backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 54 comment(s) - last by phxfreddy.. on May 15 at 10:55 PM


IBM's next generation water-cooled super computer architecture will replace three previous supercomputers, all while increasing processing power nearly 4-fold  (Source: Carlye Calvin, UCAR)

The Integrated Computing Environment for Scientific Simulation (ICESS) project at NCAR is overseen by Tom Bettge, director of operations and services for NCAR's Computational and Information Systems Laboratory. He hopes the research will be applied to saving lives from severe weather.  (Source: Carlye Calvin, UCAR)
New IBM built climate computer in Colorado will help analyze deadly severe weather and climate change

It's a well known fact that developing realistic models to simulate climate change scenarios is a challenge, arduous, and cerebral task that currently is done rather poorly.  Many models feature glaring flaws, and most models lag behind true prediction, trying to be able to repeat previous weather patterns as proof of concept that there future predictions will hold true.  And most have trouble even doing that.

Half of the equation is coming up with a better understanding of the math and physics driving the problem.  The other half of the equation to improve the struggling weather modeling community is allocating more computing resources.  Weather models take massive amounts of number crunching to generate semi-accurate results. 

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) is working to shore up the latter count with the addition of a massive new IBM supercomputer to its Boulder, CO research center.  The center is arguably the nation's largest hotbed for climate and weather research.  The new supercomputer, a Power 575 Hydro- Cluster, will not only allow it to improve its analysis, but also to conserve energy, thanks to an energy efficient design by IBM.

Part of the use of the cluster will center on climate change.  Researchers hope to analyze effects that warming (or cooling) might have on the environment, such as future patterns of precipitation, droughts, changes in growing seasons, and warming's influence on hurricanes.

The system will also analyze severe weather in the present.  Researchers hope to use the system's power to develop more accurate weather forecasting models.  These models will in turn help to forewarn citizens of impending severe weather.  With tornado deaths in the U.S. jumping from 67 to 81 between 2006 and 2007, and with 75 U.S. tornado casualties already this year, these models can literally be life-saving.

The new supercomputer "bluefire" is up to the task.  Using the IBM Power 575 architecture, the system sports POWER6 microprocessors, operating at a speedy 4.7 GHz.  The system utilizes 4,064 of these blazingly fast processors, 12 terabytes of memory, and 150 terabytes of FAStT DS4800 hard drive storage.  The computer is one of IBM's new systems that utilizes water cooling, which allows higher clock speeds and lower energy usage, as the PC enthusiast market has long recognized.

The new system is equipped with cooling copper plates on every processor, which water flows over.  The water cooling improves energy efficiency by 33 percent.  Factoring in the much higher energy efficiency of the processors, the system is three times as energy efficient per rack as its predecessor.

It can also handle a lot more number crunching.  The system replaces three separate supercomputers with a combined capacity of 20 teraflops (20 trillion floating-point operations per second).  The "bluefire" system nearly quadruples this, offering 76 teraflops.

Says Tom Bettge, director of operations and services for NCAR's Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, "Bluefire is on the leading edge of high-performance computing technology.  Increasingly fast machines are vital to research into such areas as climate change and the formation of hurricanes and other severe storms. Scientists will be able to conduct breakthrough calculations, study vital problems at much higher resolution and complexity, and get results more quickly than before.  We're especially pleased that bluefire provides dramatically increased performance with much greater energy efficiency,"

The computer will undergo acceptance testing and come online in August and is expected to remain in use through 2011, serving a variety of purposes.  The computer is phase two of the Integrated Computing Environment for Scientific Simulation (ICESS) at NCAR.  The ideal fit of IBM supercomputer innovation for the multifunctional nature of the mission is described by strong supporter, Dave Turek, vice president of deep computing at IBM.  Turk states, "NCAR has a well-deserved reputation for excellence in deploying supercomputing resources to address really difficult challenges.  Bluefire will substantially expand the organization's ability to investigate climate change, severe weather events, and other important subjects."

One of the computer's first main tasks will be a heady and likely controversial one.  The system will be tasked with developing climate simulations for use in the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN organization monitoring global warming and other climate change phenomena.  The organization shared the Nobel Prize in 2007, but has been harshly criticized by global warming critics.

The supercomputer is quite oblivious to the controversy, though, and will likely soon be happily crunching away numbers, and hopefully helping save lives across the country by providing better warning of severe storms.

NCAR is under the administration of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR).  The National Science Foundation (NSF) primarily sponsors the center's research.  Other funding comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Defense (DOD), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nice
By TheDoc9 on 5/9/2008 10:56:10 AM , Rating: 5
Thats pretty impressive, hopefully the weather models will catch up




RE: Nice
By Hulk on 5/9/2008 11:05:12 AM , Rating: 5
Don't worry, the Navier-Stokes equations will give bluefire all it can handle and more. More nodes, smaller time slices, and less dumbed down approximations will provide better accuracy at the expense of bluefire's sweat!


RE: Nice
By masher2 (blog) on 5/9/2008 11:30:33 AM , Rating: 5
> "Don't worry, the Navier-Stokes equations will give bluefire all it can handle and more"

Very true. Current GCMs often can't use grid sizes of 100,000 cubic miles or more, and they leave out more factors than they include.

It's my personal opinion that we're at least 25 years away from having the computing power to even approximately model global climate.


RE: Nice
By masher2 (blog) on 5/9/2008 11:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
edit: often can't use grid sizes smaller than 100,000 cubic miles...


RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2008 11:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
That won't stop global warming alarmists for spouting their "facts" for the next 25 years. They'll continue to argue it even if a glacier skids on by taking out their home.


RE: Nice
By JonnyDough on 5/10/2008 12:18:16 AM , Rating: 3
Oh yes. Let's please go against what the large majority of the scientific community is saying as if know everything. Have you ever bothered LISTENING to the facts? Try it. The polar ice caps aren't melting at ridiculous rates for nothing. Polar bears are on the endangered list. Think about that...they may go EXTINCT. The world as we knew it as children is not the same world of tomorrow. Wake the hell up already. This isn't something you can "argue." This isn't religion. It is SCIENCE. YOU are the person saying the world is flat. Quit being a cynic and begin listening to reason. It isn't debatable. If you think it is, try arguing with the largest scientific gathering ever in the history of earth. Don't feed us your bullcrap about what you "think." Maybe you should watch the $5 1.5 hour movie you can pick up at Wal-Mart called the 11th hour. It contains plenty of explanation and "facts" for you. They DID their research. Did you? Or are you just spewing at the mouth about what you "think?"

/end rant.


RE: Nice
By ADDAvenger on 5/10/2008 2:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming is a fact, that's fair enough. However, just because change is in the air doesn't mean we're all going to die.

There was a little ice age around the 1500s, and we're still here. Everyone was throwing fits about global cooling some forty years ago, and we're still here. What makes you think Earth is static anyway? All the evidence points to an earth that has had wide ranging climate fluctuations for as long as life has been here. Ok so polar bears are dying, guess what, they aren't the first species to go extinct because of climate change (think dinosaurs, and yet here we are). And if you'll look at your own numbers you'll see volcanos etc producing a lot more greenhouse gases than all of humanity combined. Heck, iirc, the amount of CO2 released by volcanos can vary by more per year than humanity releases in that same year.

Now if you want to talk about reducing smog so we don't have so many allergy problems I'm all for that. I also don't like inefficient cars, but that's because of a national dependency / economic issue, not because I think we're going to light the world on fire if we have too many cars running at the same time.


RE: Nice
By JonnyDough on 5/10/2008 3:39:50 AM , Rating: 4
Ok so polar bears are dying, guess what, they aren't the first species to go extinct because of climate change.

Except that our climate is changing at an alarming rate this time due to de-forestation and the like.

Furthermore, melting ice isn't the only reason polar bears are becoming extinct - although shifting icebergs have led to many bears suffocating under water, unable to resurface. Fishing, waste/garbage dumping, oil spills, and development have all led to the decline of the polar bear.

I really urge anyone who hasn't seen 11th Hour to rent/buy it. It's remarkably better than Al Gore's video.


RE: Nice
By JonnyDough on 5/10/2008 5:33:03 AM , Rating: 2
That first bit should be in quotes. Sorry!


RE: Nice
By sinful on 5/11/2008 10:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, just because change is in the air doesn't mean we're all going to die.


GW isn't necessarily about that, but, suppose this:
if the Midwest of the United States became a dust bowl, while Uganda suddenly becomes better for growing crops, due to climate change.

GW opponents go "Ah, see, nothing really changed, if one place becomes better and one place worse, it all works out in the end, no change!".

The problem is that the US is a huge food producer; it has the technology, equipment, capital, and infrastructure to support growing lots of food and distributing it.

If climate changes disrupt where food can be grown, it could potentially be disasterous for everyone.

People complain about how Ethanol is driving up food prices, but then those same people go "Oh we shouldn't worry about GW at all!".

In other words, it is in the US' best interest not to "fiddle with the climate control knobs" too much.
While we won't be starving, the price of food could potentially skyrocket - suddenly there isn't as much food, and the places that can grow it now might be 3rd world countries that don't have fancy tractors, fertilizers, irrigation systems, and an infrastructure to move that food out.

In other words, it's not so much of a "Doom & Gloom" scenario as "It could get really expensive for everybody really fast."

Spending some money now might save us a TON in the future. So, the question isn't really "Is it caused by man", since it doesn't really matter WHY it is happening, as it is that it IS happening.

Since the (general) consenus is that it IS happening, what exactly should be done about it?
Seems to me it would be better for the US to "waste" money becoming energy independent and minimizing our impact on the environment than it would be for the US to "waste" money shipping billions of dollars to other countries buying food & energy from them....

But that's just my $.02


RE: Nice
By teckytech9 on 5/12/2008 1:35:02 AM , Rating: 2
There is no denying the argument that the worlds temperature is getting warmer, whether thats attributable to global warming factors is the cause for debate.

What is noteworthy is that if "bluefire" could somehow go back thousands of millennia and calculate the rate of change from Earths ice age to its thaw, then measure the current rate as its happening this century, and compare the data. Variables like the quantity of CO2 absorbers and producers could also be examined in detail.

As for the case for polar bears, one must examine their current plight for survival. When wildlife observers witness these bears waking up from hibernation in the middle of the ocean, and hunting walruses, then there appears to be something abnormal going on here. When arctic Eskimos, can't store their meat underground in ice cellars, as they did for generations, things are indeed warming up.

There is no debate on the global smog issue. That morning fog can be very misleading, as it probably contains some carbon industrial byproduct that has spewed its way across the globe. Big plums of toxic clouds emanating from industrial cities in Asia have been tracked via satellite making landfall in the US. Land based pollution detectors high atop the Olympics mountain range have picked up these pollutants in their filter systems. What turns out to be inefficiency in environmental regulation, automobile technology, and the transportation infrastructure they ride on, benefits the big oil companies.


RE: Nice
By phxfreddy on 5/10/2008 2:02:43 PM , Rating: 1
Why is it liberals / socialists / communists believe in global warming and conservatives do not ??? ....

When it comes to the law of gravity we all agree.

If you can't spell the hoax BS in global warming you are really in a world of hurt. Woman are going to walk all over you if you can even get one in the first place. You will constantly loose your money to con men.

And you want us to quote a reviewed paper! Do you KNOW how uncool it is to be such a follower ? ....latching onto every lame fad and fashion including global warming?

A person is never so uncool as when they are playing for acceptance. Go your own way. Think for yourself for a change.

You will wonder how your life got so much better!


RE: Nice
By rubbahbandman on 5/10/2008 2:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
Have you heard of meteorologists? You know, the people who forecast the weather for you and study weather for a living. I thought I'd mention that the vast majority of meteorologists don't buy into the man-made global warming hype.

The world changes, naturally, it is a fact of life. Africa didn't always have the Sahara desert, and the desert wasn't formed solely due to rising temperatures, but rather a disruption in previous weather patterns caused by the formation of the Himalaya mountains.

Man-made "climate change" is complete hype, and all boils down to government funding. Guess how much climatology "scientists" were funded before they brought up climate change? A few million versus the BILLIONS of dollars today.

Obviously they aren't willing to give up that kind of money so dissenting scientists are intimidated into silence by global warming alarmists with threats of having their funding removed... Anyways, while I disagree with man-made climate change, I believe in other very real man-made problems. Let's focus on those.


RE: Nice
By sinful on 5/11/2008 10:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Guess how much climatology "scientists" were funded before they brought up climate change? A few million versus the BILLIONS of dollars today.

Obviously they aren't willing to give up that kind of money so dissenting scientists are intimidated into silence by global


Seriously folks, it is basically "Hippies vs. Big Industry", and you're making the claim there's big money to be made on the side of the "Hippies"??
Really??
The Sierra Club has that much money to dump into Pro-GW studies??

In other words, for every million dollars Al Gore makes, there are ten Oil Industry Execs making 10x as much money that want to shut him up.

Because seriously, the Oil Industry could spend $10 Million paying people to dissent against GW and claim its bunk - because you know if Congress goes "Oh, lets impose a 1% tax on the oil industry to make them clean up any GW related issues", it is going to cost the oil industry BILLIONS of dollars.

If there is any sort of financial incentive to suppress the truth, it's going to be suppressing the studies that show GW is man-made and caused by big industry.


RE: Nice
By masher2 (blog) on 5/10/2008 3:02:09 PM , Rating: 3
> "The polar ice caps aren't melting at ridiculous rates for nothing."

The Southern ice cap isn't melting; it's increasing in mass. As for the Northern, it's been melting rather steadily for at least the last 7,000 years, since the end of the last ice age in fact.

> "Polar bears are on the endangered list. Think about that...they may go EXTINCT."

First of all, polar bears are *not* on the endangered species list...though a decision on whether they will be added is due May 15. Secondly, polar bear populations have been rapidly increasing over the past few decades, and dozens of scientists in the field have spoken out against environmentalists calls to list them.

> "It isn't debatable"

Then why do hundreds of climatologists and physicsts disagree that AGW is proven...and even the UN IPCC itself admits to a 10% chance that mankind isn't responsible for the recent warming trend?


RE: Nice
By Grabo on 5/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By masher2 (blog) on 5/10/2008 11:41:38 PM , Rating: 4
> "The Southern ice cap is not increasing in mass"

Untrue. See the most recent research published by the Royal Society:
quote:
our best estimate of the overall mass trend—growth of 27±29Gtyr-1... Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica .
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/38315t224...

Furthermore, southern sea ice is now at its highest level since recordkeeping began, up an astonishing 30% from just two years ago.

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/

> "No? And what 'dozens of scientists in the field'?"

Professors J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, to name just a few. Their most recent research, "Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit", commissioned by the US Department of the Interior. To quote from their research:
quote:
To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off


RE: Nice
By Grabo on 5/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By masher2 (blog) on 5/11/2008 1:34:58 PM , Rating: 5
> "Well, Antarctica's temperatures have increased lately, leading to increased precipitation (snow), increasing mass"

But two posts ago, you were claiming Antarctica was *losing* mass. And btw, temperatures in Antarctica's interior are on a declining trend over the past 50 years, not rising.

> "Did you read the pdf? It's extremely interesting "

I quoted a peer-reviewed research paper, you counter with a magazine article written for laymen. But let me give a few "interesting" facts from your article. Here's one gem:
quote:
A decline in population size will likely follow, if it has not already started.
Translation: there's no evidence polar bears are in decline, but we're going to spin scare-stories anyway.

The fact are clear. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.” Even those subpopulations which have decreased, are generally attributed to overhunting, rather than climate change.

And let's not forget the research of Dr. Dr. Olafur Ingolfsson, who recently demonstrated the polar bear evolved much earlier than once thought, and therefore has survived interglacial periods (e.g. long periods with no permanent icecaps) before.

Finally, the entire classification of polar bears as a separate species is a bit of a biologist's numbers game. Polar bears are more accurately a subspecies of grizzly; they interbreed with grizzly bears fertily and genetically, they differ less from a grizzly than do the Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloid races of mankind.


RE: Nice
By Grabo on 5/12/2008 4:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But two posts ago, you were claiming Antarctica was *losing* mass. And btw, temperatures in Antarctica's interior are on a declining trend over the past 50 years, not rising.


That's a nice way of snippeting a paragraph. I wrote that increaced precipitation is what is causing mass increase. There is also mass decrease; in fact, more mass decrease than increase, and more than what scientists expected. Did you read the linked articles?

And interior, where did I specify interior?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImage...

"Why is Antarctica getting colder in the middle when it’s warming up around the edge? One possible explanation is that the warmer temperatures in the surrounding ocean have produced more precipitation in the continent’s interior, and this increased snowfall has cooled the high-altitude region around the pole."

Polar bears:
quote:
The fact are clear. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.” Even those subpopulations which have decreased, are generally attributed to overhunting, rather than climate change.


That's strange, considering
"In response to a petition
from the Center for Biological Diversity and other
organizations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
proposed in January 2007 to list polar bears as
threatened because of the possibility that “all or
a significant proportion of the total population
will become endangered in the foreseeable future”
(defi ned for the purpose of the assessment as
45 years). Habitat loss of sea ice is the central
justifi cation for the proposed listing."

'The facts are clear', that's nice rethoric. The scary thing is - everything you write suggests 'the facts are clear', so arguing with you becomes pointless.

quote:
I quoted a peer-reviewed research paper, you counter with a magazine article written for laymen. But let me give a few "interesting" facts from your article.


'An article written by lay...if you read it, you didn't read it to try and gain a perspective, that's for certain. It is written for a magazine for laymen - how else would you reach laymen but it is written by scientists from the countries bordering on the Arctic, who have studied polar bears for decades - and it has sources; scientific papers

If you will believe one national agency (and your data lacks links and contradicts the fact that they wish to see the polar beer listed as threatened ) over an internatioal group with representatives in the relevant countries, then..why, kinda like the IPCC, now that I think about it.

But if you discount such a source offhand, then arguing further is utterly pointless.

"Gough (2005) reported that in Western Hudson
Bay, between 1971 and 2003, the mean annual temperatures
increased at most weather stations with
trends varying from a minimum of 0.5°C per
decade at Churchill to 0.8°C per decade at Chesterfi
eld Inlet. Further south in James Bay, the temperature
has warmed at about 1°C per decade.
Skinner et al. (1998) reported that during April
through June, the temperature near Churchill and
over the adjacent offshore ice had warmed at a rate
of 0.3 to 0.5°C per decade from 1950 to 1990.
Comiso (2006) reported a similar warming trend
from data collected from 1981 to 2005. Apparently
in response to this well documented warming
pattern
, breakup of the sea ice in Western Hudson
Bay now occurs about three weeks earlier on
average than it did only 30 years ago. (Stirling et al.
1999, Stirling et al. 2004, Gagnon and Gough
2005, and Stirling and Parkinson 2006)."

"The trend toward progressively earlier breakup of
the sea ice has had significant effects on the polar
bears of Western Hudson Bay."

quote:
Finally, the entire classification of polar bears as a separate species is a bit of a biologist's numbers game. Polar bears are more accurately a subspecies of grizzly; they interbreed with grizzly bears fertily and genetically, they differ less from a grizzly than do the Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloid races of mankind.


Yes? Your poing being? That grizzlys will be happy to take the habitat of the polar bear (there's a reason it's white) once the polar bear has gone the way of the dodo?

And speaking of gems, I seem to have gotten an abnormally low rating for discussing with you , and get this message when trying to post
"We are sorry for the inconvenience but we've determined you have a low DailyTech rating and may possibly be a robot. In order to maintain the high quality posts that our readers demand" - I'm not saying that this is the height of irony, but..well, if you ever go on international television and argue, you won't get far I think.


RE: Nice
By Grabo on 5/12/2008 5:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
well, if you ever go on international television and argue, you won't get far I think.


And neither would I, in all fairness.


RE: Nice
By wookie1 on 5/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By rcc on 5/9/2008 3:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
While it is true that hindsight should be 20/20, it is far from universally so.

Hence Santayana's (para) "those that don't study history, are doomed to repeat it".


RE: Nice
By phxfreddy on 5/10/2008 1:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
My hindsight is indeed 20/20 and I prefer the close up view if she's cute.


RE: Nice
By phxfreddy on 5/9/2008 9:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
since "climate change" is mentioned I can only think we in for another round of their inane model results that predict ever more dire consquences of living as capitalists all the while the entire globe is cooling and crops are off enough that commodity prices are through the roof Alice!


RE: Nice
By JonnyDough on 5/10/2008 3:45:10 AM , Rating: 3
High food costs are also caused by a huge rise in ethanol production.

I also wanted to point out to everyone that while global warming is heralded by some, having all of our coasts flooded and the warming period followed by an ice age is NOT something any of us will think is great. Most of the human race will die. The only true way to curb global warming is not with technology, but rather with self-population control. There are simply too many people. The earth is trying to heal itself, and WILL heal itself from the parasites that infect it. Us. I can't remember the last time humans were actually able to bend the earth to their will, but I do recall a time when humans inadvertently destroyed the natural habitat as if they weren't a part of it. We cannot go thinking that we can control nature, or don't need it to sustain our way of life, and that we are not a PART of nature.


RE: Nice
By phxfreddy on 5/10/2008 1:46:40 PM , Rating: 3
Population self limitation will be excellent if ONLY the crappy people limit themselves. Preferably to ZERO. And since liberals tend to abort more we actuall have some hope of that!...its not just dreaming!


RE: Nice
By masher2 (blog) on 5/10/2008 3:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "having all of our coasts flooded and the warming period followed by an ice age is NOT something any of us will think is great"

The IPCC predicts a 23 cm sea level rise over the next 100 years, some 9-12 cm of which is natural in origin. That translates to an anthropogenic rise of some six inches over the next century. Hardly anything to be be alarmed about. Sillines about "cities underwater" or flooded coasts isn't supported by the facts.

> "The earth is trying to heal itself, and WILL heal itself from the parasites that infect it. Us"

And now the true beliefs of the radical environmentalist surfaces. Mankind is no more than "a parasite" infecting the earth.

Personally, I have a much better view of mankind.


RE: Nice
By Grabo on 5/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By masher2 (blog) on 5/10/2008 11:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "One day the IPCC are fake alarmists, the next they talk 'facts'?"

When even the "alarmists" are predicting a rise so small as to be utterly meaingless, there is certainly no call for alarm, wouldn't you agree?

> "What was the name of that island group that has already lost a substatintal part of its landmass to the sea..?"

You're referring to the Vanuatu, Tuvalu and perhaps the Maldives...and that scare story has already been debunked many times.

> "Lol, then what are you? "

I certainly don't believe man is a "parasite infesting the earth", as the previous poster stated. What about you?


RE: Nice
By Grabo on 5/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By masher2 (blog) on 5/11/2008 1:17:06 PM , Rating: 3
> "Where do they say that even a rise on the small end of the sace is 'utterly meaningless'"

The UN IPCC are the ones predicting an anthropogenic-induced rise of some 6 inches over the next 100 years. That's utterly meaningless in terms of effect on humanity, period.

Al Gore, of course, predicted a rise of "up to 20 feet in the very short future"...and unfortunately, many people (including the OP) believe his words have some degreee of correspondence with the truth.


RE: Nice
By Grabo on 5/12/2008 4:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The UN IPCC are the ones predicting an anthropogenic-induced rise of some 6 inches over the next 100 years. That's utterly meaningless in terms of effect on humanity, period.


Sigh, link please. I can't locate exactly where they predict how much of the projected sea level rise will be man made and how much of it won't be.

And I would dearly like to see where they draw the conclusion that mankind's contribution to rising sea levels is 'utterly meaningless'.


News flash!
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2008 10:55:04 AM , Rating: 1
This just in... It has been recently uncovered that Al Gore did in fact, invent this computer along with the rest of the internet!

Sillyness aside - looks like a nifty piece of hardware. Imagine being the IT guy in charge of putting it all together.




RE: News flash!
By Micronite on 5/9/2008 11:05:11 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
...Al Gore did in fact, invent this computer...

That would seriously depend on the outcome of the results. If the computer were to determine mankind's effect on overall climate is actually miniscule, he would likely lobby to have the thing shut down and assert the scientists involved with its modeling were crackpots funded by big-oil.


RE: News flash!
By phxfreddy on 5/10/2008 1:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
Do not worry. As an engineer who has done these sims I know that the results can be tweaked until the "right" answer is arrived at. Any engineer who had 2 ounces worth of mathematical intuition and another ounce of honesty would tell you that....but uh oh....look at that....they do not get funded by our government.

I'll take a scientist funded by oil companies over one funded by liberal space cases in Washington ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!


Amazing
By Bioniccrackmonk on 5/9/2008 11:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
That one supercomputer is replacing 3 and still outperforming the others while using less energy. That is good stuff right there, go IBM.




RE: Amazing
By Micronite on 5/9/2008 11:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
The amazing thing is that they'll probably be able to do the same thing in less than four years.


RE: Amazing
By littlebitstrouds on 5/9/2008 11:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
As someone's who's been in the room with a loud supercomputer... with water cooling, how loud are these things? I know it's kinda random, like who cares, but just for interest alone.


IBM rocks with HPC
By lifeguard1999 on 5/9/2008 11:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
The latest generation of IBM supercomputers can really do a great job with a variety of HPC codes, not just weather codes. The DoD is buying an IBM Power 6 HPC system with about 1/3 of the processing elements of a Cray XT5 that they also bought. The IBM system is 2.8 times faster than the Cray using a benchmark suite of HPC codes (not Linpack). Why did the DoD buy a Cray since the IBM is so much faster? Because IBM is not faster with every code in the benchmark suite, because you do not put all your eggs in one basket, and because of cost.

Cray Wins Four of Five DOD's HPCMP Awards
http://www.hpcwire.com/offthewire/17909624.html




RE: IBM rocks with HPC
By bobsmith1492 on 5/10/2008 6:53:52 AM , Rating: 2
Only in America do you have competing supercomputer companies. :)


RE: IBM rocks with HPC
By masher2 (blog) on 5/10/2008 11:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
And in Japan -- Fujitsu, Hitachi, NEC all build some very large supercomputers.


Typo/common mistake?
By BruceLeet on 5/9/2008 1:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
It says in the article the supercomputer has 4,096 processors. Is it a mistake that stems from the common "4096MB" of RAM?

Over here @ http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/bluefire.js... says it has 4,064 processors. You be the judge.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/9/2008 4:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
It has been corrected.


RE: Typo/common mistake?
By BarkHumbug on 5/12/2008 10:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
While they were at it, why DIDN'T they throw in an extra 32 processors to make it an even 4096? It would have been more pleasing to the binary eye at least...


What would be great...
By Shadowself on 5/9/2008 12:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
is if they had real time data and a plan to ingest it for this severe weather analyses!

The current systems update very slowly. The current GOES satellite updates U.S. data *on average* once every 22 minutes, the next version -- due in 2015 -- will update *on average* every 11 minutes. DMSP and other LEO systems update even more seldom. Ground systems could, in theory, update almost continuously, but they are very sparse (e.g., North Dakota) or non existent (e.g., over the Pacific or mid Atlantic) where major storms originate, and the currently methodology to get that data into the system has the data ingested over the course of several days!

Severe weather can come and go in under 20 minutes and no system is in place to collect that data more often -- and no U.S. government system to update rapidly is even in the formal planning stages. People die because severe weather forms, strikes and dissipates in under 20 minutes.

There was a commercial system proposed a few years back that updated visible imagery once per second (at four times the resolution of the current systems), IR data (over 9 bands) twice per second (at almost four times the resolution of the current system), and total lightning (gives an indication of vertical winds *within* clouds) updated every 2 milliseconds (and there is *no* current system to compare this to). However, no one -- and I do mean no one, was interested in funding this system several years ago. Truly real-time data and no one wanted to fund it.

Why? Because the weather guessers would have to radically modify their systems (hardware and software) to allow the ingest and analysis of truly real-time data. That just seemed like too much work to them.

Consequently, tornadoes -- which could have specific tornado by tornado warnings (not the multiple county warnings of a tornado *maybe* forming) of up to 45 minutes -- are still not being done the way they could. Consequently people die that don't have to!

The system that didn't get funded? AstroVision. It's basically a dead program, but they still have a web site up. Check it out if you're curious.




RE: What would be great...
By Kanji on 5/11/2008 3:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
No one would spend the money on a massive system like that. Simple as that. There aren't many selfless people out there and hopefully none that would invest their money in something that may save live when there are things like the heifer project will guarantee lives saved.


wont stop cherry picking
By Screwballl on 5/9/2008 9:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
but there still remains the problem.... some scientists in the public eye will cherry pick data to "prove" that global warming is real (which has been disproven by the real data)... when the only thing that is really happening is their pockets getting lined with money.




RE: wont stop cherry picking
By phxfreddy on 5/10/2008 1:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you know its cooling now because its warming. er wait!

....was that its warming now because its cooling ? er both?

Anyway get out your short cheerleader skirt and let your pom poms hang down! raw raw raw....global warming go go go!


Into the eye.
By teckytech9 on 5/10/2008 1:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
Temperature, barometric pressure, rainfall amounts, wind speed, etc. Leave it to those heroes who fly into these storms to take these measurements. Coupled with airborne weather reconnaissance planes (C-130s) and satellites, a storms path can be tracked with accuracy.

I support a computer that can save lives, however, these machines just produce simulations. Reality can be a different story altogether.




RE: Into the eye.
By phxfreddy on 5/15/2008 10:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. Go investigate a black hole Mr Asstronaut!


It must be working
By gglenn on 5/9/2008 2:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
I feel safer already.




No, it will NOT play Crysis...
By amanojaku on 5/9/08, Rating: 0
Faster Mistakes
By KuhnKat on 5/10/08, Rating: 0
"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki