Information   Overview Conference Themes Conference History Scientific Tours Press Contacts Venue Visas Scientific Committee Planning Committee Poster Information Hosts Sponsors Supporting Businesses Download Schedule Charles Keeling Tellus Help      Latest Comments · Re: Conference Feedback by Georgii.Alexandrov · Re: Conference Feedback by Peter.Koehler · Re: Conference Feedback by Ankur.Desai · Re: Conference Feedback by guest · Re: Conference Feedback by Steven.Oncley · Re: THE CHANGING CARBON CYCLE by Jose.Navar-Chaidez · Re: PERSISTENCE OF NITROGEN LIMITATION OVER TERRESTRIAL CARBON UPTAKE by Jose.Navar-Chaidez · Re: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL PATTERNS OF CO2, CH4 AND N2O FLUXES IN THE TERRESTRIAL ECOSY by Georgii.Alexandrov · Re: CLIMATE CHANGE: DESIGNING AN EFFECTIVE RESPONSE by Connie.Uliasz · Re: CLIMATE CHANGE: DESIGNING AN EFFECTIVE RESPONSE by Jonathan.Callahan  Discussion Panel Please post your questions for the discussion panel here.  Your unique scientific perspective will add value for all the conference attendees.  Please log in with your provided username and password or use the guest account announced yesterday.        Login Username Password      Related Links · More about General Chit-Chat · News by admin Most read story about General Chit-Chat: Conference Feedback      Options   Printer Friendly "Login" | Login | 2 comments | Search Discussion The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. No Comments Allowed for Anonymous Viewers, please login Re: Discussion Panel (Score 2, Interesting) by Alexander.Vermeulen on Tuesday, September 27 @ 11:28:46 MDT (User Info)http://www.ecn.nl In several talks the concept of a bayesian inversion was applied using a high resolution transport model (high resolution here is something like 70 by 100 km gridsize, the real effective resolution is then 140-300 km). To assess the uncertainty of the resulting data the model and input uncertainties are considered. A lot of attention is given to representation errors arising from subgrid variation and sampling artefacts that the models are not able to capture. This error is considered to be substantial and of course it is. But is not a still larger error that has to be considered the transport error made by the models due to for example imperfect advection schemes and too rigourous horizontal and vertical diffusion? What makes things even worse is that these errors tend to produce systematic errors that are not easy to formulate in the bayesian analysis. Systematic errors in the models will cause a posteriori fluxes to be forced in the wrong directon while the bayesian analysis will still produce reduced error estimates. What can we do to get a good estimate of these errors and how can we assess their influence in a correct way? Re: Discussion Panel (Score 1) by Martin.Heimann on Tuesday, September 27 @ 16:18:55 MDT (User Info)http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/~martin.heimann We are discussing the "fate of fossil-fuel CO2 emissions". With the new ocean uptake determination methods, what is the realistic uncertainty of the current decadal ocean budget? And, in view of the new autonomous profilers - how much can this uncertainty be reduced during the next decade?

The 7th International CO₂ Conference
The Omni Interlocken Resort
September 25th - 30th
PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
Page Generation: 0.05 Seconds