Pete, commiserations on losing a model - but also congratulations on its being the first you\'ve lost, that\'s amazing! Also thanks for a lot of good sense in this thread.

RS wrote:

The team England stats count 2080 as a completed model, as far as I know Scotland and Wales use the same criteria. If CPDN report anything past 2050 as complete, this leaves us singing from different hymn sheets.
If the rules of the game are to be changed, they need to change for all teams.
Although point scoring isn\'t the aim of CPDN or any other project, it does help produce a lot of research.
If it\'s a goal once the balls in the penalty box we\'ll have to rescore all the games.

I don\'t quite understand why all this seems to be new to you, except that the Team England \"old hands\" used not to be much in evidence in the BBC forum. The point is that, when the project decided to count models past 2050 as \"complete\", plus BBC crunchers learned that they (and more importantly, their teams) wouldn\'t be able to carry over their BBC credits to CPDN, there was a tendency for people to ditch their BBC models at 2050 and immediately transfer to support their team in CPDN. But we were told by the project that models completing the full run were still the ideal.

So the idea of counting complete models and encouraging friendly rivalry between teams was (and is) primarily a way of encouraging people to complete their BBC models before transferring. It wouldn\'t make any sense for us to be counting anything other than complete 160-year runs, and indeed we\'re not even counting this one, which crashed in 2080.

---

Visit the Scotland team

there was a tendency for people to ditch their BBC models at 2050 and immediately transfer to support their team in CPDN.

I can\'t believe that people were ditching their models on purpose. I came to the whole team thing rather late in the game, just to add an extra dimension to the crunching. It seems a bit bizarre if people feel the points/stats are more important than the science! I\'ve been moving my 6 machines and 14 cores slowly over to CPND, when no more BBC models were available for download. It\'s taking serveral months of course, but should be totally CPND in a few more weeks. I\'ve got 3 more machines left to build and I\'ll be ready to wizz up that league table, that\'s if I don\'t go bankrupt with the electricity bill first!

Did that model crash in 2080? Man, thats a kick in the goolies! Died on the finish line. It\'s still a goal from the science point of view, though it does leave a bitter after taste.

Keep Crunching everyone.

Cheers.

Pete.

I don\'t know if many (or any) actually did ditch their models at 2050 but quite a few people seemed to feel inclined to do so. The difference perhaps being that, unlike you who \"came late to the team thing\", those were people (like me) who were new to crunching, had been greatly helped and supported by their teams throughout and were inclined to resent the Beeb for pulling the plug without warning. So there was a bit of \"Oh well, if the project\'s going to count the models as complete at 2050, why should I bother to go further in BBC.\" It wasn\'t so much that they saw the stats as more important than the science - which is the same in CPDN as in BBC after all - as that they felt more loyal to their teams than to the Beeb!

So \"Let\'s get to 10 million before we leave BBC\", then \"Let\'s try to complete at least 100 models\" just added a bit of additional motivation or, as you put it, an extra dimension.

Yes, that model (not mine) trickled 2079, then died in 2080 :-(

---

Visit the Scotland team

MM, As far as team England is concerned your post is incorrect.
Almost half the team currently running on CPDN are also still running BBC models, there\'s nothing to suggest those that aren\'t ended their models prematurely before moving. It\'s more likely that anyone who stopped their model after 2050 had no intention of continuing at CPDN.

Could I just say that I can\'t remember any instance on any of the 3 cpdn forums where anyone (team member or loner) has said they were abandoning a model at 2050+ because of Carl\'s change to including these models in the front-page figures. A few members have asked what they should do, and they\'ve always received the advice to keep going to 2080 if they possibly could.

When I give the next update on overall cpdn progress in the News threads, I\'ll try to make this all even clearer than before. Would it help if I also point out that teams counting completed models use 2080 as the only goal? Or would it be better if I don\'t mention team business in the News?

---

Cpdn news

Glad to hear that people have not been dumping models prematurely. It kind of defeats the object!

It surely can\'t hurt to spell things out clearly, especially as there are probably loads of people crunching away in splendid isolation, and only occasionally dip into the forums etc, if ever. I think the whole issue has been well and truely discussed now in this thread, and I think on the whole we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

Thanks for a good discussion everyone.

Keep on crunching.

Pete

It surely can\'t hurt to spell things out clearly, especially as there are probably loads of people crunching away in splendid isolation, and only occasionally dip into the forums etc, if ever. I think the whole issue has been well and truely discussed now in this thread, and I think on the whole we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

Thanks Pete, that\'s what I wanted to hear. Let\'s get this crystal clear right now and not leave any misunderstandings, now or in the future, in BBC and also here in CPDN where it would be dreadful to find people would \'tactically\' prematurely abort a model at 2050 just to show how great their team is, or whatever.

---

Pete, I\'m sorry if this is off topic, but reluctantly, I feel I have to respond to comments made earlier in the thread.

I don\'t quite understand why all this seems to be new to you, except that the Team England \"old hands\" used not to be much in evidence in the BBC forum...

...So the idea of counting complete models and encouraging friendly rivalry between teams was (and is) primarily a way of encouraging people to complete their BBC models before transferring.

On the 30th June 2006 I started a thread listing the progress of Team England\'s leading models. Within this thread we also started counting our completed models. We were, I believe, the first team to do so.

On the 28th August 2006, RS authored a thread entitled \'Definition of a finished model\', which sought to clarify the criteria to be used in declaring a model complete.

From the very beginning I, and several Team England members, have been posting on the BBC forum enjoying the friendly rivalry that has always existed with Team Wales, the only other significant national team at that time, both teams realizing the importance of maintaining an interest in the project, particularly after the restart in April last year. Perhaps, someone joining the experiment at a later date would not be aware of this. I don’t think anyone else would really question Team England’s commitment or seek to lecture them on the benefits to the project of generating team rivalries.

I also find it difficult to understand why a respected and valuable member of the project and Team England should be abused for seeking to re-establish the rules of the ’competition’. I found the above remarks, therefore, unwarranted, unpleasant and unjust.

Finally, to return to the topic, this was Carl’s definition of a finished model:

my definition (which is what everything relies on ;-) is that a model has all the trickle up through the last one (timestep 4147200); even if files weren\'t uploaded -- the trickles now give us enough information to determine the state of your \"world.\"

Now, can we get back to friendly games?

---

Team England Forum

Join Team England

Ian, I have abused nobody and nor have I been unpleasant.

---

Visit the Scotland team

Ian, I have abused nobody and nor have I been unpleasant.

I have no knowledge of the first and really don\'t want to know, but on the second I would say that was your opinion.

I hope CPDN start taking this team rivalry and credit scoring more seriously. Science is fair and obvious to you, but individuals scoring points from each other and banging on about \'friendly\' rivalry when it\'s so obvious that \'winning\' on credit is more important that the climate science to some, the oneupmanship is certainly not wanted in some cases.

Winning on credit seems to have become irrelevant to some since they can\'t win on credit. It\'s quite clear that \'completed models\' is a top bragging item for many, carried on many signatures in BBC CCE, for many months now, and may continue in mainstream CPDN. So please publish a clear definition of what a completed model is for the purpose of this bragging, and threaten to roast people alive if they abuse this to keep us all safe from any potential misunderstandings. It\'s only for the best in the long term, and will give some of us a good nights sleep. I hope you agree.

Now, can we get back to friendly games?

On a distributed computing project, everybody\'s counting something.

Most of us count model years and trickles.

The programmers and researchers are keeping a sharp eye on the number of completed models.

The programmers, researchers and moderators keep an eye on the number of crunchers as any fall can indicate a problem.

Some crunchers and many teams carefully count their credits.

I imagine that because our workunits are so long and completing them is a real achievement, all our crunchers count completed models.

Some teams count and log completed models.

Many crunchers count timesteps. Some to get an indication of real-world time to completion. In the case of many computer hobbyists, as an indication of computer performance.

Some members can count their computers!

Others count the different projects they contribute to.

Please note that I\'ve said \'count\' and not used \'show off\' or any similar verb. All the sorts of counting I\'ve mentioned are useful to the project is that they motivate members and help to improve our individual and collective performance. Cpdn recognises the value of all these types of counting and monitoring, and joins with individual crunchers and teams in celebrating every type of success. If there is any need for teams to discuss their definition of a completed model, could they please start a dedicated thread in the Cafe.

---

Cpdn news

Ah, the counter argument! :)

---

Team England Forum

Join Team England

Ah, the counter argument! :)

I count that I\'ve counted your count and added it to my count which I will increase if anyone tries to add my count to their count, so my count will always be higher anyone else\'s count.

I win!

---

Whose post counts most?

---

Cpdn news

Whose post counts most?

Mine because it has a signature

---

Hi everyone.

I\'ve just got back from a weekend away! I see there has been plenty going on in my absence. ARE WE ALL FRIENDS NOW? Come on everyone, loosen up, and lets stop getting hot under the collar about nothing much. Now, I can feel hot under the collar, as I\'ve had another model crash, and this time at 75%, so it has not even made it to 2050. Damn, S**t, Blast. Now that really is starting to Piss Me Off! Time for a new thread called \"Unrecoverable Error at 75%\" and this time no one mention 2050 OK!!!!!!

Cheers everyone.

Pete McCann

It seems particularly strange that people who imply that other teams are cheating, or are likely to cheat, should accuse me of being abusive and unpleasant. Also that they should claim to be friendly.

I repeat that my purpose in publishing details of team Scotland\'s completed models is to encourage people to complete them rather than simply accruing credits.

---

Visit the Scotland team

I agree, Margaret - a team collection of completed models is very motivating. We know that the different teams\' models are all listed openly - no doubts there. My team only collects the locations and photos of us all, but that\'s also nice.

It\'s unfortunate that Peter is being forced at the moment to count crashes.....though at least these models did get a long way. Making backups is still well worth while. Sooner or later we\'ll probably all have a model that reaches the end thanks to a backup.

Like my BBC model - now one year, one month and one week since I started it. Rescued by restore of backup and now only 3 days from completion on a much faster machine.

I\'ve wondered why, when the initial parameters turn out to have been unviable, it\'s always negative pressure that\'s created. I can\'t recall a single error message saying for example negative rainfall or a negative amount of cloud cover.

---

Cpdn news

It\'s unfortunate that Peter is being forced at the moment to count crashes.....though at least these models did get a long way. Making backups is still well worth while. Sooner or later we\'ll probably all have a model that reaches the end thanks to a backup.

Just for the record, I don\'t really give a stuff what my total tally of completed models is. I couldn\'t even tell you accurately now! Somewhere between 7 and 10 now I think. It was ages before I even joined a team, and for a long time crunched in isolation. I generally feel powerless as the world slips towards environmental meltdown, but this project is a way that I can in some small way further the science of climate change and hopefully drive some political grasping of the nettles in the future. I would be just as committed to these models without the whole credit, stats, and teams bit. Plus I can build really great computers and thrash the nuts off them too!!!

Let\'s all just remember why we are running these models. It seems a bit silly to be falling out over something so unimportant, when planetary disaster is on the horizon!

Pete

Of course the environmental question is the most important for most of us (though the researchers are also looking at fundamental issues of how to improve methods of numerical modelling). What really worries me is that there are so many countries where the political situation is such that the last things on anyone\'s mind there must be reducing population growth and greenhouse gas emissions. Sometimes Western countries have caused these political situations, somtimes the causes have been different. In some cases the political complications seem intractable.

I think we should be insisting that our governments do at least as much to help such countries out of these impasses as on action directed towards family planning and emmission reduction.

---

Cpdn news