Meeting:Abstract 2011 CSDMS meeting-075: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 15:10, 10 June 2017

You probably paid. If not:

Browse abstracts

<<

>>

CSDMS all hands meeting 2011

Mary Hill choose to not submit an abstract for this conference.

[[Image:|300px|right|link=File:]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{#ifeq:{{#expr:{{#time: U}}>{{#expr:
 {{#expr:{{#switch: {{#sub:{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}|4|-8}}
@@ Line 13: / Line 12: @@
 |CSDMS meeting city=Boulder
 |CSDMS meeting state=Colorado
-|CSDMS meeting country=USA
+|CSDMS meeting country=United States
 |CSDMS meeting email address=mchill@usgs.gov
 |CSDMS meeting phone=3035413014
 }}
 {{CSDMS meeting abstract yes no
-|CSDMS meeting abstract submit=Yes
+|CSDMS meeting abstract submit=No
 }}
 {{CSDMS meeting abstract title template
@@ Line 24: / Line 23: @@
 }}
 {{CSDMS meeting abstract template
-|CSDMS meeting abstract=This work proposes that environmental models would be made more effective by establishing a base set of model fit, sensitivity, and uncertainty measures for which results are reported consistently, along with any other methods considered, and as innovations in model analysis continue. Indeed, there have been many innovations in model analysis in recent decades. While innovation is important, when every subfield within environmental modeling and almost every report use different model analysis methods, the models are difficult to compare and the utility and limitations of the models are more often obscured than elucidated because few are familiar with the analysis method. Adoption of a base set of consistently used methods can be thought of as contributing to the “how” for achieving the model transparency and refutability encouraged by recent essays describing general goals and philosophies for environmental modeling. The phase I set of methods proposed here includes very computationally frugal methods that are most accurate when the model is sufficiently linear. Computationally frugal methods are advantageous when considering models with long execution times typical when considering environmental systems. Recent work indicates that many of the nonlinearities that have caused so much trouble in the past are numerical artifacts without validity to real world system dynamics. It appears that robust models absolved of such artifacts can often be fruitfully evaluated using linear methods. Second, situations in which the computationally frugal methods fail are generally apparent rather quickly, so little time is lost relative to the effort required by computationally demanding methods. Comparisons of linear methods to selected computationally expensive methods demonstrate the relative utility of both. Establishing base sets of linear (Phase I) and nonlinear (Phase II) methods provides a foundation that is expected to increase utility of environmental model results and interest in sensitivity analysis and uncertainty methods. The increased utility and interest would benefit all developers and users of environmental models, including policy makers and resource managers.
 }}
 {{blank line template}}
-{{CSDMS meeting program template
+<!--{{CSDMS meeting program template
 |CSDMS meeting first hydrological choice=MODFLOW
 |CSDMS meeting second hydrological choice=ParFlow
@@ Line 35: / Line 33: @@
 |CSDMS meeting first carbonate choice=I am not interested
 |CSDMS meeting first tool choice=GRASS
-}}
+}}-->
 {{CSDMS meeting logistics template
 |Attend all days=Yes