10:20:43	 From Mustafa_Kursad_Yildiz : A question: do you use only the photometric colours to define galaxies as star-forming or dead? 
10:22:53	 From Michael Balogh : we can also use [OII] for galaxies with spectra; but UVJ-classification is our main/preferred method
10:22:58	 From Mustafa_Kursad_Yildiz : I have a study on ETGs called dead (and red) galaxies and found that some of them might be rejuvenating. Those galaxies are called, sometimes, as green-valley galaxies. What about these middle-class galaxies? Thank you :)
10:24:40	 From Gregory Rudnick : We are definitely also studying galaxies at the boundary between SF and Q galaxies, both using their spectroscopic properties (k+A spectra and stellar ages) as well as their UVJ and NUV-V-J colors
10:25:04	 From Michael Balogh : Kristi Webb and Karen McNab will both have stuff to say about those in their upcoming talks/papers
10:25:31	 From Mustafa_Kursad_Yildiz : Okay, thanks! 
10:43:45	 From Nina Hatch : @Adam: Are the PSBs in the clusters significantly larger than those in the field? I thought recent field studies found that PSBs at z>1 are compact spheroids.
10:46:29	 From Adam Muzzin : @Nina Yes! You are right! Wu et al. find exactly the opposite!  Compact PSBs instead of large ones. z = 0 also finds a range of sizes.  We have the tentative interpretation that cluster PSBs like have a very different origin (RPS) than field PSBs (mergers).  RPS leaves your structure largely in tact, mergers make you a compact nugget (because of enhanced core star-formation).  That hypothesis works to explain things, but has not been proven  conclusively in any way.
10:50:05	 From Liza Sazonova : That's really interesting! We found that z>1 cluster galaxies are a lot more compact (but weren
10:50:22	 From Liza Sazonova : *weren't looking explicitly at PSB)s. Looking forward to more GoGREENS talks:)
11:19:34	 From Nina Hatch : @Lyndsay Great talk! Can you quantify the fraction of starburst galaxies  (i.e 2 or 4x greater than main-sequence) in the clusters, or is that not possible with the spectra?
11:22:23	 From Dennis Zaritsky : Zoom is having issues apparently - although we seemed to have been doing fine (until now?)
11:24:40	 From Gregory Rudnick : I was trying to imagine the real conference analog of a speaker suddenly disappearing.  A laptop crashing isn’t quite the same
11:24:51	 From Joel Roediger : Technical question: did you find any systematics of significance between the GCLASS spectra (which were based on older generation CCDs) and GOGREEN spectra (based on Hamamatsu CCDs)?
11:24:55	 From Liza Sazonova : While we are waiting: could you briefly say how are PSBs identified in GOGREENS?
11:25:07	 From KMJ (she/her/hers) : Trapdoor on the stage, Greg
11:27:26	 From Liza Sazonova : Thanks!
11:27:44	 From Joel Roediger : Thanks!
11:28:17	 From German : Hi - just want to say it’s very nice to see all these science results -German from Gemini
11:28:28	 From Mustafa_Kursad_Yildiz : Using NUV is an excellent idea which you can handle the degeneracy.
11:29:04	 From pcerulo : See you in 45 minutes!
11:29:12	 From Robert Nikutta : thanks!
11:30:59	 From Brian C Lemaux : A question for Lyndsay: Did you attempt or was it possible to do the same comparison of the SFRs of field and cluster galaxies at fixed stellar mass with another metric of SFR, i.e., using SED fitting or combining UV + MIR data? If so, were the trends robust to the SFR indicator?
11:34:47	 From Michael Balogh : @brian - we have Halpha (HST grism) for a small subset - that look consistent (large scatter of course).  We don’t have good MIR data for the full sample.  We do have SED-fit SFRs based on simple tau models - but Kristi is working on a better non-parametric fitting of SF galaxies that I hope will provide more reliable SED-fit SFRs.
11:39:32	 From Brian C Lemaux : Thanks Michael, I look forward to seeing the work from Kristi and more from GOGREEN
12:15:17	 From Mustafa K. YILDIZ : Hello again :)
12:26:51	 From Mike Hudson : I'm not aware of strong evidence for an age difference for massive galaxies between field and cluster at low z .... but I've been out of this game for a bit so id be curious to know the references
12:32:02	 From Gregory Rudnick : @ Mike: Daniel Thomas Found this as did Mike Cooper.
12:32:36	 From Adam Muzzin : @Mike, Daniel Thomas+2005 and 2010 I think are the most comprehensive ones.  He gets the difference in both papers but interprets it very differently in both.  I worry about SDSS fiber issues (i.e., the finer is just the core of the galaxy), but every dataset has it’s own unique systematics.
12:33:38	 From Mike Hudson : in nfps we didn't find much T 
12:34:42	 From Mike Hudson : in nfps we didn't find much at the high mass end, only forms mass red gals
12:35:55	 From Joel Roediger : @Kristi Great work!  What about metallicities and chemical abundances?  Were you able to constrain those in your modelling?  The GOGREEN spectra cover a number of abundance-sensitive features (e.g. Ca line @ 4227 A, CH band @ 4330 A).
12:36:48	 From Nina Hatch : @Kristi, Willis+2020 recently measured the ages of passive galaxies in a z=2 cluster, and found formation ages of about 3Gyr, which means they formed at ~400Myr post-Big Bang! But they only used photometry to estimate the ages. Can you rule out such a scenario with your data, or is it still within the uncertainties of your modelling?
12:38:14	 From Gourav Khullar (he/him) : @Kristi — awesome stuff! Similar question to @Joel’s: is your simultaneous spectrophotometric fitting and panchromatic coverage able to break the dust-age-metallicity degeneracy? I am assuming the expectation is for the quiescent galaxies to not have that much dust anyway…
12:38:22	 From Mike Cooper : @Make — see Cooper et al. (2010). We discuss the Thomas et al. (2005) and then different Thomas et al. (2007) results (which then applies to Thomas+ 2010 too).
12:40:45	 From Mike Hudson : ok ill look those up a d refresh my memory of what we found around the same time. hard to do on the phone while on the highway!

12:42:03	 From kristi webb : @Joel We used a joint prior to mass and metallicity based on the Gallazzi+2005 z~0 MZR, however many of our metallicities remained to be on the lower side of that distribution. For chemical abundances we just assumed solar values.

12:49:54	 From kristi webb : @Nina The mass-weighted ages (MWAS) prefer z<10 (ie more than 500 Myr after the BB). There are a few cluster galaxies which have median MWAs as old at z~10 but the oldest field galaxies are a few 100 Myr younger. Interestingly similar studies of field galaxies using full-spectrum SED fitting (eg Carnall 2019 using VANDELS at 1<z<1.3, and references therein, see their figure 8) prefer younger ages than what we find, which we think is related to the fact that we find overall lower metallicities. But going back to your question, the typical uncertainties on the median MWAs are around 400 Myr, so I don’t think we necessarily rule out the Willis+2020 results
2:54:58	 From kristi webb : @Gourav, We simultaneously fit for the total stellar mass, stellar metallicity, and SFH to recover the degeneracies in the posteriors of those parameters, which we then marginalize over in building the posterior of the mass-weighted ages. Certainly there are uncertainties related to how much we can constrain the ages given the metallicities, and in fact we do tend to recover lower metallicities than expected given local relation or from other studies. However we don’t find any difference in the MZR between cluster and field galaxies, so our conclusion of the age _difference_ between those two populations should not be affected.
12:56:26	 From kristi webb : But yes, as you mention @Gourav, we recover quite low dust opacities
12:56:26	 From Elizaveta Sazonova : @Jeffrey - really cool talk and idea to use q's instead of Sersic indices! How do you distinguish between face-on disks (which would appear oblate, right?) and edge-on disks (are they prolate?)? Thanks!
12:56:31	 From Michael Balogh : in addition to Kristi’s very good answers - we do seem to constrain the dust very well, though we do make assumptions about the extinction curve and distribution (foreground screen).
12:58:16	 From Gourav Khullar (he/him) : Thanks @Kristi, and @Michael. Really nice plots and interesting analyses; looking forward to reading the paper.
12:59:16	 From Thomas Connor (he/him) : @Kristi - when you say lower metallicities than expected, how big of an effect are you talking about?
13:00:03	 From Michael Balogh : @thomas maybe Kristi can show a slide on this during discussion
13:00:26	 From Jeffrey Chan : @Elizaveta, I look at the q distribution as a whole and use the shape of the q distribution to constrain the fraction of oblate and triaxial galaxies. You are right that face-on disks have very different projected q than edge-on ones, the model axis ratio distributions take into account of that (assuming the orientation of the population is random), hence q distribution of the oblate component has a tail extending all the way to q~1.
13:01:06	 From Mustafa K. YILDIZ : @Micheal, do you calculate/predict the dust mass? If yes, what is the difference between red and blue ones? 
PS: I agree it was a lovely presentation. Thank you :)
13:02:05	 From Elizaveta Sazonova : @Jeffrey Very cool, thanks!
13:02:46	 From Michael Balogh : @Mustafa, not the dust mass, but just the average extinction.  At this point @Kristi has only modeled the quiescent (red) population so we can’t say how it compares with the blue.
13:03:22	 From Mustafa K. YILDIZ : @Michael, thank you very much :)
13:06:23	 From pcerulo : The mid M200 clusters in GOGREEN have a lower QFE than the high M200 ones. This is opposite to what Omand et al. (2014) show at low redshift. 

Also, the differences between QF and QFE in GOGREEN seem to be small at high stellar masses. 
13:07:31	 From pcerulo : How many clusters are in each M200 sub-sample?
13:08:49	 From Andrew Reeves : We have 8-9 clusters in the intermediate M200c halo mass sample, but only 2 clusters in the highest M200c halo mass bin
13:13:43	 From Nina Hatch : @Andrew, very interesting! Do you use all galaxies within R200c, or do you take into account the concentration of the halos? I’m wondering whether Remco’s result about high-z clusters being concentrated impact your results.
13:14:55	 From Andrew Reeves : We use R200c - we unfortunately don’t have access to the concentration parameter from the groups since they have relatively few galaxies and spec-z coverage isn’t as good as for the clusters
13:17:57	 From pcerulo : thanks, @Andrew. The result is very interesting. Perhaps it would be better to put al the clusters in one sub-set to avoid results to be affected by low-number statistics.
13:18:09	 From Andrew Reeves : @Nina, I have looked a little at the effect of the choice of aperture (ie: some fraction/multiple of R200c), so it seems our qualitative results are fairly robust to changes in aperture, although I avoid overly trusting very small apertures since getting precise centres for groups is harder than for the clusters.
13:18:36	 From Nina Hatch : @Andrew, thanks.
13:19:09	 From Andrew Reeves : @pcerulo The two massive clusters have hundreds of galaxies between them, but yes, it’s possible some kind of cluster sample variance could be at play there.
13:23:16	 From Mustafa K. YILDIZ : I think  time wi
13:23:40	 From Mustafa K. YILDIZ : will show how to the system to get data etc. But, thanks for that! :)
14:00:52	 From Robert Nikutta : Thank you for this workshop, great talks and discussion!
14:01:02	 From Liza Sazonova : Thank you everyone for the really interesting talks and science! Looking forward to tomorrow :)
14:01:07	 From durret : Thanks to all!

14:01:11	 From Gourav Khullar (he/him) : thank you so much everyone!
14:01:13	 From pcerulo : See you tomorrow!
14:01:15	 From Roser Pello : Thanks!