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
Modelling emission and transport of key components of primary marine organic aerosol using the global aerosol–climate model ECHAM6.3–HAM2.3
Anisbel Leon-Marcos, Moritz Zeising, Manuela van Pinxteren, Sebastian Zeppenfeld, Astrid Bracher, Elena Barbaro, Anja Engel, Matteo Feltracco, Ina Tegen, and Bernd Heinold
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4183–4213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4183-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4183-2025, 2025
Short summary
Assessing the climate impact of an improved volcanic sulfate aerosol representation in E3SM
Ziming Ke, Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Xiaohong Liu, and Hailong Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4137–4153, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4137-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4137-2025, 2025
Short summary
Advanced climate model evaluation with ESMValTool v2.11.0 using parallel, out-of-core, and distributed computing
Manuel Schlund, Bouwe Andela, Jörg Benke, Ruth Comer, Birgit Hassler, Emma Hogan, Peter Kalverla, Axel Lauer, Bill Little, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Francesco Nattino, Patrick Peglar, Valeriu Predoi, Stef Smeets, Stephen Worsley, Martin Yeo, and Klaus Zimmermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4009–4021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4009-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4009-2025, 2025
Short summary
ICON-HAM-lite 1.0: simulating the Earth system with interactive aerosols at kilometer scales
Philipp Weiss, Ross Herbert, and Philip Stier
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3877–3894, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3877-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3877-2025, 2025
Short summary
Process-based modeling framework for sustainable irrigation management at the regional scale: integrating rice production, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions
Yan Bo, Hao Liang, Tao Li, and Feng Zhou
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3799–3817, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3799-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3799-2025, 2025
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.
Share