AeroCom organisation

Core team : Christiane Textor, Sarah Guibert, Stefan Kinne, Joyce Penner, Michael Schulz, Frank Dentener (LSCE-MPIM-JRC-UMI)

Initial questionary Oct 2002 to define output four intensive workshops since 2003 (Paris, Ispra, New York, Oslo, each 40 participants)

Open call for model participation ( -> ca 20 models ), 3 experiments (original model + emissions 2000 + 1750)

Central model output database (~2TB) at LSCE and public web interface to image catalogues, joint papers

Funding through: EU projects PHOENICS and CREATE, NASA for indirect effect study, institutes themself, ACCENT+European science foundation

Analysis

Model simulation

Model diagnostics

submission

feedback

Analysisstorage

Visualisation

Intercomparison Database

Storage

Access

WWW access

Observational Database

Scientific papers

Image database

FTP

email

idl

RAID server

idl

idl

Perl/javascript

AeroCom Workup Structure

Model descriptionexcel

CheckFormat

ReformatRegrid

ProtocolNCDUMP NCO/ncregrid

feedback

netCDF

WEBSITE

cp

png divers

http://nansen.ipsl.jussieu.fr/AEROCOM/data.html

WWW access

Image database

Perl/javascript png

ACCENT Emission database visualisation

RETRO 40 year simulation visualisation

AEROCOM interfaces

INCA chemical weather forecast

Why we should cooperate:AeroCom tools exported to other projects(Harmonised structure Interface to image database

AEROCOM comparison to data interfaces

WWW access

Image database

Perl/javascript png

Model DataDatabase

(Distributed DODS?)

Meta Databasemysql

Interface to

model

Interface

to

check

tools

Interface toAnalysis tools

Interface toInteractive

analysistools

IntermediateAnalysis results

Database

ImageDatabase

Interface toW

eb

Intercomparisons –a communication problem

FEEDBACK to modeller FEEDBACK to Analyst/Observer

How can we cooperate?

Mo

del

ou

tpu

tM

etad

ata

bas

eR

esu

lts

dat

abas

eIm

age

dat

abas

e

AnalysisVisualisationReformatting

RegriddingInteractive analysis

CheckingMetadatabase

WEB

How fuzzy should the interface definition be?

Illustration of communication success between model output and analysis

Analysisfunctionsnot used

Modeloutputnot used

Foreseenadaptationbutuseless

Perfectfunctioning

Analysisdoes not work

Foreseenadaptationfromanalysistools

AdaptationfromModel side

Analysis works

Proposal for cooperation« Atmospheric Tracer Model Intercomparison Tools Initiative »

GoalsGeneral Goals • Accelerate Analysis of Models and Feedback to model participants• Develop jointly intercomparison tools through transformation, integration, adaptation and development of tools• Allow participants to join more easily into the analysis of an intercomparison

Specific Objectives to which the Network should contributefor any intercomparison

Model documentationModel quality controlModel comparisonModel benchmarkingModel improvementScientific understanding

Proposal part II« Atmospheric Tracer Model Intercomparison Tools Initiative »

Procedure

In the first place tutorial institutions are identified, which providegeneral support for the planning and implementation of the initiative(JRC, LSCE/IPSL + ??)

A steering committee is put into place to develop the initiative and report to the tutorial institutions.

A work plan is elaborated until early summer 2006 to structure and prioritisethe actions to be undertaken.

A pilot project is the support of the planned 1st phase of the intercomparison under the HTAP convention, by reusing and integrating tools prepared for EuroDelta,ACCENT and AeroCom.

Present the initiative at forthcoming meetings (eg AeroCom 17-19 Octobre HTAP workshops etc) and promote its existence through publication (IGAC newsletter? +?)

Proposal part III « Atmospheric Tracer Model Intercomparison Tools Initiative »

Workplan components:The Workplan aims to identify a detailed implementation planOn What steps are taken, Who is doing them, and When they are ready.

1) Identify the formatting standards needed > units, CF or less strict??2) Identify standard names for specific tracer variables > report to CF3) Identify the standard interface specifications

between any of the tools and any of the data bases (see slide 5)so that different tools can call and adress each databases

4) To develop a standard protocol form to be used for differentintercomparisons and subparts of them ( reference+compliance w check tools)

5) Define standards for file names and image names for databases

6) Develop compliance test tools to test whether data and toolsfulfill the standards set under 1-5

7) Implement a pilot database based on automod for testingof different existing tools(AeroCom catalogues etc)

8) Build a web based repository for users to find toolsto prepare CF compliant model output (fortran routines) to rename and reformat files (nco examples)to do specific diagnostics (region budgets, aerosol size fractions etc)to do regridding compliant to the standardsto handle/replace/identify missing data

9) To develop check tools for physical meaning of data(budgets, units, order of magnitude, ocean/land contrast)

10) Develop observational data comparison tools which interface to the model data as defined under 1-4

11) Develop tools to develop higher order analysis results (ensemble averages, spatial correlation)

12) Documentation tool for keeping track of model version characteristics

Proposal part IV « Atmospheric Tracer Model Intercomparison Tools Initiative »

Workplan components (continued):