skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: The Earth System Prediction Suite: Toward a Coordinated U.S. Modeling Capability

Abstract

The Earth System Prediction Suite (ESPS) is a collection of flagship U.S. weather and climate models and model components that are being instrumented to conform to interoperability conventions, documented to follow metadata standards, and made available either under open-source terms or to credentialed users. Furthermore, the ESPS represents a culmination of efforts to create a common Earth system model architecture, and the advent of increasingly coordinated model development activities in the United States. ESPS component interfaces are based on the Earth System Modeling Framework (ESMF), community-developed software for building and coupling models, and the National Unified Operational Prediction Capability (NUOPC) Layer, a set of ESMF-based component templates and interoperability conventions. Our shared infrastructure simplifies the process of model coupling by guaranteeing that components conform to a set of technical and semantic behaviors. The ESPS encourages distributed, multiagency development of coupled modeling systems; controlled experimentation and testing; and exploration of novel model configurations, such as those motivated by research involving managed and interactive ensembles. ESPS codes include the Navy Global Environmental Model (NAVGEM), the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM), and the Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System (COAMPS); the NOAA Environmental Modeling System (NEMS) and the Modular Ocean Model (MOM); the Communitymore » Earth System Model (CESM); and the NASA ModelE climate model and the Goddard Earth Observing System Model, version 5 (GEOS-5), atmospheric general circulation model.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [4];  [5];  [1];  [6];  [7];  [7];  [3];  [8];  [9];  [10];  [10];  [11];  [11];  [10];  [10];  [12] more »; ;  [13];  [14];  [15];  [16];  [17];  [18];  [2] « less
  1. Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA (United States)
  2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ESRL and CIRES, Boulder, CO (United States)
  3. Naval Research Lab. (NRL), Stennis Space Center, MS (United States)
  4. Cherokee Services Group, Fort Collins, CO (United States)
  5. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO (United States)
  6. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/ESRL and CIRES, Boulder, CO (United States)
  7. Naval Research Lab., Monterey, CA (United States)
  8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/NWS/NCEP and Modeling Center, College Park, MD (United States)
  9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NWS, NCEP and Modeling Center, College Park, MD (United States)
  10. NASA Goddard Inst. for Space Studies (GISS), New York, NY (United States)
  11. NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., Pasadena, CA (United States)
  12. Princeton Univ., NJ (United States). Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab.
  13. Argonne National Lab. (ANL), Lemont, IL (United States)
  14. Univ. of Miami, FL (United States)
  15. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA (United States)
  16. Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, Silver Spring, MD (United States)
  17. Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA (United States). Applied Physics Lab.
  18. Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Argonne National Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER) (SC-23)
OSTI Identifier:
1361021
Grant/Contract Number:
AC02-06CH11357
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 97; Journal Issue: 7; Journal ID: ISSN 0003-0007
Publisher:
American Meteorological Society
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
58 GEOSCIENCES; 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Theurich, Gerhard, DeLuca, C., Campbell, T., Liu, F., Saint, K., Vertenstein, M., Chen, J., Oehmke, R., Doyle, J., Whitcomb, T., Wallcraft, A., Iredell, M., Black, T., Da Silva, A. M., Clune, T., Ferraro, R., Li, P., Kelley, M., Aleinov, I., Balaji, V., Zadeh, N., Jacob, R., Kirtman, B., Giraldo, F., McCarren, D., Sandgathe, S., Peckham, S., and Dunlap, R. The Earth System Prediction Suite: Toward a Coordinated U.S. Modeling Capability. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00164.1.
Theurich, Gerhard, DeLuca, C., Campbell, T., Liu, F., Saint, K., Vertenstein, M., Chen, J., Oehmke, R., Doyle, J., Whitcomb, T., Wallcraft, A., Iredell, M., Black, T., Da Silva, A. M., Clune, T., Ferraro, R., Li, P., Kelley, M., Aleinov, I., Balaji, V., Zadeh, N., Jacob, R., Kirtman, B., Giraldo, F., McCarren, D., Sandgathe, S., Peckham, S., & Dunlap, R. The Earth System Prediction Suite: Toward a Coordinated U.S. Modeling Capability. United States. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00164.1.
Theurich, Gerhard, DeLuca, C., Campbell, T., Liu, F., Saint, K., Vertenstein, M., Chen, J., Oehmke, R., Doyle, J., Whitcomb, T., Wallcraft, A., Iredell, M., Black, T., Da Silva, A. M., Clune, T., Ferraro, R., Li, P., Kelley, M., Aleinov, I., Balaji, V., Zadeh, N., Jacob, R., Kirtman, B., Giraldo, F., McCarren, D., Sandgathe, S., Peckham, S., and Dunlap, R. 2016. "The Earth System Prediction Suite: Toward a Coordinated U.S. Modeling Capability". United States. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00164.1. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1361021.
@article{osti_1361021,
title = {The Earth System Prediction Suite: Toward a Coordinated U.S. Modeling Capability},
author = {Theurich, Gerhard and DeLuca, C. and Campbell, T. and Liu, F. and Saint, K. and Vertenstein, M. and Chen, J. and Oehmke, R. and Doyle, J. and Whitcomb, T. and Wallcraft, A. and Iredell, M. and Black, T. and Da Silva, A. M. and Clune, T. and Ferraro, R. and Li, P. and Kelley, M. and Aleinov, I. and Balaji, V. and Zadeh, N. and Jacob, R. and Kirtman, B. and Giraldo, F. and McCarren, D. and Sandgathe, S. and Peckham, S. and Dunlap, R.},
abstractNote = {The Earth System Prediction Suite (ESPS) is a collection of flagship U.S. weather and climate models and model components that are being instrumented to conform to interoperability conventions, documented to follow metadata standards, and made available either under open-source terms or to credentialed users. Furthermore, the ESPS represents a culmination of efforts to create a common Earth system model architecture, and the advent of increasingly coordinated model development activities in the United States. ESPS component interfaces are based on the Earth System Modeling Framework (ESMF), community-developed software for building and coupling models, and the National Unified Operational Prediction Capability (NUOPC) Layer, a set of ESMF-based component templates and interoperability conventions. Our shared infrastructure simplifies the process of model coupling by guaranteeing that components conform to a set of technical and semantic behaviors. The ESPS encourages distributed, multiagency development of coupled modeling systems; controlled experimentation and testing; and exploration of novel model configurations, such as those motivated by research involving managed and interactive ensembles. ESPS codes include the Navy Global Environmental Model (NAVGEM), the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM), and the Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System (COAMPS); the NOAA Environmental Modeling System (NEMS) and the Modular Ocean Model (MOM); the Community Earth System Model (CESM); and the NASA ModelE climate model and the Goddard Earth Observing System Model, version 5 (GEOS-5), atmospheric general circulation model.},
doi = {10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00164.1},
journal = {Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society},
number = 7,
volume = 97,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 8
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 1work
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:
  • Soil carbon (C) is a critical component of Earth system models (ESMs) and its diverse representations are a major source of the large spread across models in the terrestrial C sink from the 3rd to 5th assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Improving soil C projections is of a high priority for Earth system modeling in the future IPCC and other assessments. To achieve this goal, we suggest that (1) model structures should reflect real-world processes, (2) parameters should be calibrated to match model outputs with observations, and (3) external forcing variables should accurately prescribe themore » environmental conditions that soils experience. Firstly, most soil C cycle models simulate C input from litter production and C release through decomposition. The latter process has traditionally been represented by 1st-order decay functions, regulated primarily by temperature, moisture, litter quality, and soil texture. While this formulation well captures macroscopic SOC dynamics, better understanding is needed of their underlying mechanisms as related to microbial processes, depth-dependent environmental controls, and other processes that strongly affect soil C dynamics. Secondly, incomplete use of observations in model parameterization is a major cause of bias in soil C projections from ESMs. Optimal parameter calibration with both pool- and flux-based datasets through data assimilation is among the highest priorities for near-term research to reduce biases among ESMs. Thirdly, external variables are represented inconsistently among ESMs, leading to differences in modeled soil C dynamics. We recommend the implementation of traceability analyses to identify how external variables and model parameterizations influence SOC dynamics in different ESMs. Overall, projections of the terrestrial C sink can be substantially improved when reliable datasets are available to select the most representative model structure, constrain parameters, and prescribe forcing fields.« less
  • This paper uses a suite of Earth system models which simulate the distribution of He isotopes and radiocarbon to examine two paradoxes in Earth science, each of which results from an inconsistency between theoretically motivated global energy balances and direct observations. The helium–heat paradox refers to the fact that helium emissions to the deep ocean are far lower than would be expected given the rate of geothermal heating, since both are thought to be the result of radioactive decay in Earth's interior. The isopycnal mixing paradox comes from the fact that many theoretical parameterizations of the isopycnal mixing coefficient Amore » Redi that link it to baroclinic instability project it to be small (of order a few hundred m 2 s −1) in the ocean interior away from boundary currents. However, direct observations using tracers and floats (largely in the upper ocean) suggest that values of this coefficient are an order of magnitude higher. Helium isotopes equilibrate rapidly with the atmosphere and thus exhibit large gradients along isopycnals while radiocarbon equilibrates slowly and thus exhibits smaller gradients along isopycnals. Thus it might be thought that resolving the isopycnal mixing paradox in favor of the higher observational estimates of A Redi might also solve the helium paradox, by increasing the transport of mantle helium to the surface more than it would radiocarbon. In this paper we show that this is not the case. In a suite of models with different spatially constant and spatially varying values of A Redi the distribution of radiocarbon and helium isotopes is sensitive to the value of A Redi. However, away from strong helium sources in the southeastern Pacific, the relationship between the two is not sensitive, indicating that large-scale advection is the limiting process for removing helium and radiocarbon from the deep ocean. The helium isotopes, in turn, suggest a higher value of A Redi below the thermocline than is seen in theoretical parameterizations based on baroclinic growth rates. We argue that a key part of resolving the isopycnal mixing paradox is to abandon the idea that A Redi has a direct relationship to local baroclinic instability and to the so-called "thickness" mixing coefficient A GM.« less
    Cited by 2
  • With the fourth release of the Community Climate System Model, the ability to perform ultra-high resolution climate simulations is now possible, enabling eddy-resolving ocean and sea ice models to be coupled to a finite-volume atmosphere model for a range of atmospheric resolutions. This capability was made possible by enabling the model to use large scale parallelism, which required a significant refactoring of the software infrastructure. We describe the scalability of two ultra-high-resolution coupled configurations on leadership class computing platforms. We demonstrate the ability to utilize over 30,000 processor cores on a Cray XT5 system and over 60,000 cores on anmore » IBM Blue Gene/P system to obtain climatologically relevant simulation rates for these configurations.« less
  • Years of production of radioactive materials at the Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State has resulted in contamination of surface, subsurface, and surface water environments. Cleanup of the site has been aided by various tools, including computer software used to predict contaminant migration in the future and estimate subsequent impacts. The System Assessment Capability (SAC) is a total systems tool designed to simulate the movement of contaminants from all waste sites at Hanford through the vadose zone, the unconfined aquifer, and the Columbia River. Except for iodine-129, most of the contaminants modeled by SAC have acceptably matched field measurements. Themore » two most likely reasons for the inconsistency between the measured field data and SAC modeled predictions are an underestimated inventory and an overestimated sorption value (Kd). Field data tend to be point measurements taken from near the surface of the unconfined aquifer. Thus, the depth of the iodine-129 contamination plume on the site is not well characterized. Geostatistical analyses of the measured data were conducted to determine the mass of iodine-129 for four assumed plume depths within the unconfined aquifer. Several simulations for two different Kd’s using the initial SAC inventory were run to determine the effect of an overestimated sorption value on SAC modeled predictions. The initial SAC inventory was then increased for the two different Kd’s to determine the influence of an underestimated inventory on SAC modeled predictions. It was found that evidence for both an underestimated inventory and for an overestimated sorption value for iodine-129 exist. These results suggest that the Kd for iodine-129 should be reevaluated and that a more complete inventory must be generated in order to more accurately model iodine-129 groundwater contamination plumes that match available field data.« less