Articles | Volume 11, issue 5
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1799–1821, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1799-2018
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1799–1821, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1799-2018

Review and perspective paper 08 May 2018

Review and perspective paper | 08 May 2018

Crossing the chasm: how to develop weather and climate models for next generation computers?

Bryan N. Lawrence et al.

Related authors

Documenting numerical experiments in support of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6)
Charlotte Pascoe, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eric Guilyardi, Martin Juckes, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2149–2167, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2149-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2149-2020, 2020
Short summary
The CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ, version 01.00.31)
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Paul J. Durack, Bryan Lawrence, Matthew S. Mizielinski, Alison Pamment, Jean-Yves Peterschmitt, Michel Rixen, and Stéphane Sénési
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 201–224, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020, 2020
Short summary
Requirements for a global data infrastructure in support of CMIP6
Venkatramani Balaji, Karl E. Taylor, Martin Juckes, Bryan N. Lawrence, Paul J. Durack, Michael Lautenschlager, Chris Blanton, Luca Cinquini, Sébastien Denvil, Mark Elkington, Francesca Guglielmo, Eric Guilyardi, David Hassell, Slava Kharin, Stefan Kindermann, Sergey Nikonov, Aparna Radhakrishnan, Martina Stockhause, Tobias Weigel, and Dean Williams
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3659–3680, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3659-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3659-2018, 2018
Short summary
A data model of the Climate and Forecast metadata conventions (CF-1.6) with a software implementation (cf-python v2.1)
David Hassell, Jonathan Gregory, Jon Blower, Bryan N. Lawrence, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4619–4646, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4619-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4619-2017, 2017
Short summary
CPMIP: measurements of real computational performance of Earth system models in CMIP6
Venkatramani Balaji, Eric Maisonnave, Niki Zadeh, Bryan N. Lawrence, Joachim Biercamp, Uwe Fladrich, Giovanni Aloisio, Rusty Benson, Arnaud Caubel, Jeffrey Durachta, Marie-Alice Foujols, Grenville Lister, Silvia Mocavero, Seth Underwood, and Garrett Wright
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 19–34, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-19-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-19-2017, 2017
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
NorCPM1 and its contribution to CMIP6 DCPP
Ingo Bethke, Yiguo Wang, François Counillon, Noel Keenlyside, Madlen Kimmritz, Filippa Fransner, Annette Samuelsen, Helene Langehaug, Lea Svendsen, Ping-Gin Chiu, Leilane Passos, Mats Bentsen, Chuncheng Guo, Alok Gupta, Jerry Tjiputra, Alf Kirkevåg, Dirk Olivié, Øyvind Seland, Julie Solsvik Vågane, Yuanchao Fan, and Tor Eldevik
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7073–7116, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7073-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7073-2021, 2021
Short summary
ENSO-ASC 1.0.0: ENSO deep learning forecast model with a multivariate air–sea coupler
Bin Mu, Bo Qin, and Shijin Yuan
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6977–6999, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6977-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6977-2021, 2021
Short summary
Topography-based local spherical Voronoi grid refinement on classical and moist shallow-water finite-volume models
Luan F. Santos and Pedro S. Peixoto
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6919–6944, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6919-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6919-2021, 2021
Short summary
Decadal climate predictions with the Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5)
Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, William J. Merryfield, George J. Boer, Viatsheslav V. Kharin, Woo-Sung Lee, Christian Seiler, and James R. Christian
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6863–6891, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6863-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6863-2021, 2021
Short summary
The Simplified Chemistry-Dynamical Model (SCDM V1.0)
Hao-Jhe Hong and Thomas Reichler
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6647–6660, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6647-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6647-2021, 2021
Short summary

Cited articles

Alexander, K. and Easterbrook, S. M.: The software architecture of climate models: a graphical comparison of CMIP5 and EMICAR5 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1221–1232, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1221-2015, 2015. a, b
Asanovic, K., Bodik, R., Catanzaro, B. C., Gebis, J. J., Husbands, P., Keutzer, K., Patterson, D. A., Plishker, W. L., Shalf, J., Williams, S. W., and Yelick, K.: The Landscape of Parallel Computing Research: A View from Berkeley, Tech. Rep. UCB/EECS-2006-183, University of California, Berkely, USA, 2006. a
Baker, A. H., Hammerling, D. M., Levy, M. N., Xu, H., Dennis, J. M., Eaton, B. E., Edwards, J., Hannay, C., Mickelson, S. A., Neale, R. B., Nychka, D., Shollenberger, J., Tribbia, J., Vertenstein, M., and Williamson, D.: A new ensemble-based consistency test for the Community Earth System Model (pyCECT v1.0), Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2829–2840, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2829-2015, 2015. a
Balaji, V., Benson, R., Wyman, B., and Held, I.: Coarse-grained component concurrency in Earth system modeling: parallelizing atmospheric radiative transfer in the GFDL AM3 model using the Flexible Modeling System coupling framework, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3605–3616, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3605-2016, 2016. a, b, c
Balaji, V., Maisonnave, E., Zadeh, N., Lawrence, B. N., Biercamp, J., Fladrich, U., Aloisio, G., Benson, R., Caubel, A., Durachta, J., Foujols, M.-A., Lister, G., Mocavero, S., Underwood, S., and Wright, G.: CPMIP: measurements of real computational performance of Earth system models in CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 19–34, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-19-2017, 2017. a
Short summary
Weather and climate models consist of complex software evolving in response to both scientific requirements and changing computing hardware. After years of relatively stable hardware, more diversity is arriving. It is possible that this hardware diversity and the pace of change may lead to an inability for modelling groups to manage their software development. This chasm between aspiration and reality may need to be bridged by large community efforts rather than traditional in-house efforts.