{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/303","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/303/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/303/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/303/events","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/303","id":330444032,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzMzA0NDQwMzI=","number":303,"title":"CFMIP-GCSS case: Resubmit results based on revised (2010) forcings (Trac #303)","user":{"login":"StrikeNP","id":2577059,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjI1NzcwNTk=","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/2577059?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"id":958019852,"node_id":"MDU6TGFiZWw5NTgwMTk4NTI=","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/labels/Migrated%20from%20Trac","name":"Migrated from Trac","color":"FFFFFF","default":false},{"id":958042830,"node_id":"MDU6TGFiZWw5NTgwNDI4MzA=","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/labels/clubb_src","name":"clubb_src","color":"FFFFFF","default":false},{"id":958043921,"node_id":"MDU6TGFiZWw5NTgwNDM5MjE=","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/labels/meyern@uwm.edu","name":"meyern@uwm.edu","color":"FFFFFF","default":false},{"id":958042692,"node_id":"MDU6TGFiZWw5NTgwNDI2OTI=","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/labels/task","name":"task","color":"FFFFFF","default":false}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/milestones/2","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP/trac_test/milestone/2","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/milestones/2/labels","id":3408868,"node_id":"MDk6TWlsZXN0b25lMzQwODg2OA==","number":2,"title":"Set up CLUBB for the CFMIP/GCSS cloud feedback intercomparison","description":null,"creator":{"login":"StrikeNP","id":2577059,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjI1NzcwNTk=","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/2577059?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"open_issues":4,"closed_issues":13,"state":"open","created_at":"2018-06-07T19:56:46Z","updated_at":"2018-06-08T15:38:36Z","due_on":null,"closed_at":null},"comments":16,"created_at":"2018-06-07T21:34:12Z","updated_at":"2018-06-08T16:56:58Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"OWNER","body":"Minghua Zhang plans to set up a new version of the CGILS (cloud_feedback) cases.  Then we will be asked to re-run the cases and re-submit results.  (However, first we'll have to correct the mixed layers that form above cloud (ticket #277 and #285) by properly treating the C7 term in the case of gravity waves (ticket #295).)\n\nMinghua's email, dated 12 Mar 2010, is copied here:\n\n\"Dear CGILS Participants: \n\nI want to thank those of you who came to the CGILS meeting and make it a successful one.  Here is a brief summary of the meeting and the plan.  This document has been posted on the CGILS website http://atmgcm.msrc.sunysb.edu/cfmip_figs/Case_specification.html.  All CGILS presentations have been loaded to the password-protected internal link http://climate.msrc.sunysb.edu/mzhang/protected/cgils_meeting. (useid: cgils, passwd: cfmip)\n \nSummary: \n\n1.  Many SCMs simulated low clouds at S11 that are similar to those in GCM, but some did not. It was understood that in some models, a single point constant forcing can represent GCM cloud processes, while in other models this is not true, and this representation depends on the mechanism of cloud generation in the models.  An interesting result was presented by Florent Brientfrom the LMD/IPSL group: when a random transience is added to the large-scale forcing, the SCM simulated clouds and feedbacks more representative of the GCMs. This type of exploration is encouraged and will be coordinated in future CFMIP activities. \n\n2. Simulated cloud feedbacks by the SCMs show two distinct groups of large negative and positive feedbacks. The presentations by individual groups and the discussions at the meeting have enabled us to draw some broad conclusions about the causes.  Results will be described in a BAMS paper to be drafted. \n\n3. After three rounds of iteration for the CGILS LES modeling with standardization and case refinement, led courageously by Peter Blossey and Chris Bretherton, the LES results from three models (SAM, KNMI, UKMO) start to converge among them, but result from the Langley version of the UCLA LES differs.  The latter simulated a stratus deck above shallow cumulus, while the other three LES only simulated shallow cu.  Marat presented a convergence test of the DYCOMS case to vertical resolution; he showed that the SAM starts to simulate a stratus deck when vertical resolution is finer that 5 meters, while at coarser resolution, only shallow cu is simulated.  The discrepancy is still to be understood, and an action plan is descried later in this email. \n\n Short Term Action Plan: \n\nSCM: \n\nIt was voted by the meeting participants that all SCM simulations will be re-run by using the same forcing as used in the LES models (differs only slightly). A standardized relaxation about the cloud layer will be prescribed.  Peter Blossey and I will iterate and provide you the forcing data for all three locations soon.  The target deadline for the re-submission of results is the end of May so that the draft of BAMS paper can be completed in the summer. \n\nLES: \n\n1. Peter, Chris and I will do further tests of the forcing data.  All LES models will run s6, s11, s12 for control and perturbed simulations with the refined forcing data.  We hope to draw more LES groups to participate. After the meeting, I received a notice from Yangang Liu to participate with the LES version of the WRF.  If you know any other LES groups who might be interested, please encourage them to join. \n\n2. Marat will run a resolution convergence test of simulated clouds at S11 with the SAM. \n\n3. A resolution convergence test for each LES, and convergence test among the LES models, will be carried out for 6 hours for the DYCOM case. Peter, Chris and Marat will coordinate this. \n\nMedium Term Action Plan (After the BAMS paper) \n\n1. Connection with observation \n\nThe control case at the three locations was idealized from July condition.  A January forcing will be produced to run another perturbation simulation.  We will then compare the seasonal variation of simulated clouds with observations. \n\n2. Connection with GCMs \n\nAt the present time, we encourage each individual group to link the CGILS study with the CFMIP GCM diagnostics. Results will be followed up at a later CGILS meeting. \n\n3. Connection with LES \n\nThis will wait for the LES results \n\n4. Other suggestions made \n\nRun case for delta_SST=4k warming. \n\nRun case for delta_SST=4k and 4XCO2 \n\nPaper plan \n\nDraft of BAMS paper completed in the summer \n\nDepending on the contents of the BAMS paper, we will decide whether more technical papers of results from SCM and LES are warranted. Individual groups are encouraged to write their own papers. \n\nTime Table (this may change) \n\nApril 10: New forcing data and run specification given to SCM and LES groups \n\nJune 10: SCM and LES results back for analysis \n\nAugust 10: draft paper complete \n\nOctober 10: Seasonal case developed \n\n2011: CGILS session at the next CFMIP meeting \n\nPlease let me know if you have any comments. \n\nMinghua \"\n\n\n\nAttachments:\n\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/ctl_s6.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/p2k_s6.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/ctl_s11.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/p2k_s11.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/ctl_s12.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/p2k_s12.txt\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s6_verify.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s6_p2k_verify.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s11_verify.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s11_p2k_verify.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s12_verify.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s12_p2k_verify.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s6_correct_fluxes.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s6_p2k_correct_fluxes.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s11_correct_fluxes.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s11_p2k_correct_fluxes.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s12_correct_fluxes.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/CGILS_s12_p2k_correct_fluxes.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s6.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s6_p2k.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s11.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s11_p2k.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s12.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s12_p2k.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s6.2.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s6_p2k.2.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s11.2.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s11_p2k.2.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s12.2.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s12_p2k.2.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s6.3.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s6_p2k.3.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s11.3.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s11_p2k.3.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s12.3.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s12_p2k.3.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s6.4.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s6_p2k.4.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s11.4.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s11_p2k.4.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s12.4.pdf\nhttp://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/attachment/ticket/303/verify_cloud_feedback_s12_p2k.4.pdf\n\nMigrated from http://carson.math.uwm.edu/trac/clubb/ticket/303\n```json\n{\n    \"status\": \"closed\", \n    \"changetime\": \"2010-10-11T20:26:46\", \n    \"description\": \"Minghua Zhang plans to set up a new version of the CGILS (cloud_feedback) cases.  Then we will be asked to re-run the cases and re-submit results.  (However, first we'll have to correct the mixed layers that form above cloud (ticket #277 and #285) by properly treating the C7 term in the case of gravity waves (ticket #295).)\\n\\nMinghua's email, dated 12 Mar 2010, is copied here:\\n\\n\\\"Dear CGILS Participants: \\n\\nI want to thank those of you who came to the CGILS meeting and make it a successful one.  Here is a brief summary of the meeting and the plan.  This document has been posted on the CGILS website http://atmgcm.msrc.sunysb.edu/cfmip_figs/Case_specification.html.  All CGILS presentations have been loaded to the password-protected internal link http://climate.msrc.sunysb.edu/mzhang/protected/cgils_meeting. (useid: cgils, passwd: cfmip)\\n \\nSummary: \\n\\n1.  Many SCMs simulated low clouds at S11 that are similar to those in GCM, but some did not. It was understood that in some models, a single point constant forcing can represent GCM cloud processes, while in other models this is not true, and this representation depends on the mechanism of cloud generation in the models.  An interesting result was presented by Florent Brientfrom the LMD/IPSL group: when a random transience is added to the large-scale forcing, the SCM simulated clouds and feedbacks more representative of the GCMs. This type of exploration is encouraged and will be coordinated in future CFMIP activities. \\n\\n2. Simulated cloud feedbacks by the SCMs show two distinct groups of large negative and positive feedbacks. The presentations by individual groups and the discussions at the meeting have enabled us to draw some broad conclusions about the causes.  Results will be described in a BAMS paper to be drafted. \\n\\n3. After three rounds of iteration for the CGILS LES modeling with standardization and case refinement, led courageously by Peter Blossey and Chris Bretherton, the LES results from three models (SAM, KNMI, UKMO) start to converge among them, but result from the Langley version of the UCLA LES differs.  The latter simulated a stratus deck above shallow cumulus, while the other three LES only simulated shallow cu.  Marat presented a convergence test of the DYCOMS case to vertical resolution; he showed that the SAM starts to simulate a stratus deck when vertical resolution is finer that 5 meters, while at coarser resolution, only shallow cu is simulated.  The discrepancy is still to be understood, and an action plan is descried later in this email. \\n\\n Short Term Action Plan: \\n\\nSCM: \\n\\nIt was voted by the meeting participants that all SCM simulations will be re-run by using the same forcing as used in the LES models (differs only slightly). A standardized relaxation about the cloud layer will be prescribed.  Peter Blossey and I will iterate and provide you the forcing data for all three locations soon.  The target deadline for the re-submission of results is the end of May so that the draft of BAMS paper can be completed in the summer. \\n\\nLES: \\n\\n1. Peter, Chris and I will do further tests of the forcing data.  All LES models will run s6, s11, s12 for control and perturbed simulations with the refined forcing data.  We hope to draw more LES groups to participate. After the meeting, I received a notice from Yangang Liu to participate with the LES version of the WRF.  If you know any other LES groups who might be interested, please encourage them to join. \\n\\n2. Marat will run a resolution convergence test of simulated clouds at S11 with the SAM. \\n\\n3. A resolution convergence test for each LES, and convergence test among the LES models, will be carried out for 6 hours for the DYCOM case. Peter, Chris and Marat will coordinate this. \\n\\nMedium Term Action Plan (After the BAMS paper) \\n\\n1. Connection with observation \\n\\nThe control case at the three locations was idealized from July condition.  A January forcing will be produced to run another perturbation simulation.  We will then compare the seasonal variation of simulated clouds with observations. \\n\\n2. Connection with GCMs \\n\\nAt the present time, we encourage each individual group to link the CGILS study with the CFMIP GCM diagnostics. Results will be followed up at a later CGILS meeting. \\n\\n3. Connection with LES \\n\\nThis will wait for the LES results \\n\\n4. Other suggestions made \\n\\nRun case for delta_SST=4k warming. \\n\\nRun case for delta_SST=4k and 4XCO2 \\n\\nPaper plan \\n\\nDraft of BAMS paper completed in the summer \\n\\nDepending on the contents of the BAMS paper, we will decide whether more technical papers of results from SCM and LES are warranted. Individual groups are encouraged to write their own papers. \\n\\nTime Table (this may change) \\n\\nApril 10: New forcing data and run specification given to SCM and LES groups \\n\\nJune 10: SCM and LES results back for analysis \\n\\nAugust 10: draft paper complete \\n\\nOctober 10: Seasonal case developed \\n\\n2011: CGILS session at the next CFMIP meeting \\n\\nPlease let me know if you have any comments. \\n\\nMinghua \\\"\\n\\n\", \n    \"reporter\": \"vlarson@uwm.edu\", \n    \"cc\": \"vlarson@uwm.edu\", \n    \"resolution\": \"Verified by V. Larson\", \n    \"_ts\": \"1286828806000000\", \n    \"component\": \"clubb_src\", \n    \"summary\": \"CFMIP-GCSS case: Resubmit results based on revised (2010) forcings\", \n    \"priority\": \"major\", \n    \"keywords\": \"\", \n    \"time\": \"2010-03-18T19:35:09\", \n    \"milestone\": \"Set up CLUBB for the CFMIP/GCSS cloud feedback intercomparison\", \n    \"owner\": \"meyern@uwm.edu\", \n    \"type\": \"task\"\n}\n```\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/comments/395822310","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/303#issuecomment-395822310","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/StrikeNP/trac_test/issues/303","id":395822310,"node_id":"MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM5NTgyMjMxMA==","user":{"login":"StrikeNP","id":2577059,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjI1NzcwNTk=","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/2577059?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP","html_url":"https://github.com/StrikeNP","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/StrikeNP/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-06-08T16:56:58Z","updated_at":"2018-06-08T16:56:58Z","author_association":"OWNER","body":"Trac update at 2010/08/10 at 15:18\n\nmeyern@uwm.edu commented:\n\nReplying to [comment:16 vlarson@…]:\n> It is true that s12 is little affected.  However, the formulation should be more robust to changes in vertical grid spacing, and the results for s11_p2k look a little better, and so let's commit the changes.\n\n\nThe changes are committed in r4691.\n\n"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"StrikeNP"}}