Agenda Item 1:

Quarterly Review Meeting Update

Discussion:

Last week was the JCSDA Quarterly Review Meeting. The meeting went very well. Executive and management team are encouraged by CRTM progress. Some things got missed, such as Bryan Karpowicz being the original author of pyCRTM. Zenhub can be a challenge but don’t hesitate to reach out. Any comments regarding the quarterly review?

Edward Hyer: I apologize for sending the incomplete slide regarding missing attributions.

Ben: It’s always good to know about this.

Bryan Karpowicz: I appreciate this. The one thing that concerned me was that the reason to create this was to create a user interface to the CRTM and the talk highlighted mostly negative issues.

Ben: The other issues were that some work didn’t get the appropriate FTE attribution.

Results:

N/A

Tasks:

N/A

Responsible People:

N/A

Deadline:

N/A

Agenda Item 2:

Group Updates

Discussion:

Ben: Daniel, I wanted to look at the OpenMP issue and get a discussion started.

Daniel: Sure, I am ready.

Ben: Do you want to include someone? Patrick has done some OpenACC work before.

Ben: Haixia, what is your process for your AOP tasks and what do you need from us?

Haixia: I am not completely sure about the AOP yet. You mentioned ABI?

Ben: That was Ming’s work.

Ming: Every time we add some new component to CRTM we need EMC colleagues to test it.

Haixia: I had a meeting about who is responsible for testing and I will get back at you. I saw that someone is working on testing Nick Nalli’s work for Cris.

Ming: ABI is Cris. What I did was a standalone CRTM test.

Ben: Who made the clear sky ABI plots?

Ming: I did that. EMC is responsible for testing in GSI.

Ben: I was curious how you created the tests?

Ming: I developed a standalone test.

Haixia: I thought my role was testing within the DA system.

Kevin: Jim was part of this project for a while and his role was to assess Bias correction and impact for Surface Emissivity. It goes beyond just running a few cycles.

Ben: Good point. Haixia, I was just wondering if you need access to the CSEM?

Haixia: I will talk to Daryl and get back at you.

Kevin: I talked to Daryl and he should be kept in the loop.

Ben: I will be giving a talk during the UFS workshop on Wednesday.

I was wondering where Cory was with aerosol impact.

Haixia: I guess Cory is moving away from aerosol work.

Ben: I heard the rumor as well.

The other thing that came up was that Yingtao was working on coefficient generation. Can we get an update on that? Are you seeing the same error ranges?

Yingtao is on mute.

Kevin: We are not able to reproduce the coefficients from the repo, but we are happy with the accuracy and comparison to real data. The ABI group sent us their SRFs. We saw a lot of differences with for the 60K. We feel comfortable with how we stand w.r.t. observations.

It would be good to work of a common repository.

Ben: We can give Yingtao access to the CRTM_coef repo.

Patrick: I am in the process of setting up the CRTM_coef repository and creating documentation on the coefficient generation process.

Yingtao: It would be good to have a meeting with Patrick offline to look at the coefficient packages.

Ben: Sounds good, I will be setting up a coefficient generation meeting next week.

Ben: Ming, you have any updates?

Kevin: If he’s having technical difficulties I can answer for him. We are in the process of generating a repo and giving everybody access.

Ben: Two other issues: There are two bugs. One is the cloud fraction bug. I will paste the issue into the chat.

https://github.com/JCSDA/crtm/issues/56

If you set cloud fraction to zero it will default to cloudfraction=1. So people expecting zero clouds get full clouds. There was a lengthy discussion but no final consensus. RTTOV sets their minimum value to 0.05. For cloud fraction the same amount of water gets distributed into a smaller volume. The result is that we get impact from cloudiness and we want to make sure that this works as expected. If you work with cloud fraction you can make some comments on that issue. I wanted Haixia’s input specifically for GSI.

Haixia: This is in 2.3?

Ben: Yes, in 2.3. It’s only an issue if you set cloud fraction to zero.

Yingtao: I would like to know the reason why the CRTM is not setting it to zero?

Ben: For the reason I explained before. The CRTM will put the same water content into a smaller volume.

Yingtao: I noticed the same behavior for the absorber amount.

Ben: The other bug is Tom Greenwald’s bug regarding the number of streams:

https://github.com/JCSDA/crtm/pull/48

The differences here appear in the third decimal of the radiance. What needs to be done here is to get in touch with Tom again. The current reviewers haven’t responded yet. It’s a substantial bug that has impacted all early versions of the CRTM. For whatever reason there was a +2 added to the number of streams. We had a discussion with Mark Liu on that.

Any comments from the technical team?

Kevin: Yingtao is working on porting CMAQ. He was working on generating VIIRS coefficients. I just wanted to make sure that there is a path into the github workflow. I assume Yingtao is working on his own development branch.

Yingtao: I will continue to work on that and I will set up a branch on github and Cheng Dang can test the new coefficients.

Ben: If you’re stuck with anything let me know.

In the monthly meeting on Thursday Patrick will give an update on the coefficient package as it stands right now.

Results:

-       Positive feedback on the CRTM work during the JCSDA Quarterly Review Meeting.

Tasks:

-       Comment on the two outstanding CRTM bugs (cloud fraction and number of streams)

-       Meeting to talk about the transmittance coefficient generation package.

Responsible People:

-       Haixia

-       Patrick

-       Yingtao

Deadline:

-       CW 32 meeting for transmittance coefficient generation package discussion

-       August 2020 for CRTM bug feedback