Model Equilibration to Initial Start-up Conditions Evaluating the rate at which the TIEGCM adjusts to start-up histories that differ in known ways from.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Steve Rumbold Keith Shine, Lesley Gray Charlotte Pascoe (CASE, RAL) Picture: Strat Hour - July 05, 2006 The University.

Advertisements

Is the shape below a function? Explain. Find the domain and range.

Line Balancing Problem A B C 4.1mins D 1.7mins E 2.7 mins F 3.3 mins G 2.6 mins 2.2 mins 3.4 mins.

Min 1.e2 Zp 1.0 Min 1.e3 Zp 1.0 Min 1.e2 Zp 2.5 Min 1.e3 Zp 2.5 Log10 O+: -5->5.9 (all)

Status report on Light Simulator Claudia Cecchi Francesca Marcucci Monica Pepe Software meeting Udine January

Development and Computer Simulation of the Performance of Solar Oven for Meat Roasting Musa Momoh Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto Third NSF Workshop.

AgWeatherNet The growth rates of insects and diseases on plants are dependent upon the amount of heat the plant receives. Each insect or disease is adapted.

Data mining and statistical learning, lecture 2 Outline  An example of data mining  SAS Enterprise miner.

Note: Daily averages are based on Julian day 28,14, and 7-day averages are rolling, to precede the given upwelling date. One day mean minus 28-day mean.

Assessment of Future Change in Temperature and Precipitation over Pakistan (Simulated by PRECIS RCM for A2 Scenario) Siraj Ul Islam, Nadia Rehman.

Rafkin et al VTGCM1 VTGCM and Applications to VEX and PVO Data Analysis: Upgraded Simulations (F10.7 ~70 & 200) Venus Express Science Meeting Thuile, Italy.

AgWeatherNet Annual Note: Be sure you have already selected your station before choosing this product. Select AWN Reports Click on Annual.

Importance of the Height Distribution of Joule Heating for Thermospheric Density Arthur D. Richmond and Astrid Maute NCAR High Altitude Observatory.

Abstract The non-dipolar portions of Earth's main magnetic field constitute substantial differences between the geomagnetic field configurations of both.

Latitude / Longitude Lat/lon practice map. The Equator and Parallels of Latitude.

Math – Getting Information from the Graph of a Function 1.

1 Robert Schaefer and Joe Comberiate for the SSUSI Team Robert SchaeferJoe Comberiate (240) (240)

TIEGCM Community Release of Version 1.94 Ben Foster June, 2011 CEDAR Workshop 1.

ENERGY INSTITUTE Battery Research Group NiMH Battery Pack for HEV Cem Kaypmaz 2008 İstanbul.

SFT 2841 IN CONNECTED MODE Prepare setting files.

1 C. “Nick” Arge Space Vehicles Directorate/Air Force Research Laboratory SHINE Workshop Aug. 2, 2007 Comparing the Observed and Modeled Global Heliospheric.

1 Ancillary Services Requirements for Future Ancillary Services Cost Benefit Analysis FAS/SIRS Meeting September 21, 2015.

UTSA Estimating Model Parameters from Ionospheric Reverse Engineering (EMPIRE) G. S. Bust and G. Crowley UTSA S. Datta-Barua ASTRA.

DIAGNOSTIC ASPECTS OF THE GEOS-4 FVGCM NATURE RUN 1.Hurricane Tracking and slp skewness 2. Realism of Extreme Values. Juan Carlos Jusem Presentation at.

ESD.70J Engineering Economy Module - Session 21 ESD.70J Engineering Economy Fall 2006 Session Two Alex Fadeev - Link for this PPT:

OThree Chemistry MM5/CAMx Model Diagnostic and Sensitivity Analysis Results Central California Ozone Study: Bi-Weekly Presentation 2 T. W. Tesche Dennis.

Thermospheric General Circulation Models (TGCM’s) Brief History of Software Development Current State of the Codes Software Challenges and Development.

Brutally Cold February Jamie Student CSC010 February 27, 2015.

Quantitative Evaluation of Embedded Systems. Given a dataflow graph with execution times E a Determine the MCM and choose a period μ ≥ MCM Determine start-times.

The Mesoscale Ionospheric Simulation Testbed (MIST) Regional Data Assimilation Model Joseph Comberiate Michael Kelly Ethan Miller June 24, 2013.

Panut Manoonvoravong Bureau of research development and hydrology Department of water resources.

1 Blend Times in Stirred Tanks Reacting Flows - Lecture 9 Instructor: André Bakker © André Bakker (2006)

SVN tag tiegcm1.92_r325 has been saved as an interim code to tiegcm1.93 We propose that this revision be tested and evaluated over a 2-week period, during.

Ten-Year Simulations of U.S. Regional Climate Z. Pan, W. J. Gutowski, Jr., R. W. Arritt, E. S. Takle, F. Otieno, C. Anderson, M. Segal Iowa State University.

Predicting Near Space Flights L. Paul Verhage 13 July 2013.

Severe Winter Weather Resource Outage Analysis Chad Thompson Operations Working Group September

Formosat3/COSMIC Workshop, Taipei, Oct. 1-3, 2008 The Ionosphere as Signal and Noise in Radio Occultation Christian Rocken, Sergey Sokolovskiy, Bill Schreiner,

MODIS Enhanced-V 1.MODIS IR covering Enhanced-V event 0430z May 25, 2004 Located MODIS L1B Granule at LAADs (MODIS archive and distribution web site) that.

Synthesis of work on Budget of Water Vapor and Trace gases in Amazonia Transport and Impacts of Moisture, Aerosols and Trace Gases into and out of the.

TAS-I/ESA Progress Meeting – 11 th July 2012 Design of a new global dust storm scenario for GCM simulations L. Montabone, E. Millour, F. Forget.

Hirophysics.com The Genetic Algorithm vs. Simulated Annealing Charles Barnes PHY 327.

UERRA User Workshop Toulouse, 4 th Feb 2016 Questions to the users.

Welcome to Equatorial-PRIMO

Warm Ups Term 4 Week 6.

Dr. Faith Ann Heinsch September 8, 2008

Thermosphere-Ionosphere Issues for DASI - I:

TIEGCM with AMIE RENU Rocket Cusp Density

Prospects for real-time physics-based thermosphere ionosphere models for neutral density specification and forecast Tim Fuller-Rowell, Mariangel Fedrizzi,

NYS Latitude & Longitude

Astrid Maute, Art Richmond, Ben Foster

New approach for evaluating Equivalent fire severity of Design fires

The Urban Heat Island Effect in Atlanta, Georgia

Update 2.2: Uncertainty in Projected Flow Simulations

Climate Graphs What do they tell us?.

Climate Graphs What do they tell us?.

Do your homework meticulously!!!

Let’s Review Functions

MDI Global Field & Solar Wind

Diurnal warming in the Arctic Ocean: Observations at CMS

Lecture 19-Problem Solving 4 Incremental Method

Brutally Cold February

Quadratic Functions in the Form y = a(x – h)2 + k

X y y = x2 - 3x Solutions of y = x2 - 3x y x –1 5 –2 –3 6 y = x2-3x.

Brutally Cold February

Let’s Review Functions

Warm Up What are the zeros of the function?

Feasibility of Recuperation of Magnets in Decommissioned Storage Rings

Let’s Review Functions

Number Summaries and Box Plots.

Let’s Review Functions

Presentation transcript:

Model Equilibration to Initial Start-up Conditions Evaluating the rate at which the TIEGCM adjusts to start-up histories that differ in known ways from the model run

Example Equilibration Tests: Evaluate equilibration from a solar minimum startup history to solar maximum conditions. Evaluate equilibration from a startup history with a temporal/seasonal offset from model start time. Validation of CCMC output, using HAO runs with different equilibration run times. Test equilibration rates for any results- changing modification to the source code.

Equilibration from Solar Minimum to Solar Maximum Conditions Solar Min f10.7=70., Solar Max f10.7=250. – Offset of 180 f10.7 units Offset run (case smin2smax): – Days , solar maximum conditions, started from solar minimum start-up history. Control run (case smax): – Days , solar maximum conditions, started from solar maximum start-up history. Difference fields: – Daily histories, offset minus control – UT vs Zp and UT vs Latitude – Assess recovery times and structure

Difference: smin2max minus smax UT vs ZP (days ) Neutral Temperature (deg K) TN: Lat,lon = -67.5,0TN: Lat,lon = 67.5,0 Min,Max = -633, 7.5 Interval = 50 Min,Max = -695, 5.6 Interval = 50

Difference: smin2max minus smax UT vs ZP (days ) Neutral Temperature (deg K) TN: Lat,lon = 67.5,0 Min,Max = -29, 7.5 Interval = 2.5 Min,Max = -33, 5.6 Interval = 2.5 TN: Lat,lon = -67.5,0

Difference: smin2max minus smax UT vs ZP (daily histories) Neutral Zonal Wind (m/s) Lat,lon = -67.5,0Lat,lon = 32.5,0 Min,Max=-9,65Min,Max=-34,7

Difference: smin2max minus smax UT (20 days) vs Zp Min,Max = 2e-5,.024 O2 (mmr) Lat=67.5 O (mmr) Lat=67.5 Min,Max = -.1, -1.2e-4

Difference: smin2max minus smax UT (20 days) vs ZP Min,Max=-5e+5,3.3e+3 NE (cm3) Lat=67.5O2+ (cm3) Lat=32.5 Min,Max=-1600,777

Difference: smin2max Offset minus smax Control UT (20 days) vs Latitude Min,Max = 2.4e-4, 2.3e-2 O2 (mmr) Zp = 0.75 O (mmr) Zp = 0.75 Min,Max = -1.6e-1, -6.5e-3

Equilibration to a 15-day Temporal Offset from the Source History: 1.Obtain a day 95 control source history: Run days from steady-state day 80 history 2.Control Run: Run days from day 95 source (step 1) 3.Offset Run: Run days from day 80 source (15-day offset) 4.Plot differences of Offset minus Control runs: Ut vs Zp and Ut vs Latitude (daily histories) Assess recovery time and structure

Difference: 15-day Offset run Minus Control UT (20 days) vs Zp Neutral Temperature (deg K) Lat, lon = 67.5, 0Lat, lon = -67.5, 0 Min,Max = -0.3, 25 Min,Max = -32, 0

Difference: 15-day Offset run Minus Control UT (20 days) vs Zp Neutral Zonal Wind (m/s) Lat, lon = -67.5, 0Lat, lon = 32.5, 0 Min,Max = -32, 1.9Min,Max = -2.7, 1.9

Difference: 15-day Offset run Minus Control UT (20 days) vs Zp Lat, lon = 67.5, 0 Min,Max = -6.7e-3, -1.7e-5Min,Max = 4.1e-5, 8.7e-2 O2 (mmr)O (mmr)

Difference: 15-day Offset run Minus Control UT (20 days) vs Zp Lat, lon = 67.5, 0 Lat, lon = 32.5, 0 Min,Max = -93, 1.3e4Min,Max = -471, 42 NE (cm3)O2+ (cm3) LBC?

Difference: 15-day Offset run Minus Control UT (20 days) vs Latitude Min,Max = -8.5e03, 6.2e-3Min,Max = -9.2e-2, 1.0e-1 O2 (mmr) Zp = 0.75 O (mmr) Zp = 0.75

Difference: 15-day Offset run Minus Control UT (20 days) vs Latitude Zp = Min,Max = -2.6e-3, 5.6e-4Min,Max = -6.5e-4, 2.1e-3 O2 (mmr)O (mmr)

Side-by-side Comparisons of the two cases: smin2max and 15-day offset

Differences: smin2smax Days TN: Lat = Min,Max = -0.3, 25 Interval = 2.0 Differences: 15-day Offset Days TN: Lat = Case Comparisons TN: Ut vs Zp, Lat Min,Max = -29, 7.5 Interval = 2.5

Differences: smin2smax Days TN: Lat = Differences: 15-day Offset Days TN: Lat = Case Comparisons TN: Ut vs Zp, Lat Min,Max = -29, 7.5 Interval = 2.5

Replicating CCMC Simulations: A 5-day GPI/Linux run was made by the CCMC, following a 20-day equilibration run. A series of equivalent 5-day GPI runs were made on a 64-bit HAO Linux machine (arc), following different equilibration times: – 5-day equilibration preceding 5-day production run – 10-day equilibration preceding 5-day production run – 20-day equilibration preceding 5-day production run Comparisons are made between CCMC output and the three HAO runs.

CCMC vs HAO/5-day spinup TN: Ut vs Zp (20-minute histories) HAOCCMCDiffs: HAO-CCMC Diffs: Min,Max = -19, 4.4 (deg K) Full Field: Min,Max = 165, 1395 (deg K)

Differences: HAO minus CCMC (5, 10, and 20 day HAO spinups) TN: Ut vs Zp (20-min histories) Diffs 20-day spinup Min,Max = 0,0 deg K Diffs: 10-day spinup Min,Max = -8,2.5 deg K Diffs: 5-day spinup Min,Max = -19,4.4 deg K

Difference: smin2max minus smax UT vs Latitude (daily) Zp = -4 Min,Max=-100,4.7 TN (deg K) UN (m/s) Min,Max=-27,37

Difference: smin2max minus smax UT vs Latitude Zp = 0Zp = Min,Max=-9e5,-5e3 NE (cm3) TE (deg K) Min,Max=-.5,.96

Difference: smin2max minus smax UT (20 days) vs Latitude Min,Max=4e-5,2e-3 O2 (mmr) Zp = O (mmr) Zp = Min,Max=-2e-3,-6e-5

CCMC vs HAO/5-day spinup: TN: Ut vs Latitude (20-minute histories) HAOCCMCDiffs: HAO-CCMC Diffs: Min,Max = -22, 7.5 (deg K)Full Field: Min,Max = 900, 1275 (deg K)

Differences: HAO minus CCMC (5, 10, and 20 day HAO spinups) TN: Ut vs Latitude (20-min histories) Diffs 20-day spinup Min,Max = 0,0 deg K Diffs: 10-day spinup Min,Max = -9.2,5.2 deg K Diffs: 5-day spinup Min,Max = -22,7.5 deg K