1 / 18

CarbonTracker 2011 status update Transition to cycle3 Questions being answered vs. deferred

CarbonTracker 2011 status update Transition to cycle3 Questions being answered vs. deferred CT2011 timeline Bottom lines Lots accomplished, but we’re not done yet Cycle 3 sampling Inverse runs underway CT2011: December/January?. cycle 2. inverse 150 members, 30 cores

ksena
Download Presentation

CarbonTracker 2011 status update Transition to cycle3 Questions being answered vs. deferred

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CarbonTracker 2011 status update • Transition to cycle3 • Questions being answered vs. deferred • CT2011 timeline • Bottom lines • Lots accomplished, but we’re not done yet • Cycle 3 sampling • Inverse runs underway • CT2011: December/January?

  2. cycle 2 inverse 150 members, 30 cores 5 weeks forward, EnKF, rewind, 1 week forward inverse ... forward components of CO2 one core one week only user output sampling Post script PYCASSO, sh, R do EnKF prep parameters cycle 3 modular inverse 150 members, 30 cores 6 weeks forward vanilla TM5 emissions, sampling, and chem_param are forked inverse ... forward components of CO2 one core one week only user output sampling Prep script PYCASSO, sh, R link input files prepare obslist

  3. TM5: progress and maintenance zoom meteorology: need to implement cy3 TMPP on ECMWF ERA interim (glb1x1): downloaded, not yet tested CT modularization  cycle 3 can cycle  flask sampling w/ netCDF interface  CT emissions code  ensemble EnKF  scripting glue  test case

  4. Questions to Answer • Can new routines replicate cy2 behavior? • flask sampling • EnKF • Prior model • 2. Does the EnKF work correctly? • How much does different transport in cy3 impact simulated observations? • Impact of output.after.step • b. Overall reproducibility? Questions for later • Can we reconfigure CarbonTracker to be a better inversion? • Window length • Ecoregions • Nature of parameters • Non-surface data

  5. Questions to Answer • Can new routines replicate cy2 behavior? • flask sampling  • EnKF • Prior model  • 2. Does the EnKF work correctly? • How much does different transport in cy3 impact simulated observations? • Impact of output.after.step • b. Overall reproducibility? Yes, to within machine precision. Questions for later • Can we reconfigure CarbonTracker to be a better inversion? • Window length • Ecoregions • Nature of parameters • Non-surface data

  6. Questions to Answer • Can new routines replicate cy2 behavior? • flask sampling  • EnKF • Prior model  • 2. Does the EnKF work correctly? • How much does different transport in cy3 impact simulated observations? • Impact of output.after.step • b. Overall reproducibility? Strategy: synthetic data experiments Develop “truth” condition Generate simulate observations from truth Assimilate pseudodata in inversion Compare true parameters with retrieved parameters Questions for later • Can we reconfigure CarbonTracker to be a better inversion? • Window length • Ecoregions • Nature of parameters • Non-surface data

  7. “Truth” conditions p0: Completely synthetic, derived from statistics and dynamics blend of 1/3 previous week, 1/3 random draw, 1/3 unity ct09b: True parameters are actually CT2009 priors NOT scaling factors of 1.0 NOT unscaled CASA-GFED, OIF ct09a: True parameters are actually CT2009 posteriors (all of these use CT2011 emissions input files and CT2011 data distribution)

  8. Questions to Answer • Can new routines replicate cy2 behavior? • flask sampling  • EnKF • Prior model  • 2. Does the EnKF work correctly? • How much does different transport in cy3 impact simulated observations? • Impact of output.after.step • b. Overall reproducibility? Strategy: synthetic data experiments Develop “truth” condition Generate simulate observations from truth Assimilate pseudodata in inversion Compare true parameters with retrieved parameters Realization: These tests do not fully isolate the EnKF. The 5-week lag (and localization, small network, etc.) still impact inversion’s capability to reproduce “truth”. Questions for later • Can we reconfigure CarbonTracker to be a better inversion? • Window length • Ecoregions • Nature of parameters • Non-surface data

  9. Questions to Answer • Can new routines replicate cy2 behavior? • flask sampling  • EnKF • Prior model  • 2. Does the EnKF work correctly? • How much does different transport in cy3 impact simulated observations? • Impact of output.after.step • b. Overall reproducibility? Strategies: cy3 forward runs with CT2010 emissions and posterior scaling factors Replication of CT2009 and CT2010 using ObsPack-ified data Questions for later • Can we reconfigure CarbonTracker to be a better inversion? • Window length • Ecoregions • Nature of parameters • Non-surface data

  10. Impact of transition to cycle 3 transport rnt3f: cy3 code with CT2010 emissions files and CT2010 posterior parameters rnt3vf: same as rfnt3f, but output.after.step: v. ri0: CT2010-like inversion in cy3. Uses CT2010 emissions files and CT2010 observations. ri1: CT2010-like inversion in cy3 but with output.after.step: v. Uses CT2010 emissions files and CT2010 observations. r9i0: CT2009-like inversion in cy3. Uses CT2009 emissions files and CT2009 observations. r9i1: CT2009-like inversion in cy3 but with output.after.step: v. Uses CT2009 emissions files and CT2009 observations.

  11. Questions to Answer • Can new routines replicate cy2 behavior? • flask sampling  • EnKF • Prior model  • 2. Does the EnKF work correctly? • How much does different transport in cy3 impact simulated observations? • Impact of output.after.step • b. Overall reproducibility? Questions for later Questions for later • Can we reconfigure CarbonTracker to be a better inversion? • Window length • Ecoregions • Nature of parameters • Non-surface data • Can we reconfigure CarbonTracker to be a better inversion? • Window length • Ecoregions • Nature of parameters • Non-surface data

  12. multi-model inversion Land biosphere GFED2 extended with climatology GFED3.1 SiB-CASA, SiB4 Air-sea flux Takahashi et al 2009 Ocean inversion "OIF" new Jacobson OIF + pCO2 new ValsalapCO2 product Doney model (used by CSU) Fossil Miller, ODIAC, Andres? Transport TM5 with ECMWF forecast model TM5 with ERA interim PCTM with MERRA/GEOS

  13. multi-model inversion B2 OI FM T1 I1 Land biosphere GFED2 extended with climatology GFED3.1 SiB-CASA, SiB4 Air-sea flux Takahashi et al 2009 Ocean inversion "OIF" new Jacobson OIF + pCO2 new ValsalapCO2 product Doney model (used by CSU) Fossil Miller, ODIAC, Andres? Transport TM5 with ECMWF forecast model TM5 with ERA interim PCTM with MERRA/GEOS B3 OI FM I2 T1 B2 OC FM I3 T1 I4 B3 OC FM T1 B2 OI FO T1 I5 B3 OI FO T1 I6 B2 OC FO T1 I7 B3 OC FO T1 I8

  14. multi-model inversion I1 I1 Land biosphere GFED2 extended with climatology GFED3.1 SiB-CASA, SiB4 Air-sea flux Takahashi et al 2009 Ocean inversion "OIF" new Jacobson OIF + pCO2 new ValsalapCO2 product Doney model (used by CSU) Fossil Miller, ODIAC, Andres? Transport TM5 with ECMWF forecast model TM5 with ERA interim PCTM with MERRA/GEOS I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I8 central measure mean? median? uncertainty covariance Ptot = Pint + Pacross quantiles, range mole fractions?

  15. anticipated CT2011 timeline

More Related