Work Group Meeting on IT Techniques, Tools and Philosophies for Model Intercomparison

1
(No Transcript)
2
Work Group Meeting onIT Techniques, Tools and
Philosophies for Model Intercomparison
Data handling approaches, software tools,
participant involvement, data dissemination,
integration issues
Program 0900-0915 Welcome/Background Dentener
0915-1000 Thunis/Cuvelier City Delta/Euro
Delta 1000-1045 Michael Schulz/Stefan Kinne
Aerocom 1045-1100 Coffee 1100-1145 Charles
Doutrioux (Ocean modelling) 1145-1230 Rudolf
Husar American Aerosol intercomparisons
1230-1400 Lunch discussion 1400-1430
Christiane Textor (GEMS) 1430-1515 Stefano
Galmarini Radioactivity Alert system 1515-1530
Tea 1530-1700 Discussion summarizing
recommendations

• Ispra, JRC, March 14, 2004

3
Meeting Background PurposeF. Dentener, JRC,
Ispra

• Background
• There is an increasing number of model
  intercomparison studies
• These cover different modeling scales (global,
  regional, local), pollutants (gases, aerosols,
  metals, radioactivity) and comparison
  methodologies
• Intercomparison participants may not be familiar
  with similar work elsewhere
• A common problem for all these studies is the
  intense use of information technologies for
  bringing together, homogenizing and comparing the
  models
• Meeting Goals
• Present the major intercomparison studies with
  emphasis on IT issues
• Discuss IT issues and solutions, (e.g. common
  formats, conventions)
• Recommend actions for joint IT-related efforts
• Past Model Intercomparison Studies
• ACCENT-PhotoCom
• EuroDelta
• AEROCOM
• MICS-Asia
• Mercury Transport

4
The Euro-and City-Delta Model Intercomparison P.
Thunis, K. Cuvelier, JRC, Ispra

• EuroDelta Evaluates uncertainty of
  source-receptor relationships used in air quality
  policy (CHIMERE, REM, EMEP, MATCH, LOTOS,TM5)
• EuroDelta Includes sub-grid effects into a
  Europe-wide health impact assessment for PM and
  O3(CALGRID,MUSE, CAMX, TRANSCHIM, MUSCAT, EUROS,
  OFIS, MOCAGE, STEM REM, LOTOS, CHIMERE,
  EPISODE EMEP)

Original Participant data (Tb) Pre-processing
(JRC) Processed (20 Gb), tool, on Web
5
AeroCom Aerosol Model Comparison C. Textor, S.
Guibert, S. Kinne, J. Penner, M. Schulz, F.
Dentener

• Questionnaire 2002, 4 workshops, 40 participants)
• 20 models, 3 experiments (original model
  emissions 2000 1750)
• Central model database (2TB), public web
  interface to images, joint papers

Proposal for cooperation  Atmospheric Tracer
Model Intercomparison Tools Initiative 
http//nansen.ipsl.jussieu.fr/AEROCOM/data.html
6
GEMS - C. Textor Global Earth-system Monitoring
using Space and in-situ data

• Goal Build validated, operational assimilation
  system for atmospheric composition and dynamics,
  by 2008.
• Integrated Project co-funded by EC, 17 M, 31
  consortium members, 4 years (started in March
  2005)

Reg. AQ Ensemble forecasts

• Model Evaluation Methods?
• Eyeball methods
• Basis statistical evaluation
• Sophisticated skill scores

• Model Evaluation Tools?
• MetPy (ECMWF)
• MMAS (FMI)
• AeroCom (LSCE)
• CDO, MetView?, CDAT..

7
Towards Automated Model Output Analysis Charles
Doutriaux
CDAT
ESG

• From central to distributed resources
• Data, visualization, supercomputers
• Collaboration and data sharing
• Analyst focus on work, not mechanics

• Python based system
• Added packages by community
• One environment,
• Community Software

AutoMOD Automated Model Diagnostic Facility
Data adheres to standards NetCDF format, CF
compliant Data pre-processed via code
8
ENSEMBLE Reconciliation of Disparate National
Medium/Long Range Dispersion ForecastsStefano
Galmarini, JRC, Ispra

• Following Chernobyl, accidental radioactive
  dispersion, conc., deposition needs to be
  forecasted over the next few days (60 h)
• National services use LRTP models

9
DataFed Federated Data System for Air QualityR.
B. Husar, Washington University

• AQ info is distributed over many dimensions
  Geography, Content, Agency..
• Info content includes emissions, ambient
  satellite data and models
• Info is provided and consumed by different
  agencies, (NASA, NOAA, EPA)
• Providers have different access protocols,
  formats, and information usage
• Standardization is a key need for agile IT
  systems
• Non-intrusive mediators can achieve virtual
  standardization
• Technologies are currently available for dynamic
  NETWORKING
• Eager to cooperate, share networked data, tools
  for model comparison

10

• Proposal for cooperation
• Atmospheric Tracer Model Intercomparison Tools
  Initiative
• Goals
• General Goals
• Accelerate Analysis of Models and Feedback to
  model participants
• Develop jointly intercomparison tools through
  transformation, integration, adaptation and
  development of tools
• Allow participants to join more easily into the
  analysis of an intercomparison
• Specific Objectives to which the Network should
  contribute for any intercomparison
• Model documentation
• Model quality control
• Model comparison
• Model benchmarking
• Model improvement
• Scientific understanding
• Procedure
• In the first place tutorial institutions are
  identified, which provide general support for the
  planning and implementation of the initiative
  (JRC, LSCE/IPSL ??)A steering committee is put
  into place to develop the initiative and report
  to the tutorial institutions.
• A work plan is elaborated until early summer 2006
  to structure and prioritise the actions to be
  undertaken.