11 January 2000
Long Beach, California

Attendees:

Zaitao Pan, Iowa State University	panz@iastate.edu
Jian-Hua (Joshua) Qan, GSFC	qian@agnes.gsfc.nasa.gov
Michael Fox-Rabinovitz, U of MD and NASA/GSFC	foxab@atmos.umd.edu
Tanya Smirnova, FSL	smirnova@fsl.noaa.gov
Georg Grell, FSL	grell@fsl.noaa.gov
Ruby Leung, PNN	ruby.leung@pnl.gov
David Pllard, Penn State	pollard@essc.psu.edu
Eric Small, New Mexico Tech	esmall@nmt.edu
Xin-Zhong Liang, Illinois State Water Survey	xliang@uiuc.edu
Sin Chan Chou, CPTEC/INPE, Brazil	chou@cptec.inpe.br
Fedor Mesinger, NCEP/EMC	mesinger@ncep.noaa.gov
Ana Maria B. Nunes, CPTEC/INPE, Brazil	bueam@cptec.inpe.br
Jens H. Christensen, DMI	;jhc@dmi.dk
John Michalakes, ANL/NCAR	michalak@ucar.edu
Bob Oglesby, Purdue	roglesby@purdue.edu
Jay Larson, ANL	larson@mcs.anl.gov
Jinwon Kim, LBL	jinwon.kim@lbl.gov
Norm Miller, LBLL	;nlmiller@lbl.gov
Yuanlong Hu, MIT	hyl@mit.edu
Ming Chen, PSU	cming@essc.psu.gov
Jimy Dudhia, NCAR	dudhia@ucar.edu
John Roads, Scripps/UCSD	jroads@ucsd.edu
Chuck Hakkarinen, EPRI	chakk@mecca.epri.com
Hans von Storch, GKSS	storch@gkss.de
Gene Takle, Iowa State University	gstakle@iastate.edu
Linda Mearns
Also Bill Kuo, Bob Gall

Gene Takle welcomed the group, and the group participated in self introductions. Thanks were extended to the Electric Power Research Institute for the arrangements. A brief overview of PIRCS and its mission was given. Copies of the JGR paper on experiment 1a and the AMS extended abstract of experiment 1b were distributed. A status report on modeling results of experiment 1b showed that 12 models have submitted all the required data. February 15, 2000 is the deadline for groups to submit results for experiment 1b in order to be included in the paper to be submitted to JGR.

A brief presentation was made by Xin-Zhong Liang on results of using MM5v3 over the US for July 1993. He showed that the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis, compared to the ECMWF gave only about .30 correlation in data poor regions. By extending the grid 30% to the south, the model can capture the effect of sea surface temperatures in the Gulf within the model and compensates for the poor representation by the reanalysis.

CSL computing requests were discussed by C. Hakkarinen. The requests must demonstrate use of at least 4 and more likely 8 or 16 processors. A PIRCS collaborative proposal would be well received. Those that are interested will send a paragraph to ISU by Sat night to be included in the ISU/PIRCS proposal. URL is www.scd.ucar.edu/csl/.

PIRCS Experiment 1c (a 2yr run over US) was discussed. It was decided that the PIRCS domain needs to be extended south to capture the NA monsoon and the Gulf of Mexico. A resolution of 40 km might offer significant advantages over 60 or even 50 km for reasons discussed later by M. Fox-Rabinovicz. It was suggested that one group should do a study of the candidate domain sizes to find the optimum configuration. About 6 modeling groups indicated interest in doing this experiment.

Jian-Hua (Joshua) Qian gave a brief overview of the IAI/ARC work plan over South America. The period to be covered in a 2 yr, 3 month period ending May 99. Six models are included.

PIRCS 2 was discussed very briefly. Candidate regions are South America and West Africa (CATCH) region. John Roads mentioned that the GEWEX CATCH region in West
Africa is an area that has not been simulated by any other modeling groups. Also, this is the generation region for hurricanes that strike the US coast. The major problem is that this is a data-poor area. However, it would allow intermodel variances to be examined.

The advantage of the South American region is the availability of more data, particularly in the Brazil region where some tower data from the LBA experiment will be available. The steepness of the Andes terrain may offer another modeling challenge not encountered in the US simulation. Some modeling groups expressed interest in grid nesting and variable grid systems.

A brief presentation was made by Michael Fox-Rabinovicz on his stretched grid results. His simulation for July 1993 showed that he was able to get both the location and magnitude of the flood footprint quite correctly. He also showed sensitivity to resolution in the Louisiana region by running the same simulation at 60 km and 40 km. The 40-km simulation captured the high precipitation region whereas the 60-km simulation gave a very poor representation of this region.

Copyright/Trademark Legal Notice