Difference between revisions of "Modelling class/workshop"

From gfi
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Motivation==
 
==Motivation==
Many of us are using modelling more or less extensively as a part of our thesis and even if one wouldn’t be using any model, it would be very beneficial to have some kind of knowledge of running some simulations. In general it is relatively easy to get access to different model codes and even set-up an experiment. However, it might be often be that the user doesn't understand all the issues related to the set-up and in worst case might try to interpret wome model artifacts as meaningfull results.
+
Many of us are using modelling more or less extensively as a part of our thesis and even if one wouldn’t be using any model, it would be very beneficial to have some knowledge about running simulations. Also it is relatively easy to get access to different model codes in general and even set up an experiment. However, it might be often be that the user doesn't understand all the issues related to the set-up and in the worst case one might try to interpret some model artifacts as meaningfull results. We hope this course could give some insight in these issues.
  
This class would use the NorESM model and hopefully benefit its development
+
This class would use the NorESM model and could benefit its development
  
 
==The idea in short==
 
==The idea in short==
Line 9: Line 9:
 
**Test different grids
 
**Test different grids
 
**Different time stepping?
 
**Different time stepping?
**Solar radiation, Coriolis parameter, slab vs full ocean
+
**Solar radiation, land-use, Coriolis parameter, slab vs full ocean
 
*The analysis of the results would be probably interesting, but not in the main role of this course.
 
*The analysis of the results would be probably interesting, but not in the main role of this course.
 
**However, students would deliver a short report and a seminar (reports could be at least a in house source for validation)
 
**However, students would deliver a short report and a seminar (reports could be at least a in house source for validation)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
**Why is the Gulf Stream in displaces southward in the models?
 
**Why is the Gulf Stream in displaces southward in the models?
 
**Why is there no MJO in the model?
 
**Why is there no MJO in the model?
**One often comes across some one making statements like 'don't pay atention to that feature, models/this specific mode never gets it right' or 'yeah, I know that thing, that's just an artefact' and this seems to often be some 'known' issues, but where so they come from (and do we know)?
+
**One often comes across someone making statements like 'don't pay atention to that feature, models/this specific mode never gets it right' or 'yeah, I know that thing, that's just an artefact' and this seems to often be some 'known' issues, but where do they come from (and (how) do we know)?
 
*Conservation of properties
 
*Conservation of properties
 
**Why models conserve/don't conserve some properties, why should/shouldn't they, and why do we even care?
 
**Why models conserve/don't conserve some properties, why should/shouldn't they, and why do we even care?
Line 27: Line 27:
  
 
==Time Plan==
 
==Time Plan==
*3-5 day of lectures (some overlap with setting up the model)
+
*One week intensive lectures and setting-up
*2-3 days of setting up the model experiments (some overlap with the lectures)
+
**3-5 days of lectures (some overlap with setting up the model)
 +
**2-3 days of setting up the model experiments (some overlap with the lectures)
 
*Period of one month for running the experiments and analysing the data
 
*Period of one month for running the experiments and analysing the data
 
*1 day for the final seminars (arranged as webinar)
 
*1 day for the final seminars (arranged as webinar)
Line 39: Line 40:
 
*Lecturers?
 
*Lecturers?
 
**The best experience with NorESM is already in-house, here are some names with couple of outside guys
 
**The best experience with NorESM is already in-house, here are some names with couple of outside guys
**Bergen: Mats, Ingo, Helge
+
**Bergen: Mats, Ingo, Helge, Odd-Helge, Mehmet, Thomas
 
**Oslo: Lars Petter Røed  
 
**Oslo: Lars Petter Røed  
 
**Boulder: Cindy Bruyere
 
**Boulder: Cindy Bruyere

Revision as of 13:21, 9 July 2013

Motivation

Many of us are using modelling more or less extensively as a part of our thesis and even if one wouldn’t be using any model, it would be very beneficial to have some knowledge about running simulations. Also it is relatively easy to get access to different model codes in general and even set up an experiment. However, it might be often be that the user doesn't understand all the issues related to the set-up and in the worst case one might try to interpret some model artifacts as meaningfull results. We hope this course could give some insight in these issues.

This class would use the NorESM model and could benefit its development

The idea in short

  • Run some rather simple sensitivity test which tell something about the fundamental about model behaviour
    • Test different grids
    • Different time stepping?
    • Solar radiation, land-use, Coriolis parameter, slab vs full ocean
  • The analysis of the results would be probably interesting, but not in the main role of this course.
    • However, students would deliver a short report and a seminar (reports could be at least a in house source for validation)

Learning outcomes

  • Learn some fundamentals of different type of models
    • What type of questions can be answered with full climate models, ocean/atmosphere stand-alone etc.
  • Learn some fundamentals about the dynamics
    • Why is the Gulf Stream in displaces southward in the models?
    • Why is there no MJO in the model?
    • One often comes across someone making statements like 'don't pay atention to that feature, models/this specific mode never gets it right' or 'yeah, I know that thing, that's just an artefact' and this seems to often be some 'known' issues, but where do they come from (and (how) do we know)?
  • Conservation of properties
    • Why models conserve/don't conserve some properties, why should/shouldn't they, and why do we even care?
    • First steps about model validation
  • Learn how to set-up and run a sensitivity test with a climate model

Time Plan

  • One week intensive lectures and setting-up
    • 3-5 days of lectures (some overlap with setting up the model)
    • 2-3 days of setting up the model experiments (some overlap with the lectures)
  • Period of one month for running the experiments and analysing the data
  • 1 day for the final seminars (arranged as webinar)
    • In addition also a short written report with the main findings

Questions to find out and solve

  • Might be computer expensive, data storage?
    • The computer time shouldn't be much of a problem
    • Since the data storage is also short term it's probably not an issue
  • Lecturers?
    • The best experience with NorESM is already in-house, here are some names with couple of outside guys
    • Bergen: Mats, Ingo, Helge, Odd-Helge, Mehmet, Thomas
    • Oslo: Lars Petter Røed
    • Boulder: Cindy Bruyere
  • Examples of the somewhat similar ones out there already?
    • Stockholm University is offering a class titled "introduction to climate modelling"
    • The University of Helsinki/Finnish met institute is offering a class, where they choose a different model each time and do some specific tests and write a short report. This class is also offered as a web-course for anyone interested.
    • There is also a the European Earth System and Climate Modelling School lead by the NCAS & MPI-M, the length is similar.