CRESCENDO General Assembly

CRESCENDO is the European project I’m employed on, and aims to improve earth system models. The GA was an opportunity to catch up with colleagues and discuss progress.

I gave a science talk about my nitrogen fertilisation work, which stimulated a good bit of debate. 😉

Exeter XCS talk

A talk to introduce myself to my Exeter colleagues. Thankfully despite the 10am on a Friday time, there was a good turn out and a lively discussion about how the RCPs are made, whether we could get the benefits of albedo changes without the disadvantages and the model limitations.

Title was: “Climate, vegetation and land use in the 21st century”.

JULES meeting 2014

JULES is the stand-alone version of the land-surface model that is in the Hadley Centre model that I use. Up in Leicester, (which was beautiful at this sunny time of year) this was a meeting with a small conference feel. There were lots of familiar names and faces there, including Richard Essery (my keyboard probably has slight dents from where I’ve googled ‘Essery Moses’ so many times…).

I spent lots of good time talking to Eleanor Burke and Sarah Chadburn about the PAGE21 permafrost project, which was very interesting. It was good to catch up with met office people too, whom I haven’t had a chance to visit recently.

The talks were a mix of model development talks, like that from the JULES crop group and Anna Harper who has been putting new PFTs into JULES, and some more results/science talks. JULES is a really friendly community that I’m happy to be becoming a part of.

EGU 2014

I talked at EGU on the Monday afternoon about some work which shows that the different RCP scenarios have different sensitivities to land use change. The other land surface sessions, many sponsored by iLeaps, were later in the week.

I saw some really interesting work and met up with some familiar faces (from CEH, Max Planck and many others, as always some of the people from Bristol that I don’t see as often as I’d like).

BRIDGE group talk: Coupled climate model sensitivity to canopy interception capacity

BRIDGE is the group I belong to at Bristol, which has a lot of people who do Paleo modelling, use paleo proxy data and many people whose primary interest is the ocean. I’m one of a small number who are interested in the future and/or the land surface. So giving a talk on canopy interception capacity makes BRIDGE a tough audience as they aren’t, on average, especially interested in my area of research.

So I gave a different angle to my work with an alternative title of ‘How a parameter no one knows or cares anything about, can significantly alter the global climate’. This drew a good number of people and we had a lively discussion about HadCM3.

CEH Interception workshop

This was an informal meeting, organised by Eleanor Blyth at CEH. I’ve seen Eleanor’s incisive mind in action at various meetings, so I was really pleased when she invited me to CEH to talk about my work.

CEH have some big names in interception, including John Gash (who, yes, wrote THE Gash model – I tried to control my inner fan girl), Chris Taylor who runs the SWELTER project and others whose papers I’ve read.

CEH use JULES in offline mode a lot, and were interested to see my results from a fully coupled model, especially the temperature change. I was really interested though to see the work presented by Emma Robinson and Phil Harris, both of whom look at interception but approach it from a totally different scale – the daily or even hourly scale – and perspective – looking at heat waves and transpiration.

Invited seminar at University of Reading land-surface group meeting

I’ve got some really interesting results on canopy interception capacity, and although this is subject which is not extensively researched, much of that research has been done at University of Reading Meteorology department by members of the land-surface group, including Emily Black, Marie-Estelle Demory and Catherine van den Hoof.

I was really pleased to be invited to the land-surface group seminar to talk about this work and there was lots of useful discussion about why the results are as they are, and what to do next, especially from Pier Luigi Vidal, Emily Black and Ann Verhoef.