An Update on CESM Activities: The CSL Proposal, …also have other development activities (e.g.,...

26 October 2010 Jim Hurrell [email protected] 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


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)


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


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 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


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


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)


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?


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?


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


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 CO2 o  1º & 2º 20th Century CCSM4 ensembles (6 members) o  1º & 2º AMIP simulations (additional ensemble members running now) o  1º RCP (8.5, 4.5, 2.6) 21st Century CCSM4 ensembles o  2º RCP (8.5, 4.5, 2.6) 21st Century CCSM4 o  1º 20th Century and RCP 8.5 MOAR o  1º single forcing runs (including all anthropogenic versus natural forcings) o  1850 CESM1 controls (Chemistry, WACCM) o  20th 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 20th/21st Century ensemble members o  CCSM4 single forcing simulations (additional members)

•  Soon o  CESM (CAM5) – full suite of control, 20th Century and RCP ensembles o  CAM4 High resolution time slice experiments o  CESM (BGC) 21st Century (RCP 8.5, both prescribed + emission) o  CCSM4 RCP 6.0 (ensemble) o  CCSM4 LGM


Other topics •  CAB Meeting (August 2010)

o  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.” o  New Chair: Isaac Held (many thanks to Michele Rienecker)

•  CESM Implementation Plan

o  Short-term objectives closely connected to CSL proposal o  Long-term objectives strongly related to CSSEF & EaSM proposals, CPTs, etc. o  SSC will begin draft soon (after CSL proposal is written!)

•  Special Session at AMS (Thanks also to Bette Otto-Bliesner)

o  http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/23CVC.html o  36 oral talks (6 sessions) and 9 posters

•  J. Climate Special Collection (Thanks to Peter Gent, local coordinator)

o  http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/publications/pub.info.html o  35 papers on CCSM4.0 and 30 papers on CESM1.0

•  BAMS – SSC will write overview article on CESM project describing:

o  history and accomplishments o  movement from CCSM to CESM o  selected results from CMIP-5 o  summary of ongoing and future development


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


o  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). o  Invitation only: ~25 participants o  Support from NSF, DOE and NOAA

Other Upcoming Events •  Winter WG meetings (see CESM website – being updated)

o  OMWG (9-10 December) Santa Fe, NM o  LIWG (12-13 January) NCAR, Boulder o  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) o  Organizing Committee:

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


Questions/Comments?

[email protected] X1383

Thank You!

An Update on CESM Activities: The CSL Proposal, …also have other development activities (e.g.,...

Documents

Transcript of An Update on CESM Activities: The CSL Proposal, …also have other development activities (e.g.,...