Tuning without over-tuning: parametric uncertainty quantification for the NEMO ocean model
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Abstract. In this paper we discuss climate model tuning and present an iterative automatic tuning method from the statistical science literature. The method, which we refer to here as iterative refocussing (though also known as history matching), avoids many of the common pitfalls of automatic tuning procedures that are based on optimisation of a cost function, principally the over-tuning of a climate model due to using only partial observations. This avoidance comes by seeking to rule out parameter choices that we are confident could not reproduce the observations, rather than seeking the model that is closest to them (a procedure that risks over-tuning). We comment on the state of climate model tuning and illustrate our approach through three waves of iterative refocussing of the NEMO (Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean) ORCA2 global ocean model run at 2° resolution. We show how at certain depths the anomalies of global mean temperature and salinity in a standard configuration of the model exceeds 10 standard deviations away from observations and show the extent to which this can be alleviated by iterative refocussing without compromising model performance spatially. We show how model improvements can be achieved by simultaneously perturbing multiple parameters, and illustrate the potential of using low-resolution ensembles to tune NEMO ORCA configurations at higher resolutions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The history matching approach avoids parts of the defects of optimization approaches to tuning.
“The history matching approach (31) advocated here avoids parts of these defects.”
From Toward machine-assisted tuning avoiding the underestimation of uncertainty in climate change projections (2023) · cites this paper as [31]
Cites
The global climatology of an interannually varying air-sea flux data set.
Large, W. G., & Yeager, S. G. (2009) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-008-0441-3 · Cited by 1,636 · see citing works
Probabilistic inference for future climate using an ensemble of climate model evaluations.
Rougier, J. (2007) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9156-9 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Gaussian process emulation of dynamic computer codes
Conti, S., Gosling, J. P., Oakley, J. E., & O'Hagan, A. (2009) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/asp028 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Couvreux, F., Hourdin, F., Williamson, D., Roehrig, R., Volodina, V., Villefranque, N., Rio, C., Audouin, O., Salter, J., Bazile, E., et al. (2021) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2020ms002217 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Self-citationClimate–carbon cycle uncertainties and the Paris Agreement
Holden, P. B., Edwards, N. R., Ridgwell, A., Wilkinson, R. D., Fraedrich, K., Lunkeit, F., Pollitt, H., Mercure, J.-F., Salas, P., Lam, A., et al. (2018) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0197-7 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Are general circulation models obsolete?
Balaji, V., Couvreux, F., Deshayes, J., Gautrais, J., Hourdin, F., & Rio, C. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2202075119 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Hourdin, F., Williamson, D., Rio, C., Couvreux, F., Roehrig, R., Villefranque, N., Musat, I., Fairhead, L., Diallo, F. B., & Volodina, V. (2021) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2020ms002225 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Self-citationHourdin, F., Ferster, B., Deshayes, J., Mignot, J., Musat, I., & Williamson, D. (2023) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adf2758 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Self-citationDifferentiable programming for Earth system modeling
Gelbrecht, M., White, A., Bathiany, S., & Boers, N. (2023) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-16-3123-2023 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
- Authors
- Williamson, D. B., Blaker, A. T., & Sinha, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Exeter (GB)
- National Oceanography Centre (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Williamson, Daniel B.
- Blaker, Adam T.
- Sinha, Bablu
- Venue
- Geoscientific Model Development
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2017-04-27
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1789-1816
- ISSN
- 1991-959X (ISSN-L)
- 1991-9603
- OpenAlex
- W2509250743
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 4.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Geoscientific model development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- IOC of UNESCO (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/K019112/1)
- Natural Environment Research Council (noc010010)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Oceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
- Keywords
- climate model tuning, history matching, NEMO ocean model, global ocean model, parameter perturbation, model-data comparison
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review