HPC

Bugs in beta weather model used to trash climate science

Shock revelation: devs test complex code on more than one super


Development work on a not-yet-prime-time weather forecasting model has been seized on as proof that climate models can't be trusted.

The reason? Folks who aren't keen on climate change discovered this paper in the journal of the American Meteorological Society, in which Song-You Hong of South Korea's Yonsei University Department of Atmospheric Sciences runs some tests over a weather model called GRIMs (Global/Regional Integrated Model).

Weather forecasting (as is climate modelling, but that's a different story) is one of the default workloads of high-performance computing, and consumes a significant slice of the world's supercomputer processor times at any given moment.

What Hong has documented, and what has been seized on by Anthony Watts of Wattsupwiththat, is that the GRIMs model, when run under different HPC environments, produces different results. As he puts it in the abstract of the paper:

“The system dependency, which is the standard deviation of the 500-hPa geopotential height averaged over the globe, increases with time. However, its fractional tendency, which is the change of the standard deviation relative to the value itself, remains nearly zero with time. In a seasonal prediction framework, the ensemble spread due to the differences in software system is comparable to the ensemble spread due to the differences in initial conditions that is used for the traditional ensemble forecasting.”

The reason, he states, is due to how different environments handle rounding – and that has Wattsupwiththat particularly excited: “It makes you wonder if some of the catastrophic future projections are simply due to a rounding error.”

Watts reproduces the table below as proof of how bad things are.

GRIM test results

Smoking gun? No, just testing unfinished weather forecast models

on different machines. Image: An Evaluation of the

Software System Dependency of a Global Atmospheric Model

Hong, et al

As noted William Connelly over at ScienceBlogs: “trivial differences in initial conditions, or in processing methods, will lead to divergences in weather forecasts”, which is something that “dates back to Lorenz’s original stuff on chaos”.

Just as interesting to The Register is that a little bit of further research suggests that the model under test in Song-You Hong's paper is relatively new. Here, for example, is a paper describing the model, prepared for the First GRIMs Workshop in 2011.

As is clear from this paper (slide 5), the models Hong is testing were first designed in 2008, are still under development, and GRIM is slated for use in weather forecasting … in 2015.

In other words, the reason for conducting a test such as Hong's seems to be that he's working on a new model, and it's being tested in different computing environments to identify ways in which the model's code needs to be polished to make sure it produces consistent results in different environments.

Chris Samuel, a Melbourne-based HPC senior system administrator working in Melbourne, told The Register it's not unusual to want to test against different environments, because complex environments offer myriad opportunities for divergences to creep in.

The authors are working to see if the program produces the same results at different scales, and Samuel noted that in the paper, Hong says the tests identified a bug in the weather code.

Divergence between different systems isn't a new issue, he said. Both sysadmins and users will, in fact, use a range of strategies to address this.

One is to have many parallel installations using different versions of packages, libraries, and compilers, so that “users can pick what they want to build against,” he said.

Another defence is to pick a code version and stick with it. Yet another is to do testing on virtual machines, “but that, of course, doesn't necessarily play so well with classic HPC jobs”.

And even then, “you have OS distribution churn underneath all that to complicate matters further.”

In such a fluid world, testing seems prudent, at least to The Register. ®


Other stories you might like

  • India reveals home-grown server that won't worry the leading edge

    And a National Blockchain Strategy that calls for gov to host BaaS

    India's government has revealed a home-grown server design that is unlikely to threaten the pacesetters of high tech, but (it hopes) will attract domestic buyers and manufacturers and help to kickstart the nation's hardware industry.

    The "Rudra" design is a two-socket server that can run Intel's Cascade Lake Xeons. The machines are offered in 1U or 2U form factors, each at half-width. A pair of GPUs can be equipped, as can DDR4 RAM.

    Cascade Lake emerged in 2019 and has since been superseded by the Ice Lake architecture launched in April 2021. Indian authorities know Rudra is off the pace, and said a new design capable of supporting four GPUs is already in the works with a reveal planned for June 2022.

    Continue reading
  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021