Attending meeting: Russ McDuff, Glenn Cannon, Jeff Parsons, Will Wilcock, Susan Hautala, Bill Lavelle

Summary:

At this third and possibly penultimate meeting of my supervisory committee, I began with a brief summary of my progress and plans (see attached). What was intended to be about 10 minutes of highlights naturally became a half hour presentation intermingled with some questions from committee members. The second half hour was spent discussing further questions, the schedule I proposed for a final exam and thesis submission, and the composition of my reading committee.

The reading committee will consist of Russ McDuff, Bill Lavelle, and Glenn Cannon. Jeff Parsons left about 10 minutes before the rest of the members and therefore missed the discussion of the reading commitee composition. Consquently, I said I would later ask him if he was interested in joining Russ, Bill, and Glenn.

While I outline below some specific questions that were asked and which suggest future actions, a major aspect of the meeting was the alterations I proposed to my plan for completion were accepted with little discussion. Most importantly, the committee agreed that all of the following were reasonable: submission of a first Flow Mow publication prior to July1; a thesis defense on ~Oct1; thesis submission ~Nov1; submission of a second publication ~Dec1; the type of material I proposed for Ch4 (buoyant plume characteristics) should be included in the thesis, but not be published elsewhere prior to my graduation.

Committee questions and recommendations:

1. Science
   1. Will: Does the puff model have any free parameters, other than diffusivity? And if so, could they account for your (mooring expanded temperature) observations not matching your model output? [Yes. This implies that I should calculate correlation coefficients in obs/model T space for a variety of model runs over which the free parameters are varied.]
   2. Russ: Related to the previous recommendation, I should examine the statistical differences between modeled and observed distributions.
   3. Glenn: How far apart are the 2 meters for which you have calculated coherence and phase?
   4. Bill: What corrections are needed to your potential temperature anomaly when the freshness of the MEF sources is considered? [This question led to a discussion between Russ and Bill, some of which I participated in. We agreed to meet individually or as a threesome to discuss the issue further.]
2. Logistics
   1. Glenn/Russ: Make your proposed Ch4 an extension to the geological setting in Ch2.
   2. Bill: How complete is publication 1? What is the status of the figures? How many will be added? [A: It is about 60% finished. This was in connection to whether my timing was realistic, or might be pushed back further into the fall.]