IH would like to know:
- Was the balance between science and discussions good?
- Was it helpful to be split by model for some discussions?
CR: more effective if we stay together during this workshop as we have our own communities we can discuss with at other times
Problem with encouraging broader engagement during discussions?
GA: require participants to nominate what they would like to discuss and upvote or downvote these ideas beforehand.
RL: one of the challenges was to balance several WG workshops at once.
GA: Could we have the WG workshops staggered? Could we have coupled systems on some days and components on other days?
RL: breakout group sizes for the main workshop were a problem. Having breakouts of breakouts might work better in this case.
IH: the training ran out of time. For hands-on training, provide the background material beforehand and only go through the exercises at the training.
AU: online attendance was challenging because the room kept logging out.
CR: problem with no internet access for Bureau staff because of no phone connections in the rooms.
GA: For some Working group workshops, the online attendance was small. Was that worth the cost of supporting a hybrid meeting?
Short-term usage of WG computational resources
IH: For the development of CABLE4 with the integration of POP-POPLUC and eventually BLAZE in ACCESS, there are various configuration options we would like to experiment with:
- TRENDY runs but with the default soil model instead of SLI (10 kSU)
- other modules switching could be tested as well.
- work on whether we can reduce the memory requirements of POP by reducing the number of cohorts and patches. TRENDY runs again.
- test the NRI implementation of ILAMB
- testing for CABLE3-UM coupling
- UNSW could run CABLE versions and JULES with the same inputs, waiting on groundwater in CABLE.
RL: status of CABLE offline at ACCESS resolution?
IH: we don’t necessarily have the same ancillary inputs in the offline setup as the coupled. We need to think more carefully about the exact setup we have and how to get it to what we want.
JULES workshop reporting
IH: Useful meeting. A lot going on in the UK community. A lot of potential synergies between various projects.
Complete software framework redesign. For the land, the project is exaJULES with an aim to have a prototype by next year. JaC might be best on hold because the target keeps moving fast right now.
Call for modules leader for JULES science module on vegetation, biogenic and model evaluation. If anyone wants to nominate themselves, contact @inh599 .
IH looked for interest in forming a regional user group for JULES.
SciApps committee will have a webpage for each module that is included in JULES. So we need a CABLE module page.
CR: Should there be a higher authority above the JLMP and SciApps committee? They are now recognising there are other countries involved. There are expectations that the Australian community will contribute to the hydrology. They are interested in the ACCESS-NRI structure and trying to get something like it.
CR: went to the JULES calibration and evaluation breakout group. He discussed we want a common data collection and a reference period to compare JULES and CABLE.