These configurations are intended for use by the JULES development and research community (they have been academically published and also approved for use by the relevant JULES module leaders), but are only maintained on an ad hoc basis rather than routinely (and are not guaranteed bit-comparable between JULES versions). If you are aware of a widely-used configuration that is not included here, then please send me the details (see email address below) - either in Rose suite format or as a set of namelists (along with a version number of the version of JULES for which they are appropriate):
Source / Suite ID
|Global Water Resources Reanalysis 2 (WRR2)|
Intended to be the best JULES hydrology options for GB under the UKEP project (Martínez-de la Torre et al. 2019) and its extrapolation for global applications under the earth2observe project. The main difference with other configurations is the use of a new development to include a terrain slope dependency in the saturation excess surface runoff production scheme (see jules_hydrology and jules_pdm namelists). This development has been part of the trunk since JULESvn4.9.
An iLAMB evaluation exercise of this configuration together with the core configurations is available here.
(Note: This suite uses WFDEI 3-hourly driving data, with 'nb' temporal interpolation flag SWdown and LWdown, and 1 hour timestep (as it is set up for daily and monthly outputs). Please see note about WFDEI data here for other options)
UK CHESS-LAND Configuration
(CHESS = Climate, Hydrological and Ecological research Support System)
For use with CHESS data over UK (minus Shetland and N. Ireland) at 1 km resolution with prescribed vegetation.
Developed by Alberto Martínez de la Torre from WRR2 (the hydrology options are as for WRR2, but the spatial resolution is different and the C4 grass PFT has been replaced with crop land cover).
For use with Fluxnet2015 data at single- or multiple-sites.
Please note that if you use Fluxnet data then it's required to register with them to let them know that you are using their data (even if you actually download the data from elsewhere).
See suite u-al752 developed by Karina Williams (UKMO), Anna Harper (Univ. Exeter), Patrick McGuire (Univ. Reading) and Carolina Duran-Rojas (Univ. Exeter). Also used in Patrick M's tutorial here. As of Jan 2019 this suite includes 73 sites (including the JULES Golden Sites).
Alternatively, see u-ap091 developed by Heather Rumbold from GL6 (with local (gap filled) atmospheric forcing + IGBP land cover + HWSD soils).
|JULES Golden Sites||A new initiative 2018 to identify a set of global sites with high-quality observational data that can be used to drive JULES and evaluate the output.||See here. Also see the FLUXNET Configuration above.|
by Cécile Ménard. Adapted from JULES-C and the snow configuration for plot-scale simulations with observed meteorological forcing. Used with JULES 4.8 in July 2017.
|Snow configuration||by John Edwards, described here. Also see JULEScold.||u-ai433, u-ah563|
|JULES-Impacts||See Kate Halladay's and Richard Betts's 2017 presentation and also Anna Harper's 2016 presentation.|
|JULES-ML (Managed Land)||See Anna Harper's and Andy Wiltshire's 2016 presentation.|
|JULES-Crop configurations||See the configurations on the JULES Crop page and also mentioned here. See also "Configurations with >=9 PFTs" below.|
|JULES-Fire||For use with the INFERNO fire model and also mentioned here.|
|Configurations with >=9 PFTs|
For 17 PFTs see e.g. here
A JULES-IMOGEN configuration has also been developed by Eddy Comyn-Platt for the CLIFFTOP project (see slide 7 here), designed to use the most up-to-date carbon cycle features available in JULESvn4.8.
Please note that inclusion in these tables is not intended to mean a configuration is necessarily 'recommended' for your particular use of JULES: these are configurations that have been tried and tested in particular situations and therefore should be consistent and accurate in those contexts, but you will have to assess for yourself whether it is suitable for your application of JULES. For example, in many operational configurations intended for the UM configurations are optimised for best results across ocean and sea ice surfaces as well as land surface, which means that they may not be as optimal as other configurations on land-only runs.
For benchmarking tests for some of these configurations, see the evaluation page. Finally, many other configurations are in use in the community (on the Rosie Go database), but these are not intended for wide, general use.