Hi folks, we’re working on ACCESS-OM3 1° and 0.25° global configurations and beginning to scope out higher resolution. Initially we planned on 0.1° but there has been some suggestion to go a little higher, e.g. 1/12°. Note that there are also plans/hopes for a 4th ultra-high resolution, e.g. 1/25° global at some point in the future.
1/10° allows comparison with ACCESS-OM2-01, whereas 1/12° offers some modest resolution improvement.
Do you have an opinion either way? Here’s your chance to have your say before it all gets locked in.
But I think we should do a costing of how computationally expensive a 1/10° or 1/12° ACCESS-OM3 would be relative to the existing ACCESS-OM2-01 before deciding. This is really what it comes down to: what can we reasonably afford to run?
Comparison with ACCESS-OM2-01 will likely become largely obsolete after development.
This is really what it comes down to: what can we reasonably afford to run?
My vote is to go as high resolution as is feasible. Targeting 1/10° just so we can compare with OM2 isn’t a strong motivator to me.
Regarding the 4th higher resolution, I’m excited about the 1/25° (or whatever it ends up being), but I know that we won’t be able to afford decade-scale simulations with it any time soon.
For the ultra-high res model (perhaps 1/24° so it’s a clean double 1/12°?), maybe it’s worth polling the potential users and seeing if a regional ACCESS-OM3 PanAntarctic would satisfy many of the use-cases, because that would make it cheaper. Though I still haven’t got my head around running perturbations in the PanAntarctic, i.e. how to perturb forcing at the boundaries to match atmospheric perturbations and how much does this matter for timescales of interest?
Aidan
(Aidan Heerdegen, ACCESS-NRI Release Team Lead)
5
Random suggestion: could you perturb a lower resolution global model and feed the resulting perturbed model as boundary conditions for the high res regional?