Chris Wiggins points us to this announcement for a conference next year:
Simulation has greatly advanced climate science, but not sufficiently to the profit of theory and understanding. How can simulation better advance climate science and what mathematical issues does this raise? Our hypothesis is that the development of climate science (i.e., theory and understanding) will be best served by focusing computational and intellectual resources on model and data hierarchies. By bringing together physicists, mathematicians, statisticians, engineers and climate-scientists, and focusing on several themes that reach across scales and scientific methodologies, our program will provide a framework for advancing our use of hierarchical methods in our attempt to understand the climate system.
There will be an active program of research activities, seminars and workshops throughout the March 8 – June 11, 2010 period and core participants will be in residence at IPAM for fourteen weeks. The program will open with tutorials, and will be punctuated by four major workshops and a culminating workshop.
This all makes sense to me, although, given the topic, I’m surprised that no statisticians seem to be involved. Lots of potential for interesting models and graphs.