MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321491235 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-2394

Coupling simple dry physics to a dynamically adaptive global atmosphere model

2023· preprint· en· W4321491235 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicholas Kevlahan, Gabrielle Ching-Johnson, Thomas Dubos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGridClimate modelCoupling (piping)Scale (ratio)Atmosphere (unit)Statistical physicsSimple (philosophy)Computer scienceDynamical systems theoryPhysicsMeteorologyClimate changeMathematicsEngineeringQuantum mechanicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptive global circulation models (GCMs) have the potential to significantly improve the computational efficiency and accuracy of climate simulations by dynamically adjusting the local grid resolution to ensure a specified numerical tolerance or to track features of interest. We have developed the global dynamical cores WAVETRISK-ATMOSPHERE and WAVETRISK-OCEAN to explore the strengths and weaknesses of dynamical GCMs. The main open challenge of adaptive climate modelling is how to appropriately couple the dynamical core to the physics. The physics should ideally be “scale-aware”: adjusting the parameterization as necessary based on the current local resolution (or disabling it entirely if the physical phenomenon becomes fully resolved). A related question is whether the grid adaptation criteria should be based on the physics as well as the dynamics. Such scale-aware physics parameterizations remain poorly understood. In this talk we report on initial progress in coupling WAVETRISK-ATMOSPHERE to Hourdin’s (1992) “simple dry physics”.A better understanding of scale-aware physics will also improve non-adaptive climate modelling, since such models currently require extensive tuning each time the resolution is increased. An additional goal of this project is to develop a set of test cases for the simple physics that could be used to compare dynamical cores using a well-understood and standardized physics package.This is joint work with Gabrielle Ching-Johnson (MSc student, McMaster University, Canada) and Thomas Dubos (LMD, École Polytechnique, France)

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→