Discussion Points for Group Meeting 06/01/2022

[nocollier]

Enumerating points of discussion for a meeting on 06/01/2022:

• [x] New datasets are added (CLASS, Davies-Barnard, ESACCI, WECANN, WangMao) see ILAMB results.
• [x] Should we compare the biomass datasets to 0.8 * cVeg * treeFrac instead of just cVeg. See more discussion in #19. The 0.8 factor comes from an estimation that the below to above ground mass is roughly 20%. Is there a proper reference for that number? The other thing that becomes difficult is that not all models give treeFrac. I found that the BCC, NorESM, MIROC for CMIP6 do not. So then, how do we communicate that for some models you are seeing a comparison to cVeg and some this other factor? Maybe we can come up with a method.
• [x] Should the CLASS versions of hfls and mrro deprecate DOLCE and LORA, respectively? As I understand, they are built on the same methodology with the exception that the CLASS versions are modified with the additional constraint that the budget is closed.
• [x] Note that we have found that the CLASS net surface radiation is almost universally low relative to other datasets and the CMIP6 models we run against.
• [ ] When Yaoping and Jiafu presented their soil moisture ILAMB addition a while back, we concluded that we wanted to see the analysis with respect to more models. We have the current results for ELM uploaded here because we also wanted to think about some of the new scoring aspects that have been introduced. Any update on progress? @ypwong22

[nocollier]

Recap, please comment if I misrepresented something (@climate-dude @ckoven @dlawrenncar):

• @dlawrenncar is going to write to Gab about CLASS low net radiation and what to do about LORA/DOLCE.
• We had some extended discussion about surface soil moisture from WangMao. In particular, CESM2 and NorESM are quite wet in high latitudes relative to the data product and we wondered if this effect is real, especially given the caution provided in Dirmeyer2016 to combine soil moisture data carefully. Will ask @jiafumao to comment on a future call, also we can consult Wang2021.
• We determined that we ought to use cStem for biomass comparisons (or whatever the appropriate variable is) if available and cVeg if not.
• We need to provide a mechanism to blank out glaciated regions, for example in the CanSISE swe comparison. Some models do not modify their output in these areas leading to unhelpful comparisons. Is there a CMIP variable for this? if not should we make a region from CESM2 that overrides the default global region?
• We need a better cSoil characterization especially in the high latitudes. Umakant's product could be integrated, or possibly something could be derived from soilgrids.org. Adding to our dataset project.

[ypwong22]

I have downloaded additional ESM data from ESGF and will update here once the analysis with more models is done. The variables will be slightly different from the previous version, because NEE and burnt area variables are not available, and ecosystem respiration is only available for a few models.