Articles | Volume 17, issue 13
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5369-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5369-2024
Development and technical paper
 | 
12 Jul 2024
Development and technical paper |  | 12 Jul 2024

Consistent point data assimilation in Firedrake and Icepack

Reuben W. Nixon-Hill, Daniel Shapero, Colin J. Cotter, and David A. Ham

Related authors

asQ: parallel-in-time finite element simulations using ParaDiag for geoscientific models and beyond
Joshua Hope-Collins, Abdalaziz Hamdan, Werner Bauer, Lawrence Mitchell, and Colin Cotter
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.18792,https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.18792, 2024
Short summary
Automatic adjoint-based inversion schemes for geodynamics: reconstructing the evolution of Earth's mantle in space and time
Sia Ghelichkhan, Angus Gibson, D. Rhodri Davies, Stephan C. Kramer, and David A. Ham
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5057–5086, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5057-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5057-2024, 2024
Short summary
Responses of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers to melt and sliding parameterizations
Ian Joughin, Daniel Shapero, and Pierre Dutrieux
The Cryosphere, 18, 2583–2601, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-2583-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-2583-2024, 2024
Short summary
Multilevel multifidelity Monte Carlo methods for assessing uncertainty in coastal flooding
Mariana C. A. Clare, Tim W. B. Leijnse, Robert T. McCall, Ferdinand L. M. Diermanse, Colin J. Cotter, and Matthew D. Piggott
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2491–2515, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2491-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2491-2022, 2022
Short summary
icepack: a new glacier flow modeling package in Python, version 1.0
Daniel R. Shapero, Jessica A. Badgeley, Andrew O. Hoffman, and Ian R. Joughin
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4593–4616, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4593-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4593-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Numerical methods
Hydro-geomorphological modelling of leaky wooden dam efficacy from reach to catchment scale with CAESAR-Lisflood 1.9j
Joshua M. Wolstenholme, Christopher J. Skinner, David Milan, Robert E. Thomas, and Daniel R. Parsons
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1395–1411, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1395-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1395-2025, 2025
Short summary
Enhancing single precision with quasi-double precision: achieving double-precision accuracy in the Model for Prediction Across Scales – Atmosphere (MPAS-A) version 8.2.1
Jiayi Lai, Lanning Wang, Qizhong Wu, Yizhou Yang, and Fang Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1089–1102, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1089-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1089-2025, 2025
Short summary
Advances in land surface forecasting: a comparison of LSTM, gradient boosting, and feed-forward neural networks as prognostic state emulators in a case study with ecLand
Marieke Wesselkamp, Matthew Chantry, Ewan Pinnington, Margarita Choulga, Souhail Boussetta, Maria Kalweit, Joschka Bödecker, Carsten F. Dormann, Florian Pappenberger, and Gianpaolo Balsamo
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 921–937, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-921-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-921-2025, 2025
Short summary
Subgrid corrections for the linear inertial equations of a compound flood model – a case study using SFINCS 2.1.1 Dollerup release
Maarten van Ormondt, Tim Leijnse, Roel de Goede, Kees Nederhoff, and Ap van Dongeren
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 843–861, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-843-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-843-2025, 2025
Short summary
Introducing Iterative Model Calibration (IMC) v1.0: a generalizable framework for numerical model calibration with a CAESAR-Lisflood case study
Chayan Banerjee, Kien Nguyen, Clinton Fookes, Gregory Hancock, and Thomas Coulthard
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 803–818, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-803-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-803-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Alnæs, M., Blechta, J., Hake, J., Johansson, A., Kehlet, B., Logg, A., Richardson, C., Ring, J., Rognes, M. E., and Wells, G. N.: The FEniCS Project Version 1.5, Archive of Numerical Software, 3, 100, https://doi.org/10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553, 2015. a
Alnæs, M. S.: UFL: a finite element form language, in: Automated Solution of Differential Equations by the Finite Element Method: The FEniCS Book, edited by Logg, A., Mardal, K.-A., and Wells, G., Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, 303–338, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, ISBN 978-3-642-23099-8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8_17, 2012. a
Alnæs, M. S., Logg, A., Ølgaard, K. B., Rognes, M. E., and Wells, G. N.: Unified form language: A domain-specific language for weak formulations of partial differential equations, ACM T. Math. Software, 40, 9:1–9:37, https://doi.org/10.1145/2566630, 2014. a
Balay, S., Gropp, W. D., McInnes, L. C., and Smith, B. F.: Efficient Management of Parallelism in Object Oriented Numerical Software Libraries, in: Modern Software Tools in Scientific Computing, edited by: Arge, E., Bruaset, A. M., and Langtangen, H. P., 163–202, Birkhäuser Press, 1997. a
Download
Short summary
Scientists often use models to study complex processes, like the movement of ice sheets, and compare them to measurements for estimating quantities that are hard to measure. We highlight an approach that ensures accurate results from point data sources (e.g. height measurements) by evaluating the numerical solution at true point locations. This method improves accuracy, aids communication between scientists, and is well-suited for integration with specialised software that automates processes.
Share