Community Modeling: What Users Could Use

Janet Luhmann

SSL, University of California, Berkeley

SHINE Workshop, July 2007, Whistler

Some Personal Experiences: Ongoing Activities using Community Models

1. Went through a modest CCMC code-ingestion and run

interface process with a PFSS model submission

2. Graduate student Christina Lee (UCB) is heavily exercising CCMC heliospheric models for her research on solar wind stream structure

3. Expect to use CCMC model runs for STEREO

4. Working with model developers within CISM who are planning to leave a community model code ‘legacy’

1. CCMC Model Ingestion Process Experience

• Prepared versions of source code with easy I/O, a ‘readme’ file of run instructions, a few simple IDL routines to make test plots to verify successful running, and an example.

• CCMC installed the code and interacted with the submitter re. trial runs, asking for a check on the model interface webpage and test case results

• Some subsequent tweaking was done, but no new substantial features were added except CCMC made it possible to plot selected results with their own general 3D graphics tool.

• Possibilities not pursued by either side-that would have been desirable- included improved screening of synoptic maps (use of daily updated maps requires at least caveats re accuracy of results), improved graphics, and user access to numerical results.

2. Student Experience as a Community Model User (Christina Lee’s comments)

• Good user interface at CCMC• Ability to get help from model developers and

staff (e.g., at CCMC)• Turn-around time of result output is fast• Ability to request many runs at a given time• Fast response time to resolve issues

regarding output results• Status of runs submitted are automatically

provided• Modelers are very accommodating to special

requests (to within limits of the model capabilities)

• Useful “quick view” plots are now provided with each run submission result output page

• Not a lot of information about the models on the website (model grid sizes, versions being used, etc)

• References for the models not always provided

The “Positives” The “Not-So-Positives”

Comments on the Models Used

• Currently only utilizes solar magnetograms from NSO/Kitt Peak

• A Large number of Carrington Rotations are not available for run submission due to unusable or absent magnetogram data

• List of Carrington Rotations go back only as far as CR 1986

MAS/ENLIL WSA/ENLIL

Example of Results: Comparison of MAS/Enlil & WSA/Enlil with

ACE Velocity at 1 AU

In the modeled velocity (right), it can be seen that the pattern of high velocity values (orange-red) match fairly well with those from the ACE observations (above).

Noticeable in the model velocity plots are the high values – they are not as high (orange) as those from the ACE observations (more red) .

3. STEREO Mission Support Modeling at CCMC

• Daily runs of certain models (WSA solar wind, PFSS) have been made and selected results posted since launch

• Problems with synoptic maps mentioned earlier also apply here (screening, caveats re. use of daily updated maps)

• Not sure if the results are being looked at or used (yet)• Special cone model runs have been done for the

observed December ICME event but few are aware• Need PR on this activity at STEREO Science meetings

to both expose the involved community to the availability of these results, and to attract users who would apply them in data interpretations (e.g. see what Gordon Petrie has done with the GONG website)

STEREO’s best ICME and SEP-generating event so far occurred in association with a small flare/halo CME on December 13 ‘06 which was positioned for good magnetic connection to Earth.

SOHO imagers saw it but SECCHI was not yet fully on.

SOHO EIT (left) and LASCO (right) images

STEREO/IMPACT detected the results of this and several earlier December events in the SEPs, and in the case of the December 13 halo event observed both SEPs and the ICME.

IMPACT data from LET, STE-U, SWEA and MAG on Behind. GOES x-rays.

CCMC ran a cone model for this event (more than one actually). The case shown here seemed promising, but not many people in

STEREO (or CISM) realized this event is being worked on.

CCMC-Provided Quicklook plot of the propagating December ’06 STEREO ICME

4. CISM Planning for A Community Model

• Facing same questions as other groups and individuals re. identifying a hosting institution, and model maintenance and user support after CISM ends.

• Facing same challenges re. integrating ‘non-CISM’ models into the existing chain, or replacing elements of the chain with other models

• Resources, practicalities, and politics are issues in all of the above

• The need to engage a wider community in discussion of the best strategies for community models as a whole is clear. CISM is planning to promote activities to enable this discussion in the next year or two.

Some user-friendly things to consider in planning or developing a model for community use

• Document the basic model approach, including its limitations and basic products, in a widely accessible publication at the time of or prior to its public release

• Maintain a dated list of subsequent significant changes to the provided model with the source code and with the user interface

• Provide a basic set of graphical tools in a common graphical programming language (such as IDL) for basic diagnostics

• Provide a concise step-by-step test case that can be duplicated with the provided model and graphics tools.

• Provide information to the user regarding model use, credits, access to additional model outputs.

Longer Term Solar/Helio Modeling Concerns

• No space-based coronagraph after SOHO (e.g. Odstrcil cone model depends on it)- not even planned?!

• Needed continuing support for ongoing acquisition of full-disk magnetograph data and consistent construction of pole-corrected synoptic maps (bad maps=bad model results)

• STEREO is the first mission CCMC has offered to support and is providing runs for. Is anyone yet using these results, and are they useful? Is mission-specific or project-specific support by CCMC a good thing? Should the STEREO community promote modeling ‘campaigns’ that include the use of CCMC model versions? Who should follow up?

Extra Slides

Current CCMC solar/helio options

• MAS-ENLIL • WSA-ENLIL for many CRs (1890-2011)• PFSS model• Original WSA model • CCMC 3D visualizer and an additional viz option

for MAS by itself• Helio Tomography model• Exospheric solar wind• U of Michigan CSEM solar/helio models

Some Visualization Capability Comments: Example of CCMC 3D plots showing field lines

from MAS, MAS/ENLIL, and PFSS runs

More flexibility/user control of plots, e.g. selection of field line footpoints, would be good! Also common plot styles for similar models.

Synoptic View Plot Options are particularly useful but best if uniform across models

PFSS only (HSB,SS NL,CH)3D visualizer-MAS Br

3D visualizer-helio V 3D visualizer-helio Br

Suggestions for Plots:

• A common set of plot content options and plot styles for all coronal models

• Choice of radius for showing synoptic results• User-selected field line start points options (e.g. equator

traced back to photosphere)• Use of standard a Carrington coord system, and option

to ‘reverse plot’ longitude to get a pseudo-time series• Quicklook summary plots for runs of similar models are a

good idea..but..• Model name and CR # on high quality downloadable

plots would make results immediately usable