An Update on CESM Activities: The CSL Proposal, CMIP-5 Simulations, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
an update on cesm activities the csl proposal cmip 5
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

An Update on CESM Activities: The CSL Proposal, CMIP-5 Simulations, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 20, 2024 254 likes •416 views

An Update on CESM Activities: The CSL Proposal, CMIP-5 Simulations, Jim Hurrell Climate and Global Dynamics Division, NCAR Chief Scientist, CESM Jim Hurrell 26 October 2010 CESM Scien>st

slide-1
SLIDE 1

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

An Update on CESM Activities: The CSL Proposal, CMIP-5 Simulations, …

Jim Hurrell Climate and Global Dynamics Division, NCAR Chief Scientist, CESM

slide-2
SLIDE 2

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

Current CSL Allocation

  • Period of Performance: June 2009 – November 2010
  • Two proposals:
  • CCSM “Science” – 8.28M GAU (460 kGAU/month)
  • CCSM “IPCC” – 8.37M GAU (465 kGAU/month)

Interim CSL Proposal

  • Period of Performance: December 2010 – March 2011
  • Currently under review
  • CESM Science
  • Have used 106% of current allocation
  • Requested 115% (2.116M GAU or 529 kGAU/month)
  • CESM IPCC
  • Have used 109% of current allocation
  • Requested 120% (2.236M GAU or 559 kGAU/month)
slide-3
SLIDE 3

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

2011 CSL Solicitation

  • For use of CSL computing facilities from April 2011 – June 2012
  • Deadline for submitting proposals is December 1, 2010
  • Only for work on Bluefire:
  • Same number of GAUs as before: total of 1.325M GAU/month
  • Additional resources for use of MSS are allocated independently
  • Next allocation will be for NWSC

Proposal Review

  • CSL allocation requests are reviewed by a panel of experts based on:
  • Eligibility criteria
  • Relevance to US GCRP priorities
  • Available CSL resources (same as before)
  • Recommendations are forwarded to NSF for final allocation decisions
  • Previous reviews raised some valid points: e.g.,
  • WG requests vary considerably in terms of justification and detail
  • Little apparent coordination between WG requests
  • No overall sense of priorities
  • Little delineation between development and production simulations
slide-4
SLIDE 4

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

2011 CSL Proposal: GENERAL THOUGHTS

  • Need to identify and describe overarching priorities, prioritization and

synergies between working groups

  • Need explicit section on computational efficiency, scalability, and how

development is geared toward NWSC

  • Need to clearly define:
  • DEVELOPMENT:

 Simulations to understand CESM1.0 (or component) behavior, document biases, and determine the responsible processes  Improving the representation of processes  Adding new capabilities important for improving simulation fidelity, for new science and for future releases

  • PRODUCTION:

 Defining characteristic is being made available for community analysis  “Assessment” simulations, control and 20th century simulations with each of new CESM components, science runs involving new capabilities, …

  • Working group contributions should be uniform in format, length, style

and should be cross-referencing (reflect coordination)

  • Overall proposal needs to be written by SSC
slide-5
SLIDE 5

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

2011 CSL Proposal WORKING GROUP PLANS

  • Now available on-line (http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/management/CSL/)
  • Please read and send comments to WG co-chairs

FORMAT Research Plan and Broad Overview of Objectives (~2 pages)

  • Description of overarching DEVELOPMENT objectives
  • Description of overarching PRODUCTION objectives

Proposed Experiments and Computation Requirements (~3 pages)

  • Must be WELL JUSTIFIED and follow logically from previous section
  • Short description of individual DEVELOPMENT experiments, including:
  • model configuration
  • number of runs and years
  • GAUs/year and total number of GAUs (target provided)
  • Summary table
  • Short description of individual PRODUCTION experiments
slide-6
SLIDE 6

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

2011 CSL Proposal Outline

Cover page (nice figure needed) Table of Contents (1 page) Introduction (HURRELL) (1 page)

  • Process by which proposal came together – coordination among working groups,

involvement of SSC  written by entire project

  • Constructed to respond to previous review suggestions/criticisms

Background (HURRELL, BADER, VERTENSTEIN) (3 pages)

  • Major Deliverables of previous CSL allocation; e.g.,
  • CCSM4.0 and CESM1.0 development, release, and production

simulations (e.g., CMIP5 simulations), improvements in scalability, …

  • Define “development” and “production”
  • CSL  enhances university participation through WG requests, but note we

also have other development activities (e.g., EaSM, CPTs, CSSEF)

Brief description of overarching priorities (5 pages)

  • Little/no mention of specific WG requests
  • DEVELOPMENT: (LAMARQUE, GHAN, COLLINS, LARGE, LAWRENCE, DONEY)
  • PRODUCTION: (KUSHNER, RASCH, KIEHL, VAVRUS, MAHOWALD)

Resource request (6 pages)

  • Can be pulled from WG requests
  • Description of main DEVELOPMENT activities and associated GAU request
  • Description of main PRODUCTION activities and associated GAU request
  • Tables showing total requests by working group

Data Management (VERTENSTEIN, LARGE) (2 pages)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

CSL Data Management Plan

(Vertenstein and Large) Archiving

  • Assume that data on HPSS will NOT stay around indefinitely

– No longer assume that new data will produce much larger volume than old data

  • Production and Development will have different policies

– Production – keep 100% for P1 years and then gradually cut back to K% over a period

  • f P2 years and then keep for P3 years?

– Development – keep 100% for D1 years and then cut to 0% Above depends on estimate of both production and development data volume – needed by Thursday! Data volume metrics NOW AVAILABLE for compsets in GAU table at http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/gau-estimates.html

Distribution

  • Development data will not be distributed
  • How will production data be distributed?

– Who? Mechanism? How much? When?

Oversight

  • Need a centralized designated data manager to oversee the above
  • If there is agreement – who?
slide-8
SLIDE 8

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

2011 CSL Proposal Outline Actions and Issues:

  • Writing teams:
  • Organized by lead
  • Review WG requests (finalized by this Friday)
  • Provide draft sections due in 2 weeks (3 November)
  • First draft assembled by 5 November (Hurrell)
  • WG review and provide comments back to SSC by 12 November
  • Target allocation: 1M GAU/month
  • Is the correct number?
  • Current allocation: 925 kGAU/month
  • Total available: 1.325M GAU/month
  • Current WG requests (total): 1.095M GAU/month
  • but cannot penalize WGs that hit target!
  • Number of proposals
  • One large, or separate development and production proposals?
  • Separate proposal for production simulations supporting national and international

assessment activities?

slide-9
SLIDE 9

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

2011 CSL Proposal

TIMETABLE 8 October: Working Group Drafts posted to internal web site

  • Target Allocation: 1M GAU/month (total CSL resource: 1.325M/month)
  • Underwent two rounds of “internal review” (Thank You!)
  • Cross referencing and refinement

22 October: Final WG Drafts made available to SSC

  • 5 November: SSC first draft of proposal
  • Working groups and CESM scientists to review and comment

12 November: WG comments to SSC 24 November: SSC posts final draft 30 November: Proposal submitted

slide-10
SLIDE 10

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

CMIP-5 Long-term Experiments

  • Many core and Tier 1 experiments complete: see CMIP-5 dashboard at:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cseg/cmip5_dashboard/ncar/ (THANKS TO MANY!)

  • For instance, we have completed:
  • 1850 1º & 2º CCSM4 control integrations (1300 and 1000 yrs, respectively: 2º atm/lnd)
  • 1º & 2º 1% yr-1 transient CO2
  • 1º & 2º 20th Century CCSM4 ensembles (6 members)
  • 1º & 2º AMIP simulations (additional ensemble members running now)
  • 1º RCP (8.5, 4.5, 2.6) 21st Century CCSM4 ensembles
  • 2º RCP (8.5, 4.5, 2.6) 21st Century CCSM4
  • 1º 20th Century and RCP 8.5 MOAR
  • 1º single forcing runs (including all anthropogenic versus natural forcings)
  • 1850 CESM1 controls (Chemistry, WACCM)
  • 20th Century CESM1 (WACCM, Chemistry, BGC)
  • Running:
  • Extending 1850 CESM (BGC, WACCM) pre-industrial controls (BGC prescribed/emission)
  • 1º CCSM4 Paleoclimate simulations (Mid-Holocene, Last Millenium)
  • Additional WACCM and Chemistry 20th/21st Century ensemble members
  • CCSM4 single forcing simulations (additional members)
  • Soon
  • CESM (CAM5) – full suite of control, 20th Century and RCP ensembles
  • CAM4 High resolution time slice experiments
  • CESM (BGC) 21st Century (RCP 8.5, both prescribed + emission)
  • CCSM4 RCP 6.0 (ensemble)
  • CCSM4 LGM
slide-11
SLIDE 11

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

Other topics

  • CAB Meeting (August 2010)
  • Annual letter yet to arrive, but: “The CAB was very pleased with the tremendous

progress with CCSM4 and CESM1. There are no major problems or concerns.”

  • New Chair: Isaac Held (many thanks to Michele Rienecker)
  • CESM Implementation Plan
  • Short-term objectives closely connected to CSL proposal
  • Long-term objectives strongly related to CSSEF & EaSM proposals, CPTs, etc.
  • SSC will begin draft soon (after CSL proposal is written!)
  • Special Session at AMS (Thanks also to Bette Otto-Bliesner)
  • http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/23CVC.html
  • 36 oral talks (6 sessions) and 9 posters
  • J. Climate Special Collection (Thanks to Peter Gent, local coordinator)
  • http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/publications/pub.info.html
  • 35 papers on CCSM4.0 and 30 papers on CESM1.0
  • BAMS – SSC will write overview article on CESM project describing:
  • history and accomplishments
  • movement from CCSM to CESM
  • selected results from CMIP-5
  • summary of ongoing and future development
slide-12
SLIDE 12

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

CESM Tutorial

12-16 July, 2010 at NCAR ML

  • 72 students/postdocs (186 applicants!) from 50 institutions
  • Complete tutorial available on the web:

– Video & Presentations of Lectures & Tutorials

  • Lectures on simulating the climate system
  • Practical sessions on running CESM & modifying components
  • Organization, Planning, Lectures and Tutorials by CGD staff
  • 2010 Chair: Andrew Gettelman – Great Job!
  • 2011 Tutorial
  • Chair: Dave Lawrence
  • Dates: 1-5 August
slide-13
SLIDE 13

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

  • Purpose: To explore the role of such a group and how it would function

within the existing CESM structure (e.g., interact with existing WGs).

  • Invitation only: ~25 participants
  • Support from NSF, DOE and NOAA

Other Upcoming Events

  • Winter WG meetings (see CESM website – being updated)
  • OMWG (9-10 December) Santa Fe, NM
  • LIWG (12-13 January) NCAR, Boulder
  • AMWG (14-16 February) NCAR, Boulder
  • Spring 2011: CESM Briefing to US GCRP (Implemenation Plan)
  • 16th Annual Workshop: 20-23 June
  • WORKSHOP: The Interface between Earth System

Models and Impacts on Society (Spring 2011)

  • Organizing Committee:

 Jeffrey Kiehl (Chair), Lawrence Buja, Brian O’Neill (NCAR)  Bill Gutowski (Iowa State Univ)  Andrea Ray (NOAA/ESRL)  Ben Preston (ORNL/DOE)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡

Questions/Comments?

jhurrell@ucar.edu X1383

Thank You!