Earth Virtualization Engines -- A Technical Perspective
Authors:
Torsten Hoefler,
Bjorn Stevens,
Andreas F. Prein,
Johanna Baehr,
Thomas Schulthess,
Thomas F. Stocker,
John Taylor,
Daniel Klocke,
Pekka Manninen,
Piers M. Forster,
Tobias Kölling,
Nicolas Gruber,
Hartwig Anzt,
Claudia Frauen,
Florian Ziemen,
Milan Klöwer,
Karthik Kashinath,
Christoph Schär,
Oliver Fuhrer,
Bryan N. Lawrence
Abstract:
Participants of the Berlin Summit on Earth Virtualization Engines (EVEs) discussed ideas and concepts to improve our ability to cope with climate change. EVEs aim to provide interactive and accessible climate simulations and data for a wide range of users. They combine high-resolution physics-based models with machine learning techniques to improve the fidelity, efficiency, and interpretability of…
▽ More
Participants of the Berlin Summit on Earth Virtualization Engines (EVEs) discussed ideas and concepts to improve our ability to cope with climate change. EVEs aim to provide interactive and accessible climate simulations and data for a wide range of users. They combine high-resolution physics-based models with machine learning techniques to improve the fidelity, efficiency, and interpretability of climate projections. At their core, EVEs offer a federated data layer that enables simple and fast access to exabyte-sized climate data through simple interfaces. In this article, we summarize the technical challenges and opportunities for developing EVEs, and argue that they are essential for addressing the consequences of climate change.
△ Less
Submitted 16 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
Recent progress and review of issues related to Physics Dynamics Coupling in geophysical models
Authors:
Markus Gross,
Hui Wan,
Philip J. Rasch,
Peter M. Caldwell,
David L. Williamson,
Daniel Klocke,
Christiane Jablonowski,
Diana R. Thatcher,
Nigel Wood,
Mike Cullen,
Bob Beare,
Martin Willett,
Florian Lemarié,
Eric Blayo,
Sylvie Malardel,
Piet Termonia,
Almut Gassmann,
Peter H. Lauritzen,
Hans Johansen,
Colin M. Zarzycki,
Koichi Sakaguchi,
Ruby Leung
Abstract:
Geophysical models of the atmosphere and ocean invariably involve parameterizations. These represent two distinct areas: Subgrid processes that the model cannot resolve, and diabatic sources in the equations, due to radiation for example. Hence, coupling between these physics parameterizations and the resolved fluid dynamics and also between the dynamics of the air and water, is necessary. In this…
▽ More
Geophysical models of the atmosphere and ocean invariably involve parameterizations. These represent two distinct areas: Subgrid processes that the model cannot resolve, and diabatic sources in the equations, due to radiation for example. Hence, coupling between these physics parameterizations and the resolved fluid dynamics and also between the dynamics of the air and water, is necessary. In this paper weather and climate models are used to illustrate the problems. Nevertheless the same applies to other geophysical models. This coupling is an important aspect of geophysical models. However, often model development is strictly segregated into either physics or dynamics. As a consequence, this area has many unanswered questions. Recent developments in the design of dynamical cores, extended process physics and predicted future changes of the computational infrastructure are increasing complexity. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art of the physics-dynamics coupling in geophysical models, surveys the analysis techniques, and illustrates open questions in this field. This paper focuses on two objectives: To illustrate the phenomenology of the coupling problem with references to examples in the literature and to show how the problem can be analysed. Proposals are made on how to advance the understanding and upcoming challenges with emerging modeling strategies. This paper is of interest to model developers who aim to improve the models and have to make choices on and test new implementations, to users who have to understand choices presented to them and finally users of outputs, who have to distinguish physical features from numerical problems in the model data.
△ Less
Submitted 12 June, 2017; v1 submitted 20 May, 2016;
originally announced May 2016.
