[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

CaCO3 dissolution: new vs. tried & true




I couldn't agree more with Ray regarding the use of a "new" scheme.  If we
were to make the standard OCMIP-2 run with a new scheme for CaCO3 cycling,
we would surely have some nasty surprises. 

As for sensitivity studies by individual groups, that is a fine idea, as I
expressed in San Diego.  However, I do not believe we should wait for
results from sensitivty runs, which could take many months, before
finalizing protocols and getting all groups started to make the standard
run for OCMIP.  In other words, I would suggest following the example of
NASA, who didn't use cutting edge technology to put men on the moon
because such an approach was considered neither reliable nor efficient. 

- -- Jim

On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Ray Najjar wrote:

> It would be wasteful for everyone to experiment with a new scheme.  One idea
> we came up with at the February meeting was "distibuted sensitivity studies."
> This would allow one group to explore certain parameterizations--gas exchange,
> remineralization, etc--and report back to the group as a whole.  CaCO3 cycling
> could be one of those studies.
> 
> Ray
> 

======================================================================
   James Orr                       Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat 
   LSCE, CEA Saclay                             et de l'Environnement    
   Bat. 709 - Orme                 Unite Mixte de Recherche CEA-CNRS    
   F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex    Phone:   (33) (0)1 69 08 77 23      
   FRANCE                          Fax:     (33) (0)1 69 08 77 16
                                             |    |     
   mailto:  orr@cea.fr            (country code)  (when in France)      
======================================================================