 |
QuickLinks |
|
|
|
|
The math behind geoscience
IMAGe champions cross-cutting models and methods
|
by Bob Henson
“We get to dabble in everything.
It’s like a big banquet of problems,”
says Doug Nychka. He’s referring to the Institute for Mathematics
Applied to Geosciences (IMAGe), whose influence stretches across
much of NCAR and along many paths in the geoscience community.
With Nychka as its founding director, IMAGe is based in NCAR’s
Computational and Information Systems Laboratory. Supported mainly
through NSF funding, IMAGe’s four groups focus on data assimilation,
turbulence, geophysical statistics, and computational mathematics.
Each group hosts a number of external visitors each year and conducts
an active research program. Five IMAGe scientists hold joint appointments
with other parts of NCAR, and
the institute maintains close ties with university faculty.
One of IMAGe’s main goals is to advance weather and climate
modeling through the application of flexible mathematical models
and methods. Nychka cites turbulence as an example that lends itself
to multifaceted analysis. “It’s a phenomenon that appears
at many spatial scales and in different contexts,” he says,
adding that a common statistical framework can be applied to observations
of turbulence coming from very different parts of the Earth system.

Recent high-resolution modeling of electromagnetic
currents in the presence of turbulent flow, such as those
observed in the solar corona and Earth’s magnetosphere,
depicts “roll-ups” of current sheets (the cylindrical
features at the
center and top of the graphic at right). These roll-ups
are produced by
instabilities similar to those responsible for Kelvin-Helmholtz
clouds (above).
(Illustration courtesy IMAGe; photo by Benjamin Foster.) |
Although IMAGe is little more than two years old, geophysical turbulence—whether
on the Sun or in Earth’s atmosphere or oceans—has
been an important research topic at NCAR for decades. In many
cases, the computational power to grapple with turbulence problems
has arrived only recently. Now, the push is on to leverage that
power and enter new realms of visualization and understanding.
IMAGe’s turbulence experts made significant progress over the
last year in modeling the behavior of the magnetic currents that
prevail in Earth’s magnetosphere and the solar corona. New
NCAR software can track magnetohydrodynamic turbulence as it unfolds
and decays, using a cubic grid that features more than 3.6 billion
points. In one recent discovery (see illustration above), sheets
of magnetic current were found to roll into swirls driven by the
same instabilities that produce Kelvin-Helmholtz clouds. “These
are structures that you wouldn’t discern by just looking at
the physical equations,” says Nychka. The study, by NCAR’s
Pablo Mininni and Annick Pouquet with David Montgomery (Dartmouth
College), was published in the 15 December 2006 issue of Physical
Review Letters.

This graphic shows how an ensemble data assimilation method
adjusts to different densities of observations to avoid
overwhelming the analysis. Higher values (an inflation
factor applied to the ensemble spread) denote areas of
high data density, such as along flight corridors, where
less weight is thereby placed on an individual observation.
(Illustration courtesy Jeff Anderson, NCAR.) |
Data assimilation is another long-time NCAR activity with a major
presence in IMAGe. The institute now serves as one center of
expertise for scientists from across and beyond NCAR interested
in the topic. IMAGe hosts the Data Assimilation Research Testbed,
a software platform used to explore the infusion of data into
ensemble models. One emerging technique, called adaptive inflation,
involves the statisical challenge of keeping ensemble models
from being overwhelmed by pockets of high data density, such
as the atmospheric data collected by aircraft along common
flight paths (see illustration above).
With numerous NCAR scientists now dedicated largely or fully
to data assimilation, the topic is fast achieving critical mass,
says Nychka. “It’s
important to confront numerical models with observations in order
to understand the models’ strengths and places for improvement,” he
says.
Safety tips for handling climate-model output

IMAGE’s group leaders include (left to right)
Steve Sain, Piotr Smolarkiewicz, Jeff Anderson, and Doug Nychka,
IMAGe director. Not pictured: Annick Pouquet. (Photo by Carlye
Calvin.) |
For statisticians like Nychka, the extensive numerical modeling
conducted and coordinated by NCAR offers a gold mine of raw material. “Modelers
at NCAR see that they have a need for statistics,” he says, “and
there are many aspects of model development where we can make a contribution.” In
general, he’d like to see model testing and development
done in a more systematic way, especially now that the output
from weather and climate models is increasingly used in policymaking
and other activities.
One risk for those interpreting model output is forgetting
that the average of a model ensemble may not be a depiction of
reality. For instance, few if any days have weather that precisely
matches the climatic norm for a given day. Likewise, the weather
five days from now, or the climate 50 years from now, is likely
to have small-scale features obscured by the tyranny of averaging. “The ensemble
is the real thing; the average is an artificial construct,” Nychka
notes.
Another issue is model inbreeding—the amount of overlap
that can exist among different models that share the same goal.
For example, the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) draws on 21 global models. However,
the actual diversity in numerical viewpoints may not be as great
as that number indicates, notes Nychka, because some of these
models use similar components or are variants of a common source.
There’s also the problem of assumptions that every model makes. “If
a bias is common to all models, this will incorrectly be considered
part of the ‘true’ climate signal,” notes Reinhard
Furrer (Colorado School of Mines). While there’s no airtight
way to eliminate such biases, Furrer is working on ways to reduce
their impact on climate analysis, as governments and businesses
clamor for more specific regional guidance on climate change.

Statisticians and climate scientists are now teaming up to analyze the climate modeling carried out as part of the latest IPCC assessment. Above is a depiction of the amount of warming (in degrees Celsius) that can be expected with an 84.1% likelihood for the June–August period between 2080 and 2100 relative to 1980–2000, assuming a midrange emissions scenario (IPCC A1B). (Illustration courtesy Reinhard Furrer, Colorado School of Mines.) |
Working with the latest IPCC runs, Furrer and colleagues recently
produced a new array of global temperature projections showing
the likelihood that average seasonal temperature will exceed
a given value (see illustration above). This work builds on previous
analyses by NCAR’s Claudia Tebaldi and Gerald Meehl by
calculating probability distribution functions (PDFs) for each
grid point over the entire globe, rather than downscaling to
produce regional climate projections from a single PDF. “It’s
really an extension of Claudia’s
work,” says Furrer, who published the results in Geophysical
Research Letters on 31 March with Reto Knutti (Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology) and NCAR’s Steve Sain, Nychka,
and Gerald Meehl.
New TOYs
Much of IMAGe’s community involvement occurs through workshops
organized under a Theme-of-the-Year (TOY) structure. The workshops
are held in conjunction with two NSF-sponsored centers, the Statistical
and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute and the Mathematical
Sciences Research Institute. Each TOY is organized with colleagues
at these centers and affiliated universities.

Montserrat Fuentes.
|
The first set of four TOY workshops, which focused on the interaction
among scales in weather and climate models, was codirected in
2005–06
by applied mathematician Andrew Majda (New York University) and NCAR
climate scientist Joseph Tribbia. This year’s TOY workshops,
which extend from November 2006 to July 2007, explore the statistics
of numerical models. “We want to help match
cutting-edge statistical methods to the needs of modelers and make
statistical scientists aware of the issues that modelers face,” says
Nychka.
Montserrat Fuentes, a statistician at North Carolina State
University, is helping organize this year’s TOY. “I’m always
trying to find scientists to work with and to establish joint research
topics that could lead to dissertations, funding, and publications,” says
Fuentes. “IMAGe has served as the perfect umbrella to
accelerate the transfer of new statistical and mathematical techniques
to scientific problems.”
Next year’s TOY will delve into geophysical turbulence, with
an emphasis on applied mathematics and observational data. The codirector
will be applied mathematician Keith Julien (University of Colorado). “The
diversity in scales in geophysical fluid dynamics presents a great
modeling challenge,” says Julien. “It’s one reason
why these phenomena can be so difficult to understand.” He
expects the 2007–08 TOY workshop topics to range from observations
and experiments to theoretical methods and models to computing
and visualization.
IMAGe’s Geophysical Statistics Project—which was launched
at NCAR in the mid-1990s—continues to carry out theoretical
research while maintaining an active visitor program and hosting
several postdoctoral researchers. Such connections are a critical
part of IMAGe, says Nychka, who is just as interested in bringing
statisticians and applied mathematicians into the realm of the
UCAR community as he is in bringing statistical tools to physical
scientists.
“If you’re a mathematical scientist, come and visit
us,” he
says. “We’ll listen to what you do, and we’ll
try to hook you up with a science team that can use your mathematics.
|
|
|
|