Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Ng, Esmond

Publications and source records attributed to Ng, Esmond.

Nuclear Physics Exascale Requirements Review: An Office of Science Review sponsored jointly by Advanced Scientific Computing Research and Nuclear Physics, June 15 - 17, 2016, Gaithersburg, Maryland

Imagine being able to predict — with unprecedented accuracy and precision — the structure of the proton and neutron, and the forces between them, directly from the dynamics of quarks and gluons, and then using this information in calculations of the structure and reactions of atomic nuclei and of the properties of dense neutron stars (NSs). Also imagine discovering new and exotic states of matter, and new laws of nature, by being able to collect more experimental data than we dream possible today, analyzing it in real time to feed back into an experiment, and curating the data with full tracking capabilities and with fully distributed data mining capabilities. Making this vision a reality would improve basic scientific understanding, enabling us to precisely calculate, for example, the spectrum of gravity waves emitted during NS coalescence, and would have important societal applications in nuclear energy research, stockpile stewardship, and other areas. This review presents the components and characteristics of the exascale computing ecosystems necessary to realize this vision.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

Two new SciDAC institutes promote mathematical tools and software technology for high-performance computing

Bigger is often said to be better, and the newest extreme-scale computers certainly are bigger, with millions of processing units. Moreover, the breadth of science performed on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) computing facilities is expanding, with new technology such as artificial intelligence emerging. These advances are exciting, creating new opportunities for scientific discovery; however, they also raise new questions for scientists who want to exploit these advances for tackling more complex problems. Will my simulation code be able to utilize the accelerators in extreme-scale computing systems? Can I take advantage of the deepening memory hierarchy in heterogeneous processors? Is there a way around bottlenecks caused by the widening ratio of peak floating-point operations per second to I/0 bandwidth? How can I manage my huge amounts of data effectively? Can I analyze data in situ, or must I transfer it to offline storage for later analysis? To address such questions, DOE announced that it is providing $57.5 million over the next five years for two multidisciplinary teams — FASTMath and RAPIDS2 — to develop new tools and techniques to harness supercomputers for scientific discovery. The teams, called SciDAC Institutes, are part of the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing program.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Projecting Antarctica's contribution to future sea level rise from basal ice shelf melt using linear response functions of 16 ice sheet models (LARMIP-2)

Abstract. The sea level contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet constitutes a large uncertainty in future sea level projections. Here we apply a linear response theory approach to 16 state-of-the-art ice sheet models to estimate the Antarctic ice sheet contribution from basal ice shelf melting within the 21st century. The purpose of this computation is to estimate the uncertainty of Antarctica's future contribution to global sea level rise that arises from large uncertainty in the oceanic forcing and the associated ice shelf melting. Ice shelf melting is considered to be a major if not the largest perturbation of the ice sheet's flow into the ocean. However, by computing only the sea level contribution in response to ice shelf melting, our study is neglecting a number of processes such as surface-mass-balance-related contributions. In assuming linear response theory, we are able to capture complex temporal responses of the ice sheets, but we neglect any self-dampening or self-amplifying processes. This is particularly relevant in situations in which an instability is dominating the ice loss. The results obtained here are thus relevant, in particular wherever the ice loss is dominated by the forcing as opposed to an internal instability, for example in strong ocean warming scenarios. In order to allow for comparison the methodology was chosen to be exactly the same as in an earlier study (Levermann et al., 2014) but with 16 instead of 5 ice sheet models. We include uncertainty in the atmospheric warming response to carbon emissions (full range of CMIP5 climate model sensitivities), uncertainty in the oceanic transport to the Southern Ocean (obtained from the time-delayed and scaled oceanic subsurface warming in CMIP5 models in relation to the global mean surface warming), and the observed range of responses of basal ice shelf melting to oceanic warming outside the ice shelf cavity. This uncertainty in basal ice shelf melting is then convoluted with the linear response functions of each of the 16 ice sheet models to obtain the ice flow response to the individual global warming path. The model median for the observational period from 1992 to 2017 of the ice loss due to basal ice shelf melting is 10.2 mm, with a likely range between 5.2 and 21.3 mm. For the same period the Antarctic ice sheet lost mass equivalent to 7.4 mm of global sea level rise, with a standard deviation of 3.7 mm (Shepherd et al., 2018) including all processes, especially surface-mass-balance changes. For the unabated warming path, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5), we obtain a median contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to global mean sea level rise from basal ice shelf melting within the 21st century of 17 cm, with a likely range (66th percentile around the mean) between 9 and 36 cm and a very likely range (90th percentile around the mean) between 6 and 58 cm. For the RCP2.6 warming path, which will keep the global mean temperature below 2 ∘C of global warming and is thus consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement, the procedure yields a median of 13 cm of global mean sea level contribution. The likely range for the RCP2.6 scenario is between 7 and 24 cm, and the very likely range is between 4 and 37 cm. The structural uncertainties in the method do not allow for an interpretation of any higher uncertainty percentiles. We provide projections for the five Antarctic regions and for each model and each scenario separately. The rate of sea level contribution is highest under the RCP8.5 scenario. The maximum within the 21st century of the median value is 4 cm per decade, with a likely range between 2 and 9 cm per decade and a very likely range between 1 and 14 cm per decade.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗