So You Want to Model: Part 1

This post is part 1 of a two part response to a comment on a post concerning numerical modeling of the space environment. TelepathicTroy called for Open Source space codes in order to develop transparency as far as code capability and performance.

This post presents a non-open source solution to this issue: The Community Coordinated Modeling Center. The CCMC is a NASA-run organization that acts as a third party who runs and compares many different space weather models. Furthermore, they provide a resource to the community for running these models and visualizing their results. Although this is not opening up source code to everyone, it does give non-code developers the chance to run each model through a gauntlet of tests and evaluations.

This resource is open to everyone. Check out their runs on request section, or browse their library of simulation results and play with their plotting tools. There are results available from recent model comparisons, the conclusions of which were presented at the current GEM Workshop.

There are issues, however. A limited set of parameters and controls for each model are available to the end user, and this leads to model developers contesting CCMC results that may show their model in a bad light. It is constantly asserted by developers that the results of a certain run would be much more favorable if CCMC had used a certain set of paramters instead of their defaults (typically picked for robustness.) I must admit guilt to this very charge, but in some cases the developer is indeed correct. So while the CCMC is a powerful comparison and evaulation tool, it is still cannot do what an open source approach can: provide 100% transparency to what a code is doing and how well it does it.

It is interesting that such a tool could give rise to a hobby-based or grass roots space weather modeling crowd. Unlikely, but an intriguing prospect.

Stay tuned for Part 2: the SWMF.

Spring AGU Wrap-up

Spring/summer is always rough because of the number of conferences that take place. This year I have three week-long trips within five weeks, each requiring a good amount of preparation on my behalf. Before I take off for my second trip, here's the highlights from the AGU Joint Meeting (aka spring AGU) as far as space science:

1. There was a good portion of presentations dedicated to the TWINS satellites, which are now pumping out data. These satellites carry instruments that detect high energy neutral atoms flying away from the magnetosphere, yielding interesting data products -- including temperature maps of the magnetosphere. While this is a data source I'm not familiar with, it could be a very powerful method for exploring magnetospheric dynamics.
2. The space weather sections were mildly interesting. They served more as a show-and-tell session rather than a true science expo. Right now, there are three agencies working to convert science computer models to operational computer models: NASA's Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC), NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC), and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). How these entities will coexist has yet to be determined.
   
3. There was a crazy guy there. See upcoming post.
   

Yeeeaaaah, that's about it, honestly. Typically, Spring AGU is under atteneded by the space group, and this year was particularly sparse. Add in the fact that the conference started on Sunday of Memorial weekend (U.S. citizens, anyway) and you get a whole lot of nuttin'. My presentations (one oral, one poster) were basically for naught (three people in the audience? C'MON!) Hopefully next year (Brazil!) will be better, but I may skip out.

I did enjoy Canada, however. Where else can you leave your wallet in an airport (yes, I did) and have it returned with every penny and every piece of plastic in place and unmolested (yes, that too)?