1. 1 Software: Hymodelc stable, without signs of premature terminations. Consider the latest bug fixes “serious” (i.e., meriting re-runs). Need to re-run a lot of cases (especially if we aim at an inversion paper) - can we agree on a division of labor? BRAMS runs very time consuming. Inversion software ported and implemented at AER - can do with WRF whatever we can do with BRAMS (but still somewhat CPU limited!) Paper-writing: 2 papers in the works (candidate results shown later in this presentation): Technical paper describing WRF/STILT coupling (main “selling points:” treatment of convection, quantification of RMS errors wrt to obs, time-reversibility - still need to couch it as “Part 1” to get through the review). Forward model paper (Part 2): comparison of Argyle and airborne simulations with obs under different settings (WRF vs BRAMS, 40-km vs. nested, convection, CarbonTracker, model drivers vs NLDAS). Part 3 would follow very naturally (impact on inversions) - but we need to finish the runs no later than May!

2. 2 Loose ends: Calculate S trans using z i data from Dan and WRF and  u calculated by Thomas for BRAMS and WRF - do we want to do it now? CarbonTracker implementation? Do we need to look at other towers (WLEF), assess the impact of vertical resolution on the nighttime spikes? ROSES 2007: Reducing transport errors in regional top-down flux estimates through a model intercomparison: Adam Hirsch, Scott Denning, and Marek Uliasz have expressed interest - a good opportunity with critical mass of people and tools. How to scope scientifically: range from trajectory comparisons through software integration with inversions (community model). How to scope geographically - Europe? Satellite data: OCO? AIRS? TES? Another proposal to look at the regional CO 2 and CH 4 budgets using GEOS-Chem and TES?

3. Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. 3 Time Reversibility BRAMS and WRF comparable - no detrimental impact of coordinate transformation in WRF? No detrimental impact of nudging in BRAMS? Time-averaged mass-fluxes definitely help.

4. Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. 4 Wind Comparisons with RAOBs BRAMS better than WRF (nudging). Nudging available in WRF v. 2.2, not yet executed. Can use these numbers to compute S trans ? May need to do more - day-by-day synoptic evaluation?

5. Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. 5 Trajectory Comparisons Purple: WRF, green: BRAMS, blue: GFS Is this agreement significant: Dan has seen this in his thesis for situations of “regular” flow.

6. Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. 6 Footprint Overlap (Inner Product) Left: WRF vs BRAMS, right: WRF 40-km vs nested. More overlap between different models than between different resolutions? Are these plots educational?

7. Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. 7 Argyle: Impact of Different Options

8. Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. 8 Airborne: Impact of Different Options CarbonTracker BC helps aloft, but degrades near the surface (implementation?) Models too diffusive at night? Beneficial impact of convection.

9. Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. 9 CarbonTracker at Argyle (BRAMS run)