Cited by 75Oceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesClimate variability and modelsMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations

Tuning without over-tuning: parametric uncertainty quantification for the NEMO ocean model

Open access
Williamson, Daniel B., Blaker, Adam T., Sinha, Bablu·2017·Geoscientific Model Development

Published 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

Crossref · 10.5194/gmd-10-1789-2017

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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
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