Articles | Volume 10, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1789-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1789-2017
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
27 Apr 2017
Methods for assessment of models |  | 27 Apr 2017

Tuning without over-tuning: parametric uncertainty quantification for the NEMO ocean model

Daniel B. Williamson, Adam T. Blaker, and Bablu Sinha

Related authors

Emulation of high-resolution land surface models using sparse Gaussian processes with application to JULES
Evan Baker, Anna B. Harper, Daniel Williamson, and Peter Challenor
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1913–1929, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1913-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1913-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Architectural insights into and training methodology optimization of Pangu-Weather
Deifilia To, Julian Quinting, Gholam Ali Hoshyaripour, Markus Götz, Achim Streit, and Charlotte Debus
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8873–8884, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8873-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8873-2024, 2024
Short summary
Evaluation of global fire simulations in CMIP6 Earth system models
Fang Li, Xiang Song, Sandy P. Harrison, Jennifer R. Marlon, Zhongda Lin, L. Ruby Leung, Jörg Schwinger, Virginie Marécal, Shiyu Wang, Daniel S. Ward, Xiao Dong, Hanna Lee, Lars Nieradzik, Sam S. Rabin, and Roland Séférian
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8751–8771, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Evaluating downscaled products with expected hydroclimatic co-variances
Seung H. Baek, Paul A. Ullrich, Bo Dong, and Jiwoo Lee
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8665–8681, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024, 2024
Short summary
Software sustainability of global impact models
Emmanuel Nyenah, Petra Döll, Daniel S. Katz, and Robert Reinecke
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8593–8611, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024, 2024
Short summary
fair-calibrate v1.4.1: calibration, constraining, and validation of the FaIR simple climate model for reliable future climate projections
Chris Smith, Donald P. Cummins, Hege-Beate Fredriksen, Zebedee Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen, Myles Allen, Stuart Jenkins, Nicholas Leach, Camilla Mathison, and Antti-Ilari Partanen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8569–8592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Beck, J. and Guillas, S.: Sequential design with Mutual Information for Computer Experiments (MICE): Emulation of a Tsunami model, arXiv, 2015.
Brynjarsdottir, J. and O'Hagan, A.: Learning about physical parameters: The importance of model discrepancy, Inverse Prob., 30, 114007 24 pp., 2014.
Conti, S., Gosling, J. P., Oakley, J. E., and O'Hagan, A.: Gaussian process emulation of dynamic computer codes, Biometrika, 96, 663–676, 2009.
Craig, P. S., Goldstein, M., Seheult, A. H., and Smith, J. A.: Bayes Linear Strategies for Matching Hydrocarbon Reservoir History, in: Bayesian Statistics 5, edited by: Bernado, J. M., Berger, J. O., Dawid, A. P., and Smith, A. F. M., Oxford University Press, 69–95, 1996.
Download
Short summary
We present a method from the statistical science literature to assist in the tuning of global climate models submitted to CMIP. We apply the method to the NEMO ocean model and find choices of its free parameters that lead to improved representations of depth integrated global mean temperature and salinity. We argue against automatic tuning procedures that involve optimising certain outputs of a model and explain why our method avoids common difficulties with/arguments against automatic tuning.