an update on cesm activities the csl proposal cmip 5
play

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

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


  1. 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 ¡Mee>ng ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

  2. Current CSL Allocation • Period of Performance: June 2009 – November 2010 • Two proposals: o CCSM “Science” – 8.28M GAU (460 kGAU/month) o CCSM “IPCC” – 8.37M GAU (465 kGAU/month) Interim CSL Proposal • Period of Performance: December 2010 – March 2011 • Currently under review • CESM Science o Have used 106% of current allocation o Requested 115% (2.116M GAU or 529 kGAU/month) • CESM IPCC o Have used 109% of current allocation o Requested 120% (2.236M GAU or 559 kGAU/month) ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ 26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡ CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

  3. 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: o Same number of GAUs as before: total of 1.325M GAU/month o 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: o Eligibility criteria o Relevance to US GCRP priorities o Available CSL resources (same as before) o Recommendations are forwarded to NSF for final allocation decisions • Previous reviews raised some valid points: e.g., o WG requests vary considerably in terms of justification and detail o Little apparent coordination between WG requests o No overall sense of priorities o Little delineation between development and production simulations ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ 26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡ CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

  4. 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: o 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 o PRODUCTION:  Defining characteristic is being made available for community analysis  “Assessment” simulations, control and 20 th 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 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ 26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡ CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

  5. 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: o model configuration o number of runs and years o GAUs/year and total number of GAUs (target provided) o Summary table • Short description of individual PRODUCTION experiments ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ 26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡ CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

  6. 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., o 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) ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ 26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡ CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

  7. 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 of 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? ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ 26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡ CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

  8. 2011 CSL Proposal Outline Actions and Issues: • Writing teams: o Organized by lead o Review WG requests (finalized by this Friday) o 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 o Is the correct number? o Current allocation: 925 kGAU/month o Total available: 1.325M GAU/month o 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? ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ 26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡ CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

  9. 2011 CSL Proposal TIMETABLE 8 October: Working Group Drafts posted to internal web site o Target Allocation: 1M GAU/month (total CSL resource: 1.325M/month) o Underwent two rounds of “internal review” (Thank You!) o Cross referencing and refinement 22 October: Final WG Drafts made available to SSC --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 November: SSC first draft of proposal o 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 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ 26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡ CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

  10. 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: o 1850 1º & 2º CCSM4 control integrations (1300 and 1000 yrs, respectively: 2º atm/lnd) o 1º & 2º 1% yr -1 transient CO 2 o 1º & 2º 20 th Century CCSM4 ensembles (6 members) o 1º & 2º AMIP simulations (additional ensemble members running now) o 1º RCP (8.5, 4.5, 2.6) 21 st Century CCSM4 ensembles o 2º RCP (8.5, 4.5, 2.6) 21 st Century CCSM4 o 1º 20 th Century and RCP 8.5 MOAR o 1º single forcing runs (including all anthropogenic versus natural forcings) o 1850 CESM1 controls (Chemistry, WACCM) o 20 th Century CESM1 (WACCM, Chemistry, BGC) • Running: o Extending 1850 CESM (BGC, WACCM) pre-industrial controls (BGC prescribed/emission) o 1º CCSM4 Paleoclimate simulations (Mid-Holocene, Last Millenium) o Additional WACCM and Chemistry 20 th /21 st Century ensemble members o CCSM4 single forcing simulations (additional members) • Soon o CESM (CAM5) – full suite of control, 20 th Century and RCP ensembles o CAM4 High resolution time slice experiments o CESM (BGC) 21 st Century (RCP 8.5, both prescribed + emission) o CCSM4 RCP 6.0 (ensemble) o CCSM4 LGM ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡Jim ¡Hurrell ¡ 26 ¡October ¡2010 ¡ CESM ¡Scien>st ¡Mee>ng ¡ jhurrell@ucar.edu ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

Recommend


More recommend