SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “data-model coupling”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2004

Improved Mars Upper Atmosphere Climatology

The detailed characterization of the Mars upper atmosphere is important for future Mars aerobraking activities. Solar cycle, seasonal, and dust trends (climate) as well as planetary wave activity (weather) are crucial to quantify in order to improve our ability to reasonably depict the state of the Mars upper atmosphere over time. To date, our best information is found in the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Accelerometer (ACC) database collected during Phase 1 (Ls = 184 - 300; F10.7 = 70 - 90) and Phase 2 (Ls = 30 - 90; F10.7 = 90 - 150) of aerobraking. This database (100 - 170 km) consists of thermospheric densities, temperatures, and scale heights, providing our best constraints for exercising the coupled Mars General Circulation Model (MGCM) and the Mars Thermospheric General Circulation Model (MTGCM). The Planetary Data System (PDS) contains level 0 and 2 MGS Accelerometer data, corresponding to atmospheric densities along the orbit track. Level 3 products (densities, temperatures, and scale heights at constant altitudes) are also available in the PDS. These datasets provide the primary model constraints for the new MGCM-MTGCM simulations summarized in this report. Our strategy for improving the characterization of the Mars upper atmospheres using these models has been three-fold : (a) to conduct data-model comparisons using the latest MGS data covering limited climatic and weather conditions at Mars, (b) to upgrade the 15-micron cooling and near-IR heating rates in the MGCM and MTGCM codes for ad- dressing climatic variations (solar cycle and seasonal) important in linking the lower and upper atmospheres (including migrating tides), and (c) to exercise the detailed coupled MGCM and MTGCM codes to capture and diagnose the planetary wave (migrating plus non-migrating tidal) features throughout the Mars year. Products from this new suite of MGCM-MTGCM coupled simulations are being used to improve our predictions of the structure of the Mars upper atmosphere for the upcoming MRO aerobraking exercises in 2006. A Michigan website, containing MTGCM output fields from previous climate simulations, is being expanded to include new MGCM-MTGCM simulations addressing planetary wave influences upon thermospheric aerobraking fields (densities and temperatures). In addition, similar MTGCM output fields have been supplied to the MSFC MARSGRAM - 200X empirical model, which will be used in mission operations for conducting aerobraking maneuvers.

Bougher, S. W.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Connecting Paleo and Modern Oceanographic Data to Understand Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation Over Decades to Centuries

Modeling is an important tool for understanding AMOC on all timescales. Mechanistic studies of modern AMOC variability have been hampered by a lack of consistency between free-running models and the sensitivity of AMOC to resolution and parameterization. Recent work within the framework of the phase two Coordinated Ocean- Reference Experiments (CORE-II) addresses this issue head on, looking at model differences of AMOC mean state and interannual variability. One consistent feature across the models is that AMOC mean transport is related to mixed layer depths and Labrador Sea salt content, whereas interannual variability is primarily associated with Labrador Sea temperature anomalies. This is consistent with the hypothesized importance of salt balance for AMOC variability on geological timescales. The simulated relationships between AMOC and subsurface temperature anomalies in fully coupled climate models reveal subsurface AMOC fingerprints that could be used to reconstruct historical AMOC variations at low frequency.With the lack of long-term AMOC observations, models of ocean state that assimilate observational data have been explored as a way to reconstruct AMOC, but comparisons between models indicate they are quite variable in their AMOC representations. Karspeck et al. (2015) found that historical reconstructions of AMOC in such models are sensitive to the details of the data assimilation procedure. The ocean data assimilation community continues to address these issues through improved models and methods for estimating and representing error information.Two objectives of paleoclimate modeling are 1) to provide mechanistic information for interpretation of paleoclimate observations, and 2) to test the ability of predictive models to simulate Earth's climate under different background forcing states. In a good example of the first objective, Schmittner and Lund (2015) and Menviel et al. (2014) provided key information about the proxy signals expected under freshwater disturbance of AMOC, which were used to support the paleoclimate observations made by Henry et al. (2016). In an example of the second objective, Muglia and Schmittner (2015) analyzed Third Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP3) models of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and found consistently more intense and deeper AMOC transports relative to preindustrial simulations, counter to the paleoclimate consensus of LGM conditions, indicating that some processes are not well represented in the PMIP3 models. One challenge is to find adequate paleo observations against which to test these models. PMIP is now in phase 4 (part of CMIP6), which includes experiments covering five periods in Earth's history: the last millennium, last glacial maximum, last interglacial, and the mid-Pliocene. Newly compiled paleoclimate datasets from the PAGES2k project, more transient simulations, and participation of isotope enabled models planned for CMIP6PMIP4 will enable richer paleo data-model comparisons in the near future.

Kilbourne, Hali↗

NASA NTRS2023

Comment on “Advanced Testing of Low, Medium, and High ECS CMIP6 GCM Simulations Versus ERA5-T2m” by N. Scafetta (2022)

Scafetta (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022gl097716) purports to test Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) climate models through a comparison of temperature changes over three decades. Unfortunately, the paper contains numerous conceptual and statistical errors that undermine all of the conclusions. First, no uncertainty is given for the observational temperature difference, making it impossible to assess compatibility with any model result. Second, the CMIP6 data are the ensemble means for each model, but the metric being tested is sensitive to the internal variability and so the full ensemble for each model must be used. When this is corrected, the conclusion that “all models with ECS > 3.0°C overestimate the observed global surface warming” is not sustained. Third, the statistical test in Section 2 would reject all models even in a perfect model setup given sufficient ensemble members, thus the second conclusion “that spatial t-statistics rejects the data-model agreement” is also not sustainable.

CMIP6↗