1 / 28

ACCENT Integrated Activity 3 Meeting 21-23 June 2004, Paris Michael Prather, UC Irvine

ACCENT Integrated Activity 3 Meeting 21-23 June 2004, Paris Michael Prather, UC Irvine Experience with Integrated Projects & Networks, e.g., Models & Measurements I and II, [TRACE-P Campaign], NASA's Global Modeling Initiative (GMI),. Models & Measurements I, II, and 3D?

adelie
Download Presentation

ACCENT Integrated Activity 3 Meeting 21-23 June 2004, Paris Michael Prather, UC Irvine

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACCENT Integrated Activity 3 Meeting 21-23 June 2004, Paris Michael Prather, UC Irvine Experience with Integrated Projects & Networks, e.g., Models & Measurements I and II, [TRACE-P Campaign], NASA's Global Modeling Initiative (GMI), . . .

  2. Models & Measurements I, II, and 3D? • M&M began with a healthy research community having a large number and wide range of models. Circa 1990 the Upper Atmosphere Theory Program at NASA ($6M/yr) funded basic stratospheric dynamics, stratospheric chemistry and ozone assessment models. • NASA forced model-only comparisons in early 1980s to consolidate predictions of ozone depletion for its mandate to "assess stratospheric ozone". This invited and included all, including European researchers, to participate in prescribed CFC & N2O scenarios. Models included 1D and 2D at the time. • As program manager, initiated Models and Measurements in 1991, written up in 1992, printed (in 3 vol) in 1993. What were the M&M criteria? • (1) Select measurements that can and should be reproducible by the current (primarily 2D, "mean climatology" models). • (2) Make each measurement test a chapter and select a lead author with experience in data analysis (e.g., Ellis Remsberg was co-Editor). • (3) Select a range of observational tests that are basically independent.

  3. ===============================================================MMW'92=================================================================MMW'92== Models & Measurements '92 Workshop: Detailed Agenda ===============================================================MMW'92== History: From: prather@halo.giss.nasa.gov Tue 17 Sep 91 16:00 From REMSBERG@HALOE.LARC.NASA.GOV Tue Sep 17 15:12:33 1991 From: REMSBERG@HALOE.LARC.NASA.GOV Sun Sep 15 15:56:56 1991 From: prather@halo.giss.nasa.gov Wed 28 Aug 91 09:50:41 ===============================================================MMW'92== Notes: This document is available digitally as the file 'MMW92.doc' in the UADP (Upper Atmosphere Data Pilot) at NASA Langley. The ASCII format precludes the use of subs/supers so please note carefully the chemical and mathematical expressions; we have tried to be as standard as possible. The Upper Atmosphere Data Pilot (UADP) at Langley is being operated by Linda Hunt (804-864-5856, hunt@..) and Karen Sage (804-864-5857, sage@..). Bob Seals has temporarily shifted to NASA HQ, and the scientific supervision is now under Richard Eckman and Mary Ann Smith. UADP fax: (804-864-7790), @uadp.larc.nasa.gov (128.155.17.10) @uadp1.larc.nasa.gov (128.155.17.45) (Also available on SPAN as UADP or 10.582) Remember, everyone is responsible for interpolating their model results to the standard UADP grid for comparison! The observational data sets will be on that format: z* = 16 x log10(1000/p), 0 - 60 km, every 2 km [31 levels] 90S to 90N, every 5 degrees [37 latitudes] mid-month preferred, otherwise monthly mean [12 months].

  4. ===============================================================MMW'92=================================================================MMW'92== A. Temperatures and Net Radiative Heating (Nagatani, Harwood, Stordal) B. Stratospheric H2O (Remsberg, Zvenigorodsky) C. Column Ozone (Newman, Fisher, Tung) D. Ozone Profiles (McPeters, Rood, Wuebbles) E. Large-Scale Structures in N2O and CH4 (Grose, Boville) F. NOy Absolute Stratospheric Abundance and Distribution (Zawodny, Solomon) G. Column abundances of HCl, HF, HNO3, NO2, ClONO2. (Rinsland, Bruehl) H. Correlation of Long-Lived Species in Simultaneous Observations (Kawa, Isaksen, Plumb, Schmidt) I. Radionuclides as Exotic Tracers: C-14, Sr-90 (Kinnison, Sasaki, Weisenstein) J. Ruiz Cloud Experiment (Yue, Hitchman, Visconti) K. Model-Model: Photolysis Rates, Solar Heating & IR Cooling (Eckman, Anderson, Yung) L. Model-Model: Radicals, Rates & Budgets for ATMOS profiles (Prather, Douglass, Jadin) M. ATMOS Partitioning of the Chemical Families (Kaye, Brasseur, Pyle) N. Modeled Transport Fluxes of Ozone, NOy, N2O (Ko, Cariolle) O. Model-Model Comparison of Idealized Tracers X1 & X2 (Jackman, Garcia, Mahlman)

  5. Models & Measurements - Conclusions • It takes careful, focused effort to organize studies like • M&M, OxComp, GMI error-analysis, etc. • Except for the scale of the project ("never again"), • most viewed M&M as a success • and an important new tool for their own research. • After M&M when I left NASA and Jack Kaye took over the program, • I envisaged an M&M 3D in which we move M&M into the troposphere. The follow-on M&M II (1999) remained primarily "stratospheric" and 2D in nature, although done with 3D CTMs. • Opportunities for collaboration with US / NASA programs: • At the last GMI meeting, there was off-record discussion (Anne Douglass et al.) of designing M&M-3D that would be tropospheric and based primarily on the new satellite measurements: GOME, SCIAMACHY, MIPAS, AURA (TES, MLS, HIRDLS, OMI)

  6. NASA's Global Modeling Initiative A NASA-funded (~$2M/y) modeling system for global CTMs to provide: (i) an open CTM testbed for individual investigators, (ii) a scientific understanding of model sensitivity to different modules (chemistry, transport, aerosol scavenging, boundary layer, ...) and (iii) fast-response assessments of anthropogenic impacts (strat. and trop.) including uncertainties. Uses a flexible modular platform (developed at LLNL, now at GSFC). Uses components from different research groups for transport, emissions, radiation, chemistry, aerosols, etc. Key advantage of GMI is the ability to explore how differences in components affect the atmospheric chemistry system. Stratospheric papers: • Douglass, A.R., M.J. Prather, T. Hall, S.E. Strahan, P. Rasch, L. Sparling, L.Coy, and J.M. Rodriguez, Selecting the best meteorology for the global modeling initiative's assessment of stratospheric aircraft, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 27545-27564, 1999. • Kinnison, D.E., P. S. Connell, J. M. Rodriguez, D. A. Rotman, D. B. Considine, J. Tannahill , R. Ramaroson, P. J. Rasch, A. R. Douglass, S. L. Baughcum, L. Coy, D. W. Waugh, S. R. Kawa, and M. J. Prather, The Global Modeling Initiative Assessment Model: Application to High-Speed Civil Transport Perturbation, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 1693-1711, 2001. • Rotman, D.A., J.R. Tannahill, D.E. Kinnison, P.S. Connell, D. Bergmann, D. Proctor, J.M. Rodriguez, S.J. Lin, R.B. Rood, M.J. Prather, P.J. Rasch, D.B. Considine, R. Ramaroson, S.R. Kawa, The Global Modeling Initiative assessment model: Model description, integration and testing of the transport shell, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 1669-1691, 2001.

  7. what is the current Global Modeling Initiative? CTMs: • GMI: TPcore, Lin-Rood, MPI, conv. tendencies • UCI: SOM, Prather, openMP&vec, conv. fluxes • NCAR: MATCH, SLT flux form, .... Tropospheric+Stratospheric Met Fields: • GISS-2′, 13 trop. levels • MACCM3, 18 trop levels (below 100 hPa) • DAO (GEOS-STRAT, 1997), 19 trop. levels • all run as 4x5 lat. x long. in CTM Chemistry, etc • Chemical scheme – GEOS-CHEM & full strat. chem. • Photolysis - Fast-J & Kawa tables • Aerosols – Michigan, ...

  8. Accuracy in Chemistry-Transport Modeling, Sources of error: • Part 1. Transport • a. Tracer transport & mixing • b. Meteorological Fields • Part 2. Chemistry • a. . . . • Part 3. Emissions • a. . . . • Transport error occurs due to numerical approximations in the CTM core • (e.g., gridding, flux corrections, advection, boundary layer, convection) • Take the same met fields and two "accurate" CTM core models and • show that they give similar answers and perhaps define transport error. • Lin-Rood tpcore: flux-form SLT, stores only tracer mass in each grid cell, • calculates high-order polynomial fit for advection (only) and discards • after transport, flux corrections to keep positive and eliminate ripples • Prather SOM: flux-form upstream, stores and uses parabolic fit (second-order • moments) to each tracer within each grid cell (9 moments), uses • moments for advection, boundary layer, convection, emissions.

  9. A NEW CONTROLLED TEST OF CTMs with GMI: ff-CO2 Carbon Dioxide Emission Estimates from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Hydraulic Cement Production, and Gas Flaring for 1995 on a 1-deg x 1-deg Grid Cell Basis. Antoinette L. Brenkert, CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Age-of-air: Linear increase in CO2 can be used to diagnose 'age' of stratospheric air. • initialize with zero fossil fuel CO2 • run for 10 years with 1995 ff-CO2 emissions • emissions scaled to 6.17 Tg-C/yr = 2.92 ppm/yr • (slightly different from TransCom3: used 1990  1995)

  10. TransCom3: Understanding the dispersion and mixing of fossil-fuel CO2 is a critical element in inversions & understanding sources/sinks. Current uncertainty range includes different CTMs (some very 'old') and different met fields. Can we reduce the uncertainty due to tracer transport algorithms?

  11. GMI 2.54 ppm/yr 10-year run strat CO2 = age-of-air zonal mean CO2 mixing ratio annual average of Year 10 actual model grid shown. approach to steady-state shown as growth in Yr10 GMI vs. UCI (adv-only) GMI is more “diffusive” UCI is still 24% away from s-s 2.57 2.63 2.70 2.77 2.84 2.89 2.92 UCI 2.28 ppm/yr 2.35 2.46 2.57 2.69 2.81 2.88 2.93

  12. Age-of-air in stratosphere is still a problem: large UCI-GMI differences UCI - GMI > 1 yr in most of strat (N.B. actual model grid shown)

  13. backtrack, do 1-hr / 3-hr tests: a. look at pattern, amount advected from L=15 into L=14 & 16 b. use ‘std’ run (BL and convection did not impact L=14-15-16) L=15 initialized at mix.ratio = 1 L=1 initialized at mix.ratio = 1

  14. Amount of tracer advected (f=1 at L=15) DOWN to L=14 in 1 hr: GMI vs. UCI GMI and UCI look very close, except at the poles UCI averages met fields (4 x 18 at poles) then advects individually GMI advects then averages over 2 polar boxes

  15. 10-year run trop CO2 surface CO2 mixing ratio annual average of Y10 actual 4x5 grid shown GMI GMI appears more “diffusive” UCI retains higher abundances over source regions. but both look similar ! UCI

  16. Alas, the difference between the GMI & UCI CTMs using the same GISS-II' met fields is almost as large as the TransCom3 spread in all models  It appears to be due entirely to the advection algorithm

  17. +2.7 +2.9 +2.7 UCI – GMI (GISS) UCI – GMI (GISS) UCI – GMI (GISS) GISS – diff GISS met GISS – DAO met GISS(yr+1) – GISS(yr) met

  18. Conclusions (1) It takes careful, focused effort to organize and succeed in studies like M&M, OxComp, GMI-error-analysis, . . . ACCENT IA3 is similar to M&M activities, but very different from GMI: (1) no central model & (2) no research funding. GMI brought together a science team for different purposes than this NoE. Specifically, there is substantial NASA funding of a core operation (LLNL and now GSFC) and science (at ~$2M/yr it is >> IA3, but still less than the main NASA funding of atmospheric chemistry modeling). GMI's mandate of (i) delivering assessment runs with uncertainties, and (ii) maintaining a common model, are different from IA3 and so this paradigm does not work. However, there are some lessons about what makes the collaboration work. GMI has produced some major new 'science' – specifically the critical comparison & grading papers (Douglass++, 1999).

  19. Conclusions (2) Given IA3 funding profile, what are the opportunities to provide key "value-added products" so that partner participation is enthusiastic and productive: (1) develop standard, objective benchmarks for grading tropospheric chemistry model performance (M&M-like, STACCATO with tighter 'constraints', should include regional tests related to AQM); these benchmarks must include all initialization, emissions, etc. and diagnostics and measurements. (also part of QA/QS component of ACCENT, M&M activity might be coordinated with NASA ) (2) develop standard process-model code modules for specific processes (e.g., J's. k's, advection, deposition, ...); these modules need to be documented and tested against similar modules and provided in a standalone version by a single 'group'. (3) plan focused "science topic" workshops (e.g., M&M, tests of standalone process modules) including outside experts for lectures or data. Both 1 & 2 above require central data facility with single-minded, dedicated scientific oversight.

  20. Conclusions (3) What is ACCENT's (or GMI's) role in the rapidly evolving scientific world that is building Earth System models or Integrated Assessment models ? Provide the critical evaluation / validation of atmospheric composition modules (photochemistry + meterology + transport) that cannot be done with ESMs or IAMs or even coupled chemistry-climate models. For example, CTMs still rely on the MATCH-like efforts (e.g., Salawitch analysis of ER-2 observations, Crawford & TRACE-P) to test – and sometimes 'fix' – our photochemical modules.

  21. IPCC AR4 slides

  22. IPCC Working Group I Schedule for Fourth Assessment Report 2004 Sep First Lead Author meeting, September 26 to 29, Trieste, Italy Oct Writing of “zero order draft” begins 2005 Jan Zero order draft submitted to Technical Support Unit (TSU) by mid-January Apr Informal review comments to be submitted to TSU by early April May Second Lead Author meeting, probably May 10 to 13, Beijing, China. Note. Literature to be cited will need to be published or available in draft form by this time. Copies of unpublished literature should be sent to the TSU so they can be made available to reviewers if requested. Sep First order draft made available to external reviewers for 8-week review period Nov Third Lead Author meeting, probably December 13 to 16, in New Zealand. Note. Literature to be cited will need to be published or in press by this time. Copies of literature not available through normal library sources should be sent to the TSU so they can be made available to reviewers if requested. 2006 Apr Second order draft made available to external reviewers and Government reviewers Jun Fourth Lead Author meeting, mid June, venue to be decided. Oct Final draft made available to Governments 2007 Jan IPCC Working Group I Plenary Session of Government representatives to approve Summary for Policymakers line by line and accept the underlying report.

  23. IPCC WGI – AR4 CLIMATE CHANGE 2007: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS 1. Historical Overview of Climate Change Science · Progress in Understanding of Radiative Forcing, Processes, and Coupling 2. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing · Recent Changes in Greenhouse Gases · Aerosols – Direct and Indirect Radiative Forcing · Contrails and Aircraft-Induced Cirrus · GWPs and Other Metrics for Comparing Different Emissions 3. Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change 4. Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground 5. Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level 6. Paleoclimate 7. Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System & Biogeochemistry · Global Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Change · Air Quality and Climate Change · Aerosols and Climate Change 8. Climate Models and their Evaluation 9. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change · Radiative Forcing and Climate Response · Understanding Pre-Industrial Climate Change 10. Global Climate Projections · Projected Radiative Forcing · Scenarios and Simple Models 11. Regional Climate Projections

  24. IPCC WGI – AR4 CLIMATE CHANGE 2007: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS 1. Historical Overview of Climate Change Science LE TREUT and SOMERVILLE 2. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing de FORSTER and RAMASWAMY 3. Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change JONES and TRENBERTH 4. Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground LEMKE and REN 5. Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level BINDOFF and WILLEBRAND 6. Paleoclimate JANSEN and OVERPECK 7. Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System & Biogeochemistry BRASSEUR and DENMAN 8. Climate Models and their Evaluation RANDALL and WOOD 9. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change HEGERL and ZWIERS 10. Global Climate Projections MEEHL and STOCKER 11. Regional Climate Projections CHRISTENSEN and HEWITSON

More Related