No knowing that much about climate modelling, i though it may be just a display glitch. There is another one with temp scale (showing hot spots in white color).
I "think" i remember a similar bug appeared during BOINC SM model alpha testing...but i can't remember this well nor clear.

I would suggest you try Martin's CPView for viewing data off-line (e.g when first phase is finished. You may find a lot of usefull features there.

Nice fractals, btw - i like the buddha ones.

> Regarding the western movement of clouds in the extratropics -
> this needs to be fixed, assuming it's not a parameter issue. It
> may be something as simple as a display glitch (meaning the
> model is correct internally, but the display routine is flawed)
> or it may be flawed throughout (in which case it doubly must be
> fixed). I hope thay aren't hesitant to admit this (assuming
> the later case) given the large number of model runs that may
> be of questionable quality because of this.

---

<i>phpBB forum for CPDN, all are </i><a href="http://www.climateprediction.net/board">invited</a>

&gt;
&gt; I would suggest you try Martin's CPView for viewing data off-line (e.g when
&gt; first phase is finished. You may find a lot of usefull features there.
&gt;
Yes Martin Sykes CPView would be the best way to look at the data. Unfortunately most of the information on how to use it and really get the best from it, including many examples and interesting discussions surrounding specific models, is buried deep in the vaults locked up in the old 'classic' phpBB.

Marj

---

_________________________________

Eric, while your questions are interesting, I am not concerned about the viability of the experiment based on your observations. We are modeling climate and not weather, and the visualization on BOINC is very limited in what it can show. Besides that, <a href="http://www.climateprediction.net/science/strategy_adv.php">the <b>1st experiment</b> is an exercise in looking at the sensitivity of the model to a range of parameter values</a>. It is not trying to predict weather, or for that matter what the climate will be like 5, 15, or 45 years into the future.

I agree with Honza and Marj that the best way to look at this in the climate sense is through <a href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm/cpdn.html">CPView</a> (it would probably also be the best way to look at this in real time <i>if Martin could get the information needed to read the CPDN data from hadsm process/processes</i>).

As Marj said, the tutorial for using CPView to view archived/zipped model data is unavailable due to the unavailability of the phpBB forum. Still, you can relatively easily use it to view seasonal output from the current model by opening the pa, pc, pd, pe, pf, pg, ph files in the dataout directory. Martin has a list of what variables are in which file on his website, but it appears outdated. However, the variables are listed for most as you step through them in the files in CPView.

Lets say you are in phase 1 and you want to see the average seasonal temperatures, you would open one file of the earlier pe files, say one that contains an 11 for 1811, and then you would be able to step through the seasons up to, but not including, the current one in the model. It isn't quite as simple as that but Martin has some simple instructions on his website, and there is context help for the most toolbar buttons in the status bar of CPView. Phase 2 files would contain numbers of 26 to 40, phase 3 a little tricker with numbers like p1, p2, p3, ...,p9, q0, q1, ...,q5. Always open one of the early files in the phase you want to examine. Once an experiment has ended and a new one downloaded, you can copy the zipped archive files from the finished experiment to another folder, unzip them, and view them in a similar manner with CPView.

<a href="http://members.cox.net/geophi/cld_lw_rad.png">Here</a> is an example of Total Cloud Amount in Longwave Radiation. It would appear that there is considerable cloudiness that the model has in the tropics, unlike what the BOINC display shows. Snowfall is contained in the pd files and seems to generally show reasonable values for the southeast U.S. in the various seasons, even in a run of mine where the BOINC visualization showed snow cover along the gulf coast of the U.S. in May.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion on various issues in this experiment, but base them on the big picture of this climate experiment, and not how the BOINC visualization depicts weather.

Eric,

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not so sure about SM failure to treat convection. Cumulus clouds didn't display well or at all early in the "Classic" phase but the viz was changed a bit to at least partially compensate for that. (Small footprint compared to grid cell size.) The weakness of the Slab Ocean is that upwelling and such things are not treated -- but that's in the Model run on Cray's and coming for the versions we run on our PC's. (Next is Sulfur Cycle and we're in Alpha testing for that now. Later in the year, according to plan, the Coupled Model [dynamic ocean] is added to the mix. Both require a LOT more calculations than the Slab version.)

About circulation. It depends upon which level you see. There was a time I earned my daily bread by occasionally riding a big metal bird into Typhoons. Spent may hours bouncing around in those things and thought I had a fair understanding of them. My first exposures to satellite loops were disorienting because the circulation was "backward", i.e., clockwise or anti-cyclonic (Northern Hemisphere). Why? Because the satellite loop showed Cirrus moving outward as exhaust from the Eye-wall and Cumulus/Cumulonimbus cells in the Feeder bands, not the lower cyclonic circulation. Perspective of the observer.

Have you tried the option to selectively shut off display levels?
1 = Toggle snow on/off
2 = Toggle Low clouds on/off
3 = Toggle Mid-level clouds on/off
4 = Toggle High Clouds on/off
5 = Show all

Jim

---

"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
Greetings from coastal Washington state, the scenic US Pacific Northwest.

(...)

Geophi, Marj,

Thanks for the info. I'll check out CPview.

Yes, I understand this is all about climate and not weather.

Still I hope they get around to fixing the cloud view in
boinc/screensaver - the westward movement of clouds in the
extratropics doesn't look good, though you'd have to be fanatic
to notice it :)

Regards, Eric B

---

&gt; Eric,
&gt;
&gt; Thanks for the reply.
&gt;
&gt; I'm not so sure about SM failure to treat convection. Cumulus clouds didn't
&gt; display well or at all early in the "Classic" phase but the viz was changed a
&gt; bit to at least partially compensate for that. (Small footprint compared to
&gt; grid cell size.) The weakness of the Slab Ocean is that upwelling and such
&gt; things are not treated -- but that's in the Model run on Cray's and coming for
&gt; the versions we run on our PC's. (Next is Sulfur Cycle and we're in Alpha
&gt; testing for that now. Later in the year, according to plan, the Coupled Model
&gt; [dynamic ocean] is added to the mix. Both require a LOT more calculations
&gt; than the Slab version.)

Oh, I've no doubt the dynamic ocean model is much more computationally
expensive. I look forward to running it. I'm glad to be able to contribute
to this endeavor, if only indirectly.

&gt;
&gt; About circulation. It depends upon which level you see. There was a time I
&gt; earned my daily bread by occasionally riding a big metal bird into Typhoons.
&gt; Spent may hours bouncing around in those things and thought I had a fair
&gt; understanding of them. My first exposures to satellite loops were
&gt; disorienting because the circulation was "backward", i.e., clockwise or
&gt; anti-cyclonic (Northern Hemisphere). Why? Because the satellite loop showed
&gt; Cirrus moving outward as exhaust from the Eye-wall and Cumulus/Cumulonimbus
&gt; cells in the Feeder bands, not the lower cyclonic circulation. Perspective of
&gt; the observer.
&gt;

Ah, well now I'm a bit envious. You've been able to study the beast up
close.

I think the westward movement of clouds shown in the screen-
saver is definitely wrong, even though it's likely a cosmetic glitch.
One normally doesn't see fronts streaming across Europe towards the US.
The model runs slow enough that this is not obvious unless you go
through the work I did to make the movie. I don't think looking at a
statistical average would notice something like this.


&gt; Have you tried the option to selectively shut off display levels?
(...)

Yes, I looked at all the cloud layers. Ditto for all of them.

I was hoping they'd attempt to model tropical waves in the
slab model. I'm still learning.

Why, just today there was quite a flair up over equatorial Africa.
It was only larger than western Europe. Beauty! Just look at those curves! Especially second link.
(hope to get some clickable links below)

<a href="http://www.fractalfreak.com/ClimatePrediction/0226MIR.jpg">Noon</a>
<a href="http://www.fractalfreak.com/ClimatePrediction/0226MIR2.jpg">Six</a>

Regards, Eric B

---

Hi Eric,

Thanks for a really interesting thread. As has been pointed out, we have had problems in visualising convective cloud in the model. We had hoped that these had been fixed in the BOINC version(s) but we'll double check.

&gt; Well, I think I found the answer I was looking for, at
&gt; least regarding the models treatment of tropical convection.
&gt; This excerpted from HCTN-51 (off the hadley site) where
&gt; they are discussing the performance of tropical convection
&gt; in the coupled models
&gt;
&gt; "
&gt; Convectively coupled equatorial waves are a key part of the tropical
&gt; climate system. A faithful representation of these wave modes is
&gt; needed for predictions on all time-scales. However, at present there
&gt; is little understanding of how well they are treated in state-of-the-
&gt; art models and knowledge of these waves is very limited
&gt; "

Sure - but then this can be said of quite a few parts of the earth system - basically any bit under active research. This doesn't mean that models are useless, just that they are uncertain. [More about this below.]

&gt; There you have it. I would like to add the above should
&gt; be amended to say that equatorial waves are ONE of the keys
&gt; to understanding the GLOBAL climate system.
&gt;
&gt; Unless some sort of understaning of tropical convection can
&gt; be achieved (certainly greater than we have now) you aint
&gt; got a working global climate model, in my very honest opinion.

Now this is an interesting point. The following is an excerpt from some recent work Myles, Jamie, Dave S and I have been doing on model error:

"Only a few years ago we were told that climate forecasts ``could only be taken
seriously'' if performed with models that could run without surface flux adjustment. Now we are told they can only be taken seriously when they resolve oceanic eddies. But some aspects of simulated climate change have altered remarkably little, notably the overall shape (not the magnitude, which depends on the individual models' sensitivities) of the global mean response to observed and projected greenhouse gas emissions over the past and coming half-centuries. If all the changes in resolution, parameterisations or model structure that we attempt fail to alter some aspect of the forecast (the ratio of warming over the past 50 years to projected warming over the next 50 years under a specific emissions scenario, in this example), then we might hope that this aspect of the forecast is being determined by a combination of the observations and the basic physical constraints which all properly-formulated climate models share."

I think this is quite an important point, and one that a lot of people in the climate science world haven't really considered. Given that perturbations at arbitrarily small scales can affect arbitrarily large scales in finite time [1], it's quite possible (and arguably even defensible) to greet each succssive generation of models with "but in order to really simulate the climate you need to model process X" (which just happens to be just out of reach in terms of scale). This process could go on indefinitely, but is, in my view, something of a "god of the gaps" objection. Furthermore, it ignores the substantive predictions made by the (successive generations of) models. If entire family tree of models predicts the same things (on some scales, in some variables) we might have grounds to suspect that there are constraints embedded in the models that are making them arrive at these convergent predictions. The fact they fail to capture some processes very well needn't bear on their ability to simulate others reasonably well. It all depends on the nature of the constraints that apply to the particular variable in question.

It's an interesting piece of anthropolgy to go to a climate conference and listen to the various talks. Very frequently you hear people - interested in the Indian Ocean monsoon or ENSO for instance - say that the model fails to capture this and fails to capture that and therefore we need to do more work. But then those of us involved in the prediction of global means blithely carry on and pretend that these objections are largely irrelevant to our work, and we fire ahead and issue predictions of global warming to 2100 anyway. It sounds counterintuitive, but it's quite possible that both communities are justified in what they're doing: current models may be poor at simulating equatorial Kelvin waves or flows through the maritime continent, but these aren't necessarily relevant to forecasts of global mean temperature, which may be much better constrained by things that the model captures quite well (energy budget constraints, for example).

Dave

[1] Lorenz, E. N., 1969: The predictability of a flow which possesses many scales of motion. Tellus, 21, 289–307.

---

Thanks for the post Dave :-D

Good to see a thread like this getting an official reply.

---

Visit BOINC WIKI for help

And join BOINC Synergy for all the news in one place.

&gt; Thanks for the post Dave :-D
&gt;
&gt; Good to see a thread like this getting an official reply.

It's a good thread. Eric has a good point about model inadequacy, but I think there are ways out of the problem.

Not sure if I wrote that in an official capacity, though :-) I think we all pretty much agree with a lot of it (that global constraints such as energy balance probably dominate in predictions of global mean temperature) but I think I may be too sanguine in my acceptance of criticisms of regional performance for some tastes - Dave S is on the frontline of some of that stuff, and I think he would probably employ slightly different arguments (based on perturbed physics spanning a range of behaviours) to get around the regional "inadequacies". So I think I'm happy to see my post as a possible response, perhaps one perturbation among a large ensemble of possible responses... :-)

Dave

---

&gt; Thanks for the post Dave :-D
&gt; Good to see a thread like this getting an official reply.
Ditto.

---

<i>phpBB forum for CPDN, all are </i><a href="http://www.climateprediction.net/board">invited</a>

Dave, Hi.

Thanks for the response.

(...)

&gt; "Only a few years ago we were told that climate forecasts ``could only be
&gt; taken
&gt; seriously'' if performed with models that could run without surface flux
&gt; adjustment. Now we are told they can only be taken seriously when they
&gt; resolve oceanic eddies. But some aspects of simulated climate change have
&gt; altered remarkably little, notably the overall shape (not the magnitude, which
&gt; depends on the individual models' sensitivities) of the global mean response
&gt; to observed and projected greenhouse gas emissions over the past and coming
&gt; half-centuries. If all the changes in resolution, parameterisations or model
&gt; structure that we attempt fail to alter some aspect of the forecast (the ratio
&gt; of warming over the past 50 years to projected warming over the next 50 years
&gt; under a specific emissions scenario, in this example), then we might hope that
&gt; this aspect of the forecast is being determined by a combination of the
&gt; observations and the basic physical constraints which all properly-formulated
&gt; climate models share."
&gt;

Yes, that's a good point. The fact that many different models tend
to agree in certain areas would make one think, that despite known
deficiencies, the overall approximation is good. This is probably one of
the biggest strengths of the ensemble approach -- it allows one to asses
the skill of a model without having to know or understand every last
detail (which as you pointed out is not possible anyway).

&gt; I think this is quite an important point, and one that a lot of people in the
&gt; climate science world haven't really considered. Given that perturbations at
&gt; arbitrarily small scales can affect arbitrarily large scales in finite time
&gt; [1], it's quite possible (and arguably even defensible) to greet each
&gt; succssive generation of models with "but in order to really simulate the
&gt; climate you need to model process X" (which just happens to be just out of
&gt; reach in terms of scale). This process could go on indefinitely, but is, in my
&gt; view, something of a "god of the gaps" objection. Furthermore, it ignores the
&gt; substantive predictions made by the (successive generations of) models. If
&gt; entire family tree of models predicts the same things (on some scales, in some
&gt; variables) we might have grounds to suspect that there are constraints
&gt; embedded in the models that are making them arrive at these convergent
&gt; predictions. The fact they fail to capture some processes very well needn't
&gt; bear on their ability to simulate others reasonably well. It all depends on
&gt; the nature of the constraints that apply to the particular variable in
&gt; question.
&gt;
&gt; It's an interesting piece of anthropolgy to go to a climate conference and
&gt; listen to the various talks. Very frequently you hear people - interested in
&gt; the Indian Ocean monsoon or ENSO for instance - say that the model fails to
&gt; capture this and fails to capture that and therefore we need to do more work.
&gt; But then those of us involved in the prediction of global means blithely carry
&gt; on and pretend that these objections are largely irrelevant to our work, and
&gt; we fire ahead and issue predictions of global warming to 2100 anyway. It
&gt; sounds counterintuitive, but it's quite possible that both communities are
&gt; justified in what they're doing: current models may be poor at simulating
&gt; equatorial Kelvin waves or flows through the maritime continent, but these
&gt; aren't necessarily relevant to forecasts of global mean temperature, which may
&gt; be much better constrained by things that the model captures quite well
&gt; (energy budget constraints, for example).

Well, I freely admit personal bias regarding tropical convection. It
just happens to be something I like. And I agree 110% that approximating
the overall thermodynamic budget is what really counts for this endeavor.
You're quite right that this project would never get off the ground if
we were to wait for every last detail of the climate puzzle to be 'figured
out'. Given the potential problem of global warming it's essential to
try to get some sort of handle on the problem with the tools and knowledge
currently available.

Just curious if there's yet any consensus on how global warming will
effect tropical convection. I've heard possibly a greater frequency of
tropical storms and hurricanes, but beyond that not much.

The extratropical approximation of the model does look quite convincing,
at least just eyeballing things. However, on my windows computer, the
boinc (v 4.19) screensavers cloud display appears to be reversed (as
I've noted many times already - don't mean to sound shrill :) ). Looking
at the cloud display, the movement of extratropical lows (and their curl)
is the opposite of what it should be, at least based on my satellite POV.
Things appear to move to the East.

It's always easier to criticize than create. I know how much work's
involved in writing a computer program of this magnitude, not to mention
trying to get a handle on all the parameters. I really do think this project
is an excellent idea, and I'm looking forward to seeing the final results
(hopefully within a couple of years?).

PC's have gotten so fast these days, and so many of them are not used
to their potential. I've been trying to recruit friends to the project.

Regards, Eric B

(...)
&gt; at the cloud display, the movement of extratropical lows (and their curl)
&gt; is the opposite of what it should be, at least based on my satellite POV.
&gt; Things appear to move to the East.

Now I feel like a complete idiot. I meant to say the extratropical clouds
appear to move the WEST. Ack.

-Eric

---

&gt; Now I feel like a complete idiot.

Confusing left and right, and hence east and west, is a very common characteristic. It has nothing to do with general intelligence. See <a href="http://www.righthandlefthand.com/"><i>Right Hand, Left Hand, the Origins of Asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms and Cultures</i></a> by Chris McManus (London 2002) :)

---

From what I've read I agree with Dave Frame about the lack of modelling some climatic features being not really important for climate sensitivity to CO2. Where they do become important is in regional effects. In many ways precipitation is more important than temperature and though globally rainfall will rise with any temperature increase where it falls is likely to be changed significantly. Add in the effects of increased evaporation and many areas which are currently adequately supplied with water may be suffering severe water stress. Which areas those are, is important for mitigation and can possibly only be descovered by using models that are accurate as far as such features as the ELSO are concerned.

Climate variability is also important are for mitigation and ecological effects. Again we need high accuracy models for these.

---

____________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.boincforum.info/boinc/">boinc forum</a> and <a href="http://www.uk4cp.co.uk/">United Kindom</a> team, my climate change <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mike_atkinson/">blog</a>.

Hi Eric

Re the cloud/wind directions. Over the Equator, there is low pressure and very little wind. This zone is called the doldrums/calms.

Next to the doldrums are zones where the prevailing trade winds are north-easterlies (from NE to SW) in the N hemisphere eg over Caribbean, and south-easterlies (From SE to NW) in the S hemisphere. This is why tornados often move towards the W over Florida.

Next come areas of high pressure eg over the Azores. From which, at mid to fairly high latitudes, blow westerly winds (SW to NE in N hem &amp; NW to SE in S hem). Some of these winds are called the roaring forties because of their latitude.

Finally, in polar regions pressure is low.

All the zones move north/south a bit with the seasons.

So you definitely SHOULD be seeing easterly winds moving towards the west in the trade wind zone, more or less between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.

Now tell me what I've got wrong and I'll correct it!

---

__________________________________________________

&gt; south-easterlies (From SE to NW) in the S hemisphere. This is why tornados
&gt; often move towards the W over Florida.
&gt;
Mo I think you meant Hurricanes/Tropical Cyclones. <a href="http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/NWSTornado/pic1.jpg">This</a> is a tornado.

&gt; So you definitely SHOULD be seeing easterly winds moving towards the west in
&gt; the trade wind zone, more or less between the Tropics of Cancer and
&gt; Capricorn.
&gt;
What he points out in the time lapse of the BOINC visualization is that the clouds are moving from the east toward the west in both hemispheres at <b>all</b> latitudes (not just the tropics) including the <b><i>extratropics</i></b> where the mid and upper level winds <i>should</i> generally be blowing from west to east. The model does show pressure systems moving generally from west to east in the <i>extra</i>tropical latitudes. The clouds should be following along with the rising motion in the vicinity of low pressure systems (among other places).

So the question is, and Dave didn't really address it, why is the BOINC visualization showing clouds moving in the wrong direction in the middle latitudes? I'm sure it's a problem with the way the visualization depicts clouds, but it is strange.

As pointed out before, it definitely looks like the default CPDN BOINC visualization has problems with both clouds and snow cover.

<a href="http://cpdn.tuxie.org/geophi/cld_animation.gif">Here is a 10 day animation from the beta Advanced Visualization package of high level clouds with sea level pressure overlaid</a>. Note, it is an animated gif that's about 0.6 MB in size.

It shows the correct location of high clouds with respect to the pressure systems, and the correct movement, generally from west to east in the mid-latitudes.