marion). |
| | 16 | |
| | 17 | === On Thursday, 16th November === |
| | 18 | With Anne, Didier, Nicolas and Juliette. |
| | 19 | |
| | 20 | Back to Prather's results. We are within the range of the other models in terms of lifetime. The evolution of mean annual total loss is also comparable to that of the other models, although we don't have the same spread. No significant difference with the N2O concentration à 10hPa. |
| | 21 | Shows some results on coupling with the ocean and atmosphere. A first test gives oceanic fields in good agreement with offline test. |
| | 22 | |
| | 23 | __//**TO DO**//__ |
| | 24 | * Compare preindustrial runs offline and with land coupling, |
| | 25 | * Compare difference between preindustrial runs and spinup.prather run, |
| | 26 | * Run spinup.prather without nudging, |
| | 27 | * Write the milestone for the end of November. |
| | 28 | Anne has to look at the choice of advective scheme (Van Leer and/or Prather) in LMDZ and find out about interpolated oxidants. |
| | 29 | |
| | 30 | === On Thursday, 9th November === |
| | 31 | With Nicolas, Anne, Juliette and Didier. |
| | 32 | |
| | 33 | Results of Prather's simulation. Comparison with the figures in the article (the first ten years are considered as a spin-up). Interrogation of the different models presented in the article. |
| | 34 | |
| | 35 | __//**TO DO**//__ |
| | 36 | * Continue run until 2019, |
| | 37 | * Try to make figures with a transparent background in order to better compare lifetimes and annual total loss, |
| | 38 | * Understand the article better (how lifetimes are calculated, difference between c29 & 36 + UCI vs Oslo,..), |
| | 39 | * Keep in mind to put INCAFLX on a svn repository (with Maureen's modif, N,,2,,O modif and possibly do the same for NOx). |
| | 40 | |
| | 41 | === On Friday, 20th October === |
| | 42 | With Anne, Marion, Didier and Nicolas. |
| | 43 | |
| | 44 | On the Prather's run, firsts results (3years) with N,,2,,O atmospheric concentration at 10hPa, N,,2,,O profiles and mean total loss. To obtain better results and because lifetime of the first year is very high, it would be preferable to start with data from the second year. |
| | 45 | For comparison, we can also run the same simulation without nudging. |
| | 46 | |
| | 47 | __//**TO DO**//__ |
| | 48 | * Run a non nudged simulation, |
| | 49 | * Play with ipslcm (same as prather, coupling with ocean...), |
| | 50 | * Continue Prather's simulation (with Didier's files after 2014). |
