Tim Palmer

Abstract:

Reducing numerical precision can save computational costs which can then be reinvested for more useful purposes. This study considers the effects of reducing precision in the parametrizations of an intermediate complexity atmospheric model (SPEEDY). We find that the difference between double-precision and reduced-precision parametrization tendencies is proportional to the expected machine rounding error if individual timesteps are considered. However, if reduced precision is used in simulations that are compared to double-precision simulations, a range of precision is found where differences are approximately the same for all simulations. Here, rounding errors are small enough to not directly perturb the model dynamics, but can perturb conditional statements in the parametrizations (such as convection active/inactive) leading to a similar error growth for all runs. For lower precision, simulations are perturbed significantly. Precision cannot be constrained without some quantification of the uncertainty. The inherent uncertainty in numerical weather and climate models is often explicitly considered in simulations by stochastic schemes that will randomly perturb the parametrizations. A commonly used scheme is stochastic perturbation of parametrization tendencies (SPPT). A strong test on whether a precision is acceptable is whether a low-precision ensemble produces the same probability distribution as a double-precision ensemble where the only difference between ensemble members is the model uncertainty (i.e., the random seed in SPPT). Tests with SPEEDY suggest a precision as low as 3.5 decimal places (equivalent to half precision) could be acceptable, which is surprisingly close to the lowest precision that produces similar error growth in the experiments without SPPT mentioned above. Minor changes to model code to express variables as anomalies rather than absolute values reduce rounding errors and low-precision biases, allowing even lower precision to be used. These results provide a pathway for implementing reduced-precision parametrizations in more complex weather and climate models.

Abstract:

The case is made for a much closer synergy between climate science, numerical analysis and computer science. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Numerical algorithms for high-performance computational science'.

Abstract:

Electricity generation output forecasts for wind farms across Europe use numerical weather prediction (NWP) models. These forecasts influence decisions in the energy market, some of which help determine daily energy prices or the usage of thermal power generation plants. The predictive skill of power generation forecasts has an impact on the profitability of energy trading strategies and the ability to decrease carbon emissions. Probabilistic ensemble forecasts contain valuable information about the uncertainties in a forecast. The energy market typically takes basic approaches to using ensemble data to obtain more skilful forecasts. There is, however, evidence that more sophisticated approaches could yield significant further improvements in forecast skill and utility.In this letter, the application of ensemble forecasting methods to the aggregated electricity generation output for wind farms across Germany is investigated using historical ensemble forecasts from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF). Multiple methods for producing a single forecast from the ensemble are tried and tested against traditional deterministic methods. All the methods exhibit positive skill, relative to a climatological forecast, out to a lead time of at least seven days. A wind energy trading strategy involving ensemble data is implemented and produces significantly more profit than trading strategies based on single forecasts. It is thus found that ensemble spread is a good predictor for wind power forecast uncertainty and is extremely valuable at informing wind energy trading strategy.

Abstract:

Given the slow unfolding of what may become catastrophic changes to Earth's climate, many are understandably distraught by failures of public policy to rise to the magnitude of the challenge. Few in the science community would think to question the scientific response to the unfolding changes. However, is the science community continuing to do its part to the best of its ability? In the domains where we can have the greatest influence, is the scientific community articulating a vision commensurate with the challenges posed by climate change? We think not.