EGU24-5287, updated on 08 Mar 2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-5287
EGU General Assembly 2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Exploring the Potential of History Matching for Land Surface Model Calibration

Nina Raoult1, Simon Beylat2,3, James Salter1, Frédéric Hourdin4, Vladislav Bastrikov5, Catherine Ottlé2, and Philippe Peylin2
Nina Raoult et al.
  • 1University of Exeter, United Kingdom of Great Britain – England, Scotland, Wales (n.m.raoult2@exeter.ac.uk)
  • 2Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, LSCE/IPSL, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, 91191, France
  • 3School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • 4Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, LMD/IPSL, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, École Polytechnique, ENS, Paris, 75005, France
  • 5Science Partners, Paris, France

With the growing complexity of land surface models used to represent the terrestrial part of wider Earth system models, the need for sophisticated and robust parameter optimisation techniques is paramount. Quantifying parameter uncertainty is essential for both model development and more accurate projections. History matching is an emerging technique in climate science for uncertainty quantification. Using Gaussian process emulators, history matching allows us to rule out parts of parameter space that lead to model outputs being inconsistent with observations. In this presentation, we assess the power of history matching by comparing results to variational data assimilation, commonly used in land surface models for parameter estimation. Although both approaches have different setups and goals, we can extract posterior parameter distributions from both methods and test the model-data fit of ensembles sampled from these distributions. Using a twin experiment, we test whether we can recover known parameter values. Through variational data assimilation, we closely match the observations. However, the known parameter values are not always contained in the posterior parameter distribution, highlighting the equifinality of the parameter space. In contrast, while more conservative, history matching still gives a reasonably good fit and provides more information about the model structure by allowing for non-Gaussian parameter distributions. Furthermore, the true parameters are contained in the posterior distributions. We then consider history matching's ability to ingest different metrics targeting different physical parts of the model, helping to reduce parameter space further and improve model-data fit. We find the best results when history matching is used with multiple metrics; not only is the model-data fit improved, but we also gain a deeper understanding of the model and how the different parameters constrain different parts of the seasonal cycle. We conclude by discussing the potential of history matching in future studies.

How to cite: Raoult, N., Beylat, S., Salter, J., Hourdin, F., Bastrikov, V., Ottlé, C., and Peylin, P.: Exploring the Potential of History Matching for Land Surface Model Calibration, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-5287, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-5287, 2024.