ACCESS-OM3 evaluation paper discussion
- Global OM3 setup
- Define priorities and who will be working on each config
Agenda (1 hr) (Chaired by Paul Spence, Notes by @fabiobdias ):
Participant list
@PSpence @MATTENGLAND @hrsdawson @edoddridge @pearseb @adele-morrison @AlbertoMeucci Alexander Babanin @fabiobdias @helen @LaurieM @lgbennetts @NoahDay @sofarrell @wghuneke @JuliaN @AndyHoggANU @MartinDix @ezhilsabareesh8 @anton @minghangli @cbull @dougiesquire @claireyung
- Understand NRI perspective (discussion led by Andy/Chris) (5 mins + 5 mins question)
Slides:
2025.05.28_evalpaperdiscussion.pptx (2.7 MB)
- NRI workload;
- NRI working plan/priorities
- global ocean-sea ice model
- Focused on 25km development
- Some overlap with regional ocean mode
- Parameter tuning, optimisation, WOMBAT, waves
- global ocean-sea ice model
- Next steps:
- Logistical steps (grid gen., IC, input files etc) - well understood
- Optimisation/tuning
- Questions / issues arising:
- Priority on 25km - need to develop coarser configuration first (driven in part by development needs for full ACCESS coupled model)
- Climate model would be ideal world - but COSIMA community still needs stand-alone ocean-sea-ice models (e.g. where high res. is needed but would be prohibitive in coupled mode with associated ensemble needs due to intrinsic variability triggered by atmospheric coupling).
- Ocean-Wave coupled with WW3 was not done before at resolution finer than 25km
- Understand COSIMA perspective (discussion led by Adele/Julia) (5 mins + 5 mins questions)
- 19 people said 8-km is mission critical
- Ice shelf cavities - top request feature
- 46 published papers used 0.1deg, 10 papers used 0.25deg.
- Having an awesome model to do science is what the community wants
- There’s lots of steps to get there (WOMBAT, waves, ice shelves, etc)
- Set up priorities (trade off between coupled model development benefits from 25km; vs. needs of COSIMA community for 1/10deg version. Stay with OM2?)
- Discuss options for model dev pathway (discussion led by Andrew/Andy) (5 mins + 5 questions)
- NRI workplan: workflow at 25km is easier to apply to 8km now (while it is still fresh on ppl minds)
- OM2 evaluation paper - had big effort in the optimisation
- Runtime issues will only appear when running the 8km model
- How to organise workplan between 25km and 8km development?
- Keep an eye on open ocean polynyas around Antarctica on the 25km
- How will process of model evaluation work (e.g role of NRI/Cosima)? (discussion led Andrew/Ed) (5 mins + 5 mins questions)
- Fundamental challenge in the technical work required to update the cosima recipes:
- Cosima-cookbook to Catalog-intake
- MOM5 to MOM6
- Challenge on transit to OM3 since OM2 already exists (from ECRs)
- COSIMA vs ACCESS-NRI takeover on the Model Evaluation paper
- More of a scientific task than technical (push for COSIMA led)
- Hypothetical paper ideas (discussion led by Adele/Wilma) (5 mins + 5 questions)
-
CORE model evaluation
- Exclusive OM3-25km
- Technical report with doi reference
- CM3 evaluation (including OM3-25km)
- Resolution comparison (25km Vs 8km)
-
Exploiting technical advances
- Fast tracers:OM3-25km with different flavors of WOMBAT (Pearse et al)
- Ice shelf cavities: OM3-8km (Claire et al)
-
Different resolutions likely to affect primary productivity - an idea for a paper publication
-
Most citations made were to refer to the model configuration (technical aspect)
- Less citations related to the scientific findings?
Some extra items discussed:
-
OM3-100km development?
-
current CM3 testing and MOM6-CICE-WW3 development is being done at 1deg
-
Useful to speed up WOMBAT/BGC development
-
Tuning b/w different resolutions
-
Unclear if the tuning needs to be redone at a different resolution
-
BGC parameters in WOMBAT definitely needed a re-tuning (given the large-scale physics changes between ESM1.5 and ESM1.6)
- Closing summary/action items (discussion led by Paul/Andy) (5 mins)
- Need to define the priority for the first evaluation paper