Provide feedback on the proposed development pathways and grow the community effort on the CMIP7 submission.
Notes
Conclusions
Feedback
If you want your contribution to exist beyond the room where the breakouts happen you should put your thoughts in a reply to this topic. We encourage all attendees to continue fruitful discussions in replies to this topic for as long as they wish (weeks, years …). This topic will remain available for as long as this site exists.
Ben Galton-Fenzi raises the issue that there will need to be improvement in CABLE’s ice sheet surface scheme. More broadly, it’d be great to see focus on evaluation of atm/ocean forcings across Antarctica and Greenland
We have one more CMIP cycle using the UM… probably. Can the switch to NGMS be the opportunity to solve the constant changing of the underlying model? i.e. integrate CABLE into NGMS as a priority
1 Like
clairecarouge
(Claire Carouge, ACCESS-NRI Land Modelling Team Lead)
7
@Matt_Woodhouse There is the project to integrate CABLE in the JULES repository. This will move to NGMS as the UKMO moves. This project aim is to streamline the coupling. The issue is it takes time to do and it’s the same people who can work on this and prepare the model for CMIP7
Agreed - JAC (JULES and CABLE) is aiming to give that integration. We have got some of the way there but will need to pick it up again when we start thinking about NGMS.
Not specifically on MIPs, but another important issue is ENSO related. We tend to have problems in ENSO simulations in models coupling the UM with MOM. Given its importance for Australia, there should be a dedicated group to discuss/fix this problem in future versions of ACCESS. We need to have a credible physical model in order to have a credible ESM.
From an ACCESS OM3 point of view we need to upgrade to the latest CICE6 code CICE6.4.1 to use the c-grid and then fold in the Met office sea ice coupling code to form ACCESS-CM3 as Kieran Ricardo outlined in his NUOPC talk.
Repeat of zoom comment reply to Ben on ISMIP models. As we heard last night from Colin Jones, the UK ESM2 will have icesheets in all their runs even in their back up ESM1.1 set up. There may be other large groups reaching this point but yes I agree most ice sheet groups will be in the ISMIP approach using CMIP output to force models as a downscaling approach to get the sensitivity to different models, and a range of sea level rise.
High-fidelity aerosol (GLOMAP scheme) is now (inc for CMIP6) baked into the global climate configs, without a simple way of taking it out
Full chemistry (e.g. for trop and strat ozone, methane lifetime, etc) can be optionally included with some effort (post UM10x), but doing so ~doubles the computational cost (due to large number of advected tracers)
In order to participate in AerChemMIP2, it might be a requirement to submit full chemistry simulation to ‘core’ / fast-track activity (as per CMIP6).
There is a small composition community, but composition-climate science is important (e.g. stratospheric ozone recovery and impacts on dynamics), and becoming more so
Lots of earth system feedbacks occur through atmospheric composition
With limited staff resource, compute and storage, including full chemistry for CMIP may not be feasible. Instead, using a CMIP config as a base for a -Chem config for use in the community is a good compromise
Improving aerosol-cloud connections is a strong pathway for improving root cause of Southern Ocean warm bias, and would represent a major Australian contribution, and does not require full chemistry
Matthew England reacted to your message: