Minutes of the Polar Climate
Working Group
22-23 January 2003
NCAR, Boulder, CO
Wednesday,
22 January 2003
1. The meeting was convened by co-chairs
Dick Moritz and Elizabeth Hunke. Twenty-four people attended all or part of the meeting.
2. Dick Moritz presented a brief list of
topics and tasks that the PCWG had agreed to address after the 2002 CCSM
workshop, including:
(i) Experiments to be
performed with the model in various configurations;
(ii) Development of a
test suite for the sea ice model;
(iii) Release of additional versions of CCSM with improved coupler
and other modifications;
(iv) Evaluation of the effects of modifications to the ice ridging
formulation on CSIM simulations.
3. Cecilia Bitz presented highlights of
SSC discussions that are relevant to PCWG. The SSC proposed that CCSM2 be modified to address high priority
problems including the "double ITCZ" and the negative temperature
bias in the tropical tropopause. The
other model working groups are developing the following potential changes at
this time:
ATM - new cloud parameterization (Phil Rasch); new PBL formulation
(Chris Bretherton); and further evaluation of the finite volume (FV) dynamical
core. Cecilia noted that the bias in atmospheric circulation over the arctic
remains a problem important to the PCWG, but it is not currently a high
priority for the SSC.
OCEAN - The KPP horizontal viscosity scheme is being adjusted; the
parameters determining absorption of shortwave radiation in the upper ocean will
be extended to vary with time, latitude, and longitude. There is currently a
warming trend in the CCSM2 ocean model, but the cause is unknown.
LAND - The current scheme for assigning grid cell ground albedo
depends on the snow-covered fraction, and this may be unrealistic, contributing
some 3 -5 degrees C to the warm bias in polar regions.
A new version of CAM (CCSM Atmosphere Model) has a slab ocean.
The CCSM Plan has been outlined and assignments made for writing
the sections. The outline will be discussed
with the CCSM Advisory Board next week. CCSM is also developing a business plan, which deals with the NCAR
portion of CCSM.
The SSC had extensive discussions concerning the Earth Simulator
(ES), a vector supercomputer system being developed in Japan. At NCAR, Maurice Blackmon and Frank Bryan
are involved in a project to use POP on this vector machine to perform
high-resolution eddy resolving ocean simulations. The project also proposes IPCC simulations
to be performed by
CRIEPI using a vectorized version of CCSM. The discussion within the SSC was spirited,
with Maurice advocating collaboration with CRIEPI and with other SSC members
asking how this will
benefit CCSM. The main concern appears to be that CCSM resources (people's
time, expertise) are needed to code and test the vectorized CCSM, but the broad
CCSM community would not have vector computing resources available. Also, diversion of resources would slow the
pressing tasks associated with getting CCSM ready for the IPCC runs to be
performed on NCAR computing machines, while facilitating IPCC runs to be
performed by CRIEPI. Of particular
interest are efforts by Fujitsu America and LANL to vectorize the LANL sea ice
model (CICE). There is general interest
in PCWG to consider whether and how to create a single CSIM code that runs
efficiently on both vector and parallel machines. This is discussed further in later sections.
The SSC is planning for the 2003 CCSM Workshop, including some
changes to the format. This year the
PCWG meeting will be run simultaneously with the Paleo WG, so that participants
can attend both the Polar and the Climate Change WG meetings.
Phil Merilees added that the SSC and NSF-ATM (Jay Fein) have
available $25K to support outreach, especially visits by active CCSM scientists
to universities. Such visits would be
designed to inform the broader community of CCSM models, research and
opportunities, and to drum up interest in the CCSM.
The SSC discussed the Climate Change plan of the current federal
administration. It was noted that the
CCSM plan would now include a section on "Applied Climate Modeling" that
deals with IPCC and similar experiments.
The SSC is promoting collaboration between CCSM and GFDL, which is
already active. Mike Winton is trying
to identify and hire an appropriate postdoc to implement the CSIM in the new
GFDL climate modeling framework. The
(old Manabe/Bryan) GFDL model has a large global delta-T under greenhouse
forcing, but rather small polar amplification (even though the magnitude of
delta-T in the polar regions is quite large). Alex Hall suggests this grassroots effort be expanded to include others,
e.g., Tom Delworth.
4. Dick Moritz presented results from
simulations of the annual evolution of ocean, atmosphere, and ice variables at
the SHEBA experiment site, as simulated by a single column model version of
CCSM. Variations of most simulated
variables on scales of a few days to one year are encouragingly similar, in a
qualitative sense, to observations. The
most obvious exception to this is the cloud fraction, which does not capture
the observed winter minimum. Quantitatively, there are significant discrepancies in the incoming
shortwave and longwave radiation, the onset and duration of the melt season,
surface albedo, and the air temperature profile in summer. Sensitivity
experiments with a 10% increase in horizontal temperature advection show that
perturbations to the surface albedo account for most of the large increase in
sea ice ablation.
5. Cecilia Bitz presented results from simulations
with the CCM, augmented with a more realistic (but still prescribed) sea ice
surface boundary condition, and with horizontal resolutions T42, T85, and T170.
The well-known bias in the T42 surface atmospheric circulation over the Arctic
Ocean is reduced in the T85 simulation, but remains sufficiently large to
adversely affect ice motion and the pattern of mean ice thickness. Additional experiments indicate that the
improvement at T85 is due primarily to the effect of more highly resolved
orography interacting with the higher resolution atmospheric dynamics.
6. Alex Hall posed the questions "How
do we characterize unusual variability, and is the variability of climate in
the polar regions unusual?" Criteria include the magnitude of variability, the redness of the
spectrum, spectral peaks, and skewed pdf's. He presented results of analysis of GFDL R15 output (15000 years) and
CCSM2 output (600 years).
7. Phil Rasch presented an update on his
studies of cloud physics in CAM, conducted in collaboration with Byron Boville,
and focusing especially on cloud ice processes and effects. Problems that may be affected by the cloud
physics include the cold tropopause in the tropics, the warm polar climate, the
warm summers in the extratropics, energy conservation problems associated with
phase changes that involve the latent heat of fusion in the atmosphere, and
temporal discontinuities in upper tropospheric cloud occurrence that depend on
static stability which affects the RH threshold for cloud occurrence.
Phil has changed the way ice crystal size depends on T,P using the
formulation of Mitchell and Kristjansson (this MK formula came from studies of
tropic/mid-latitude cirrus). Phil also
implemented sedimentation velocities for ice and liquid particles. The crystal size controls the sedimentation
velocities. This differs from the
Heymsfield approach in which velocity is a function of the mixing ratio of
ice. Phil also implemented a different
temperature dependence of ice/water mixing ratio that is consistent with both
the cloud microphysics and the radiation schemes. Thus, the only remaining "combined" physics
(that does not distinguish processes and physics of ice and liquid condensate)
is the
condensation term. Phil thinks we can
now remove from the model some parameterizations and constraints in the older
models that compensated for the absence of feedbacks that will now operate more
naturally.
The new model has a single, 90% RH threshold at all x,y,z. Phil notes a paper by Boudal, et al. in the International
Journal of Climatology, that reports on the size and shape distribution of
ice particles in the polar regions. Byron and Phil plan to submit their revised model to the SSC to be
included in the next version of the CAM. They are hoping to write two papers.
Preliminary analysis of simulation results with the new physics
indicates it is influential on cloud optical depth and radiation, but perhaps
not especially influential on cloud fraction.
8. Keith Hines presented a comparison of clouds
and radiation simulated over Antarctica, using a variety of versions of CCM,
and also observations. (This was a continuation of work of Briegleb and
Bromwich, 1998a,b.) These were AMIP and climatological SST experiments. Model
variations included the RRTM radiation code and the old diagnostic and RK
prognostic cloud water schemes.
Findings:
(i) Interior
Antarctica (south of 75S) is a region of largest sensitivity to clouds and
radiation within NCAR climate models.
(ii) Introduction of prognostic cloud water is found to have a
much larger impact than the introduction of RRTM.
(iii) CCM3 and CAM2 have large cold biases during summer in the
middle and upper troposphere. The
problem is largest near the tropopause.
(iv) The radiative effects of Antarctic clouds appear to be
excessive.
(v) Early
version of CAM2/CCSM2 does not appear to be improvements over CCM3.
(vi) To improve surface energy balance, the very shallow, stable
PBL needs to be better treated in addition to improvements in clouds and radiation.
Jeff Kiehl notes that CAM2 has a problem in that PBL height (which
is diagnosed) that can be lower than the lowest model level. When this happens mixing is unrealistically
inhibited, and this probably has effects on cloud processes. To remedy this, the AMWG has implemented an
interim fix in CAM2.
9. Bruce Briegleb presented a summary of
the polar biases seen in the CCSM2 sea ice simulations. He analyzed years 901-1000 of the long
control run. Also, he has done a
fitting procedure to remove bias from the CCSM2 output fields of radiation and
winds, so that he can force the AIO model with CCSM2 output that does not
contain these biases. The biases were
removed with respect to ECMWF estimates of these quantities. Reductions in
these biases separately improved the simulation, but the best simulation
resulted from both acting together.
10. Marika Holland presented analyses of the
variability of Antarctic sea ice in the CCSM2 control run, years 350-900.
The dominant mode of variability in Antarctic sea ice cover
exhibits a dipole pattern with anomalies of one sign in the Pacific and of the
opposite sign in the Atlantic. This mode of variability has been documented in
observations. Here we examine 600 years of a control simulation of the CCSM2 to
determine the simulated sea ice area variability and the mechanisms driving
this variability. The dominant modes of simulated variability compare very well
to the observations both in their spatial distribution and magnitude. These variations in the ice cover have
limited intra-basin eastward propagation that appears to be related to the
observed Antarctic circumpolar wave.
The mechanisms driving the simulated sea ice variability are
examined. In particular, the interplay of dynamic and thermodynamic processes in
forcing the ice variability and how these relate to atmosphere and ocean
conditions, including those associated with the southern oscillation and the
southern annular mode, are investigated. The relationships found are consistent
with the atmosphere and ocean forcing of the sea ice variability, with
different processes dominating in the different basins. There is also some
indication that positive feedbacks associated with the sea ice conditions
influence the atmosphere and ocean temperatures in the regions, acting to
prolong the life of the anomalies.
11. Cecilia Bitz presented an analysis of the
controls on the position of the sea ice edge. She mentioned CCM simulations by John Chiang (University of Washington)
of the last glacial maximum in which sea ice is PRESCRIBED (LGM) and SST is
computed using a slab model. The
results show that the LGM sea ice is associated with up to 12 degrees C
decreased Ts in both polar regions. Results were shown for the energy budget of the ocean and the ocean-ice
column at ice edge locations. The
variations in ice edge position appear to result mainly from variations in
(a) oceanic heat transported into high latitudes and (b) wind patterns
that blow the ice poleward, equatorward, or east-west.
12. Elizabeth Hunke presented results from
ice-ocean simulations with POP and CICE, motivated by the fact that THC tends
to diminish or shut down in POP-CICE simulations unless (a) SSS is
restored or (b) the whole thing is coupled to the atmosphere, whereas MICOM (an
isopycnal ocean model) tends to oversimulate the THC in such experiments.
Comparison of several runs at different resolutions indicate that
mixing and convection at high latitudes are sensitive to model
configuration. Two runs at
approximately 3 degrees resolution (gx3), one with 180-day surface salinity
restoring, the other without restoring, both show anomalous mixing in the
Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean that leads to deep water formation. Mixing does not occur in a similar
non-restoring run at 0.4 degrees resolution, nor does it occur in the CCSM
control run at 1 degree (gx1). While
surface temperatures are warmer in the gx3 runs than the higher resolution
runs, admitting more evaporation and greater surface salinity, the more
critical difference seems to lie below the surface, where the gx3 runs are much
fresher. Hence, the gx3 runs are unstable (relatively salty over fresh) where
the 0.4 is stable (relatively fresh over salty). These differences could be due to the path of the ACC and/or to
differences in ice formation/brine rejection near the coast. Comparison with gx1 indicates the ACC path
is less likely the culprit than ice/brine formation.
Within the ice edge, simulations at 3 degree resolution are unable
to reproduce polynyas correctly, not producing enough brine in some locales
while overturning excessively in others. Surface salinity restoring suppresses mixing in the Southern Hemisphere
polynyas by freshening the surface (although it does not suppress mixing in the
South Pacific, north of the ice edge).
13. Discussion:
What is the PCWG plan to address polar biases? Should the focus of
the PCWG be on the ice thickness, extent, and volume?
Alex Hall suggests things will go better if we define a focal point
for our work, analogous to the focus of the AMWG on the double ITCZ. For
example, should we focus on the biases in the wind and radiation fields?
Steve Vavrus suggests that we focus on arctic (or polar) problems
that have large, demonstrable effects on the global simulation.
Bill Lipscomb suggests we need to go beyond just ice thickness and
extent, and need to include ice motion and fluxes in our focus.
Cecilia Bitz notes that there is a sign error in the mean sensible
heat flux over sea ice in CCSM2. Is
this a boundary layer problem or a radiation/cloud problem, or some of each?
Marika Holland notes that ocean heat transport into the Atlantic
Arctic, especially the Barents, is oversimulated by CCSM2, affecting the ice
edge and possibly the troublesome trends in the ocean. Is this a broad scale North Atlantic problem
or is it more localized to problems near the ice edge and the arctic marginal
seas?
Alex Hall suggests devoting more time/effort to analyze existing
simulations and performing experiments with the existing model. He is particularly interested in seeing the
CCSM2 control run extended beyond 1000 years.
Cecilia Bitz - There is a problem with the version of CAM that has
the slab ocean. The concern is that the
Qflux in each grid cell, which varies with position and time (mean annual
cycle), is prescribed differently in a given grid cell if the cell is covered
by open water or by ice. This
introduces a feedback, e.g., when ice covers a formerly open ocean point, the
Qflux changes that could act to enhance or damp the ice anomaly.
Thursday,
23 January 2003
1. Julie Schramm - Update on CSIM
(i) Added
Lipscomb remapping on 12/02. Other
modifications include correction to tilt terms in coupler, which were
multiplied by an area correction.
(ii) Added new coupler
CPL6 on a branch 01/03
(iii) CSIM "Requirements" document has been drafted and is
ready for review. The Developer's Guide is in progress. The scientific document
needs to be updated for remapping.
(iv) All components of CCSM must be compliant with ESMF by April,
2004. ESMF is a software infrastructure
to enhance ease of use, performance, portability, data communication, and
coupling. ESMF is in the design stage, further implementation in CSIM is
unclear. Tim Killeen is the PI of ESMF. SSC has not discussed this yet, CC will bring it up with them at the
next meeting.
(v) Phil Jones is
funded by ESMF to make POP compliant.
(vi) The PCWG computer allocation for January is 2742 GAU's, so far
45% have been used up. We will get a
2.6X increase in GAU in February.
(vii) List of 8 experiments the PCWG
agreed to. Phil Merilees - What is the list of scientific questions that
goes with these runs? (Julie will provide the info, used in the
CSL proposals).
(viii) Need list of proposed changes to CSIM for IPCC deadline of March, 2003:
-- Add constant
ice salinity to the sea ice model
-- Make minor changes to albedo
formulas (bug)
-- Modify the ridging scheme (how?)
to make more realistic thick ice. (But
do we
(ix) CCSM is setting up
a Change Review Board (CRB)
CCSM2.1 beta release aiming for spring 2003 with CPL06, CLM2.1,
and any physics improvements that are ready. New tests will be applied: error growth tests, bit-for-bit
reproducibility on different numbers of processors. The minutes of this group will go on the web.
2. Cliff Chen - Vectorizing CICE
The concepts of vectorization, which includes Amdahl Law, the
influence of vector length on performance, and three methods to vectorize
IF-branch were introduced. Then we
talked about tuning of CICE 3.1. Two of
the most time consuming subroutines, stability and stepu, were tuned. The original stability was running in scalar
mode and the original stepu has been fully vectorized. We isolated the IF branch first and concated
two layers of do-loop into one to increase the vector length. After tuning, we gained more than 50 times
performance improvement with stability, and more than 3 times improvement with stepu. The tuned stability still provides
bit-for-bit results on SGI IRIX64 system and ran slightly 10% faster. With the
experience of these two subroutines, we conclude that vectorization of CICE is
feasible.
3. Bill Lipscomb - MPDATA and Incremental Remapping
for Ice Transport
Incremental remapping is a transport scheme with several desirable
features: it is conservative, monotonicity-preserving, second-order accurate
(except where the accuracy is reduced locally to preserve monotonicity), and
efficient for solving the large systems of transport equations in
multi-category sea ice models. The Los
Alamos sea ice model, CICE, has used an incremental remapping scheme for sea
ice transport since November, 2001. This scheme was recently added to the CSIM of the CCSM. In a one-year run at NCAR on a 1-degree grid
in an active-ice-only configuration, remapping was 55% faster than the current
transport scheme, MPDATA, leading to a 21% drop in total time for the ice model. In stand-alone CICE runs at Los Alamos,
remapping is about three times faster than MPDATA, and marginal costs for
additional categories and ice layers are 4-6 times lower.
Remapping outperforms MPDATA in standard advection tests. Both schemes have some diffusion (much less
than the first-order upwind scheme), but MPDATA produces spurious extrema in
both transported fields (area, volume, and energy) and passive tracers
(thickness and enthalpy), while remapping does not. In active-ice-only runs using CCSM, remapping and MPDATA yield
similar results. The largest
differences are in the GIN Sea in winter and the Labrador Sea in summer, where
MPDATA gives systematically lower ice concentrations. Negative thermodynamic
feedbacks appear to compensate for differences in the advection schemes. Differences between the two schemes might be
larger in fully coupled runs, which will be performed during the next few
weeks.
4. Keith Olsen - The Snow Model in CLM2
Keith was invited to participate in the PCWG by the co-chairs, in
order to initiate discussions about upgrading the snow model in CSIM, and how
we might use largely existing technology from the CCSM land model.
(i) LSM was developed by Y. Dai, University of Georgia (IAP94)(ii) Liang Yan, University of Arizona (has his own model called VISA)The above are the two main LMWG snow modelers.
There are 5 layers in the snow where we keep track of M(H20),
M(ice), h(layer), and T(layer). In the
subsurface layers there are melting and freezing and flow. Snow and soil temperatures are solved for
simultaneously. The snow skin T is not
solved for using the sfc energy budget; instead, the heat capacity of the sfc
layer is tuned to achieve a fit to an idealized diurnal cycle function to get
skin temperature.
Three processes represent the compaction of snow: crystal
metamorphosis; overburden pressure and melt. SCF is the snow cover fraction, and this is a function of snow depth and
roughness. It will probably be modified
or replaced in the next version.
SCF = hs/(10*zo + hs)
The snow model is verified as a set of 1D models forced by
meteorological observations at the local site.
5. Discussion of Additional Problems and
Model Physics - Elizabeth Hunke
E. Hunke - There is a problem with the new coupler. CPL5 takes 1178 Mbytes memory and cannot run
on the LANL 512 processor machine. EH proposes this as a reason to "subroutinize" the
model. This problem comes up at high resolution and on the SGI.
E. Hunke - Marginal ice zone free drift. Right now, when the area of ice, Aice, is less than some threshold,
CCSM sets the ice velocity to zero to prevent blowup. The problem is that the model velocity depends on ice area
(through the ice mass), but it should not in low concentration areas where
floes do not interact. Elizabeth and
John Dukowicz are working on a remedy for this problem.
Code vectorization - We
need to prioritize the runs that need to be done, and be more specific. Looking ahead, will we have to adopt
vectorized CICE or should we mount an effort to vectorize CSIM as it exists
now? Should we merge the codes and keep
them merged? Shouldn't we separate the
vectorization process from the IPCC priorities?
Constant salinity - Cecilia Bitz and Julie Schramm will do this.
Albedo changes - no significant changes to be implemented at this time.
Ridging changes - not for the IPCC.
Table of Modeling Runs for PCWG
#1 - Ice feedback in enhanced CO2
scenario, and a companion run with a fixed ocean. It will take 1 month to get the code in and produce.
#2 - Coupled incremental remapping run.
#3 - Coupled runs with various g(h)
categories: 1 cat, 5 cat (control), 10
cat.
#4 -
Implement constant ice salinity - CC will code it, Julie will run it. This will be done with AIO and coupled (15
years). It may also require another 1%
CO2 run, where the CO2 increase begins after the time at
which the shared constants were fixed in the control run. Tony says they are
doing a run starting at 950 years. The
ocean group will test this out.
AMIP T85
run for the SHEBA year - check with Jim Hack. ARCMIP is interested in this. Analyze the polar atmosphere. No
additional resources needed.
Monthly
mean values should be processed on the fly: h, Ai, ui, Ts
Bill Large
- The coupler group now produces a 2m temperature in the air, but it is not
done correctly. It needs to be based on
a profile analysis of potential temperature, not temperature. Bill suggests that in doing this correctly,
they also get 2 meter values of RH and wind velocity.