Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
2006-03-21 Work Group Meeting on IT Techniques, Tools and Philosophies for Model Intercomparison
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

2006-03-21 Work Group Meeting on IT Techniques, Tools and Philosophies for Model Intercomparison



Published in Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1.  
  • 2. Work Group Meeting on IT Techniques, Tools and Philosophies for Model Intercomparison Ispra, JRC, March 14, 2004 Data handling approaches, software tools, participant involvement, data dissemination, integration issues Program: 09:00-09:15 Welcome/Background Dentener 09:15-10:00 Thunis/Cuvelier City Delta/Euro Delta 10:00-10:45 Michael Schulz/Stefan Kinne Aerocom 10:45-11:00 Coffee 11:00-11:45 Charles Doutrioux (Ocean modelling) 11:45-12:30 Rudolf Husar American Aerosol intercomparisons 12:30-14:00 Lunch + discussion 14:00-14:30 Christiane Textor (GEMS) 14:30-15:15 Stefano Galmarini Radioactivity Alert system 15:15-15:30 Tea 15:30-17:00 Discussion+ summarizing recommendations
  • 3. Meeting Background & Purpose F. 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
    • 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 »
  • 6. GEMS - C. Textor Global E arth-system M onitoring using S pace 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
    • Python based system
    • Added packages by community
    • One environment,
    • Community Software
    • From central to distributed resources:
    • Data, visualization, supercomputers
    • Collaboration and data sharing
    • Analyst focus on work, not mechanics
    AutoMOD Automated Model Diagnostic Facility CDAT ESG
    • Data adheres to standards
      • NetCDF format, CF compliant
    • Data pre-processed via code
  • 8. ENSEMBLE: Reconciliation of Disparate National Medium/Long Range Dispersion Forecasts Stefano 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 Quality R. 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.
    • A pilot project is the support of the planned 1st phase of the intercomparison under the HTAP convention, by reusing and integrating tools prepared for EuroDelta, ACCENT and AeroCom.
    • Present the initiative at forthcoming meetings (eg AeroCom 17-19 Octobre HTAP workshops etc) and promote its existence through publication (IGAC newsletter? +?)
    • Workplan components:
    • The Workplan aims to identify a detailed implementation plan
    • On What steps are taken, Who is doing them, and When they are ready.
    • Identify the formatting standards needed > units, CF or less strict??
    • Identify standard names for specific tracer variables > report to CF
    • Identify the standard interface specifications between any of the tools and any of the data bases (see slide 5) so that different tools can call and adress each databases
    • To develop a standard protocol form to be used for different intercomparisons and subparts of them ( reference+compliance w check tools)
    • Define standards for file names and image names for databases
    • Develop compliance test tools to test whether data and tools fulfill the standards set under 1-5
    • Implement a pilot database based on automod for testing if different existing tools (AeroCom catalogues etc)
    • Build a web based repository for users to find tools to prepare CF compliant model output (fortran routines) to rename and reformat files (nco examples) to do specific diagnostics (region budgets, aerosol size fractions etc) to do regridding compliant to the standards to handle/replace/identify missing data
    • To develop check tools for physical meaning of data (budgets, units, order of magnitude, ocean/land contrast)
    • Develop observational data comparison tools which interface to the model data as defined under 1-4
    • Develop tools to develop higher order analysis results (ensemble averages, spatial correlation)
    • Documentation tool for keeping track of model version characteristics