| 8 | | '''Tuesday 18 June:''' General overview, presentation of the documents and presentation of other projects of interest and discussions[[BR]] |
| 9 | | 10:00 Welcome coffee [[BR]] |
| 10 | | 10:30 - 10:45 Opening of the meeting (S. Joussaume)[[BR]] |
| 11 | | 10:45 – 12:00 '''Brief presentation of available documents, '''10 mn for each, (pdf of presentations are attached below):[[BR]] |
| 12 | | CMCC (S. Dobricic) , CNRS (A-M. Tréguier), INGV (A. Guarnieri), Mercator (Y. Drillet), !MetOffice & NERC-NOC (J. Holt),[[BR]] |
| 13 | | others: CONCEPTS & CCCma, Canada (Y. Drillet), EC-EARTH & ECMWF(K. Mogensen)[[BR]] |
| 14 | | 12:00 – 12:20 Presentations:'''[[BR]] About Gung-Ho ''' (Nigel Wood – Met Office)[[BR]] |
| 15 | | 12:20 - 2:00 Lunch[[BR]] |
| 16 | | 2:00 – 3:30 '''Discussion on the five white papers and additional contributions'''[[BR]] |
| 17 | | 3:30 – 4:15 Thematic discussions:[[BR]'''Session 1: NEMO platform: seamless to what extend? (Leaders: J. Holt and P. Marsaleix)'''[[BR]] |
| 18 | | With ORCA12 (global 1/12°) are we reaching an optimal level? Should we continue moving towards higher resolutions or should we stop there and work in a probabilistic way to quantify errors?[[BR]]In the future, is the NEMO platform expected to be modelling all time and space scales from global to coastal (up to rivers, tide banks, module sedimentary module, etc…) or is there a boundary in small scales (coastal) and associated processes where NEMO should stop, and/or be properly connected to another modelling platform?[[BR]]Contours of NEMO in the future (components, diagnostics, data reduction)[[BR]] |
| 19 | | 4:15 - 4:45 Coffee break[[BR]] |
| 20 | | 4:45 - 6:15 Thematic discussions (cont’):[[BR]] |
| 21 | | '''Session 2: New dynamical cores, HPC and science (Leaders: S. Masson & N. Wood)'''[[BR]] |
| 22 | | '''Session 3: Sea-ice and biogeochemical components (Leaders: O. Aumont & M. Vancoppenolle)''' |
| 23 | | Which level of flexibility should we target to take efficiently in account the panel of available and used components for sea-ice (NEMO-LIM, CICE, GELATO…) and for biogeochemistry (NEMO-TOP, BFM, MEDUSA…)?[[BR]] |
| 24 | | 6:30 Cocktail at Peniche Marcounet Pont Marie, Voie Georges Pompidou, 75004 Paris 06 60 47 38 52, see map in attached document below[[BR]] |
| 25 | | '''Wednesday 19 June:'''[[BR]] |
| 26 | | 9:00 – 11:00 Thematic discussions (cont’):[[BR]] |
| 27 | | '''Session 4: Is AGRIF a major feature of NEMO? (Leaders: L. Debreu & D. Iovino)'''[[BR]] |
| 28 | | If answer is yes, what is needed in mid-term to have it as a reliable component?[[BR]] |
| 29 | | '''Session 5: Contours and limits of the assimilation component of NEMO''' '''(Leaders: P. Brasseur & S. Dobricic)'''[[BR]] |
| 30 | | '''Session 6: NEMO validation and contours of user support (Leaders : P. Oddo & J. Siddorn)'''[[BR]] |
| 31 | | Although having all possible options working all the time is the NEMO user's dream, it is not possible. What is needed and where does the System Team stops? How many reference configurations should be supported by the System Team and what should they be?[[BR]] |
| 32 | | 11:00 – 11:20 Coffee break[[BR]][[BR]]11:20 -12:00 ''' Conclusions “on the fly” by a group including: for CMCC(S. Dobricic), for CNRS(J. Le Sommer), for INGV(A. Guarnieri), for Mercator(Y. Drillet), for Met-Office(R. Wood), for NERC-NOC(A. Coward), and Scientific Leader (G. Madec)'''[[BR]] |
| 33 | | Suggestions of the committee: for the summary of final document, how to build NEMO’s roadmap for the next 10 years?[[BR]]Suggestions to Steering Committee for next steps (writing and discussing the final document)[[BR]] |
| 34 | | 12:30 End of the meeting[[BR]] |
| | 8 | '''Tuesday 18 June:''' General overview, presentation of the documents and presentation of other projects of interest and discussions[[BR]] 10:00 Welcome coffee [[BR]] 10:30 - 10:45 Opening of the meeting (S. Joussaume)[[BR]] 10:45 – 12:00 '''Brief presentation of available documents, '''10 mn for each, (pdf of presentations are attached below):[[BR]] CMCC (S. Dobricic) , CNRS (A-M. Tréguier), INGV (A. Guarnieri), Mercator (Y. Drillet), !MetOffice & NERC-NOC (J. Holt),[[BR]] others: CONCEPTS & CCCma, Canada (Y. Drillet), EC-EARTH & ECMWF(K. Mogensen)[[BR]] 12:00 – 12:20 Presentations:'''[[BR]] About Gung-Ho ''' (Nigel Wood – Met Office)[[BR]] 12:20 - 2:00 Lunch[[BR]] 2:00 – 3:30 '''Discussion on the five white papers and additional contributions'''[[BR]] 3:30 – 4:15 Thematic discussions:[[BR]'''Session 1: NEMO platform: seamless to what extend? (Leaders: J. Holt and P. Marsaleix)'''[[BR]] With ORCA12 (global 1/12°) are we reaching an optimal level? Should we continue moving towards higher resolutions or should we stop there and work in a probabilistic way to quantify errors?[[BR]]In the future, is the NEMO platform expected to be modelling all time and space scales from global to coastal (up to rivers, tide banks, module sedimentary module, etc…) or is there a boundary in small scales (coastal) and associated processes where NEMO should stop, and/or be properly connected to another modelling platform?[[BR]]Contours of NEMO in the future (components, diagnostics, data reduction)[[BR]] 4:15 - 4:45 Coffee break[[BR]] 4:45 - 6:15 Thematic discussions (cont’):[[BR]] '''Session 2: New dynamical cores, HPC and science (Leaders: S. Masson & N. Wood)'''[[BR]] '''Session 3: Sea-ice and biogeochemical components (Leaders: O. Aumont & M. Vancoppenolle)''' Which level of flexibility should we target to take efficiently in account the panel of available and used components for sea-ice (NEMO-LIM, CICE, GELATO…) and for biogeochemistry (NEMO-TOP, BFM, MEDUSA…)?[[BR]] 6:30 Cocktail at Peniche Marcounet Pont Marie, Voie Georges Pompidou, 75004 Paris 06 60 47 38 52, see map in attached document below[[BR]] '''Wednesday 19 June:'''[[BR]] 9:00 – 11:00 Thematic discussions (cont’):[[BR]] '''Session 4: Is AGRIF a major feature of NEMO? (Leaders: L. Debreu & D. Iovino)'''[[BR]] If answer is yes, what is needed in mid-term to have it as a reliable component?[[BR]] '''Session 5: Contours and limits of the assimilation component of NEMO''' '''(Leaders: P. Brasseur & S. Dobricic)'''[[BR]] '''Session 6: NEMO validation and contours of user support (Leaders : P. Oddo & J. Siddorn)'''[[BR]] Although having all possible options working all the time is the NEMO user's dream, it is not possible. What is needed and where does the System Team stops? How many reference configurations should be supported by the System Team and what should they be?[[BR]] 11:00 – 11:20 Coffee break[[BR]][[BR]]11:20 -12:00 ''' Conclusions “on the fly” by a group including: for CMCC(S. Dobricic), for CNRS(J. Le Sommer), for INGV(A. Guarnieri), for Mercator(Y. Drillet), for Met-Office(R. Wood), for NERC-NOC(A. Coward), and Scientific Leader (G. Madec)'''[[BR]] Suggestions of the committee: for the summary of final document, how to build NEMO’s roadmap for the next 10 years?[[BR]]Suggestions to Steering Committee for next steps (writing and discussing the final document)[[BR]] 12:30 End of the meeting[[BR]] |
| 98 | | Coming soon...''''''''''' |
| | 72 | |
| | 73 | |
| | 74 | The general concept of an assimilation component within NEMO has been promoted since 2009 with the objective of making assimilation tools for NEMO more readily available to the user community. Based on the consensus that a comprehensive assimilation system cannot be incorporated and maintained in the long term within the NEMO system, the purpose of session 5 was to clarify what should be the contours and limits of the NEMO assimilation component. 4 main questions were addressed and discussed during the meeting: |
| | 75 | |
| | 76 | 1. Is the current partition between built-in, interface and external components of assimilation a reasonable trade-off, or should we move the boundary? It was agreed that the 3 existing building blocks (OBS, ASM, TAM) should be maintained and further developed in such a way to increase their usefulness by assimilation groups, but also by modeling groups (e.g. using TAM for sensitivity studies). |
| | 77 | 1. While TAM and ASM modules have no equivalent alternatives in the community, the OBS component is an issue since some groups are developing alternative tools to interface NEMO simulations with observational data sets (for assimilation or diagnostic purposes). In the future, one should ensure that the OBS component evolves in such a way that it could be used more systematically by more groups, using more diverse observational data sets. |
| | 78 | 1. Should we have a generic interface for data assimilation schemes based on a modular approach with structures (without writing to the disk) ? There was no clear-cut position reached on this question, but we believe that this approach should be encouraged in the long term, and further discussed with the assimilation user community (which was not widely represented in the audience). |
| | 79 | 1. In the future, should NEMO include a capability to produce probabilistic information (i.e. ensemble model trajectories), in addition to deterministic runs ? This was recognized as an important goal to be considered in the future, especially by NEMO members concerned with assimilation issues. However, there are several key applications that would benefit from such a capability, which extend beyond the strict scope of ensemble assimilation (e.g. for non-linear modelling sensitivity studies in complement to the linearized TAM approach, uncertainty estimation for climate projections, studies of intrinsic variability and chaotic properties of the ocean, stochastic modelling of model errors etc.). It would be great if this capability would enable on-line computation of ensemble means and spread, as well as various ensemble statistics with observational data. This topic will require further brainstorming in order to define an appropriate roadmap for including this option in future NEMO systems. |
