Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Climate Change Research Gets Petascale Supercomputer

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the researching-the-impact-of-supercomputers-on-the-environment dept.

Earth 121

dcblogs writes "The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has begun has begun using a 1.5 petaflop IBM system, called Yellowstone. For NCAR researchers it is an enormous leap in compute capability — a roughly 30x improvement over its existing 77 teraflop supercomputer. Yellowstone is capable of 1.5 quadrillion calculations per second using 72,288 Intel Xeon cores. The supercomputer gives researchers new capabilities. They can run more experiments with increased complexity and at a higher resolution. This new system may be able to reduce resolution to as much as 10 km (6.2 miles), giving scientists the ability to examine climate impacts in greater detail. Increase complexity allows researchers to add more conditions to their models, such as methane gas released from thawing tundra on polar sea ice. NCAR believes it is the world's most powerful computer dedicated to geosciences."

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy Tuesday from The Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672613)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

What's the carbon footprint of this machine? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672635)

Hey look, when we model the city where the machine is, there's a hot spot. What could be causing it?

Re:What's the carbon footprint of this machine? (5, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#41673297)

The computer will be so big that instead of predicting the climate change, will provoke it.

Just Maybe... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673751)

...they can figure out why there's been no warming in the last 15 years.

Don't ask for a cite...look it up at MET.

Re:Just Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673873)

The Warmists have mod points today!

Re:Just Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41674807)

See here [guardian.co.uk] to see what MET scientists have to say about it. Of course there is no need to base your opinion on facts, or real data, but you might give it a try before you post to science debate.

Re:What's the carbon footprint of this machine? (1)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | about 2 years ago | (#41675277)

On a global scale, the impact is very small compared to the information it can yield.

The hot spot will only be actual heat generated which will probably be on the order of a small town. The electricity generated to run it may or may not be from non-CO2 producing sources (hydro, nuclear, etc) so that could possibly up the CO2 output at the generating station or on the grid, or not.

Congrats to NCAR!

Debate not your Supercomputer Overlord (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672639)

For those who serve it will surely oppress your very existence.

Maybe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672651)

They can figure out why the average surface temperature hasn't risen in 16 years.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672727)

Have the icecaps been melting in those 16 years? Has humidity in the air increased? Has the total thermal energy on the planet risen in this period of time? Do you have a clue what you are talking about?

Re:Maybe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672775)

Yes, No, No, It seems he does.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672973)

clarify a bit: the arctic has been melting "a little"... Antarctica has been gaining ice. I'll give you a 1/4 fail on that one.

Re:Maybe (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673197)

I'm a little confused, since I am not an expert on climatology, but this [noaa.gov] [source [noaa.gov] ] seems to suggest that the global oceanic thermal energy (aka "heat content") has risen. The point of my post is that "the temperature is constant" is only one part of a complicated issue. Your ice tea is "warming up" while it is sitting out, but its temperature stays constant as long as the ice cubes haven't melted. "I'll give you 1/4 success on that one."

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673501)

I'm a little confused, since I am not an expert on climatology, but this [noaa.gov] [source [noaa.gov] ] seems to suggest that the global oceanic thermal energy (aka "heat content") has risen. The point of my post is that "the temperature is constant" is only one part of a complicated issue. Your ice tea is "warming up" while it is sitting out, but its temperature stays constant as long as the ice cubes haven't melted. "I'll give you 1/4 success on that one."

You forgot about the new ice cubes forming at the other end of the cup.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673539)

Just google "antarctica gaining ice" and you'll see hundreds of stories about this. The latest data has just come in, and it is clearly NOT melting.

The arctic is a different story. While we keep hearing about how it's melting, the winters have shown above average ice mass the last decade, despite all the chicken little crying about the arctic being "ice-free for the first time history" - neither of those things are true. It hasn't become ice-free, and if it did it wouldn't be the first time in history. The only thing one can say about the arctic for sure, is it seems to be melting a little more in the summer, and freezing a little more in the winter. So it's kind of a wash.

Global warming (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672655)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

GW? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672659)

In other news.. no global warming for 16 years now...

http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/16/luningvahrenholt-comment-on-hadcruts-16-years-of-no-warming-tough-times-ahead-for-climate-science/

Re:GW? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672723)

In other news.. no global warming for 16 years now...

http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/16/luningvahrenholt-comment-on-hadcruts-16-years-of-no-warming-tough-times-ahead-for-climate-science/

Counterpoint [guardian.co.uk] .

Re:GW? (3, Insightful)

cryptolemur (1247988) | about 2 years ago | (#41673141)

The grandparent is a marvelous example of so called sceptics angaging in no scepticism at all, while the parent is a beatiful example of journalists making the actual effort to check, and doublecheck the sources. Too bad one cannot argue a person out of a posititon he didn't argue himself into...

Re:GW? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673663)

The truth is that every model has predicted unprecedented warming in the atmosphere, which just did came not true at all.

The Guardian brings up all kinds of arguments, but fails to counter the fact that there has been no warming. The deep ocean heat content is only a theory to cope with the failing models but has not been proven at all. Ocean heat was only brought up after reality failed to follow predictions by the models.

The Guardian is talking about Curry as some kind of layman who needs to read the Sceptical Science website. While she is in fact an established climate scientist. Talk about ignorance.

The warmists better spend their energy learning from the empirical findings and start improving their models instead of the sad scapegoat technique they are now resorting to.

Re:GW? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41675043)

The truth is that every model has predicted unprecedented warming in the atmosphere, which just did came not true at all.

Where'd you hear that "every model has predicted unprecedented warming in the atmosphere", the Daily Fail?

Hint: it is not a good idea to trust climate "skeptics". They're notorious liars.

Re:GW? (2)

dpilot (134227) | about 2 years ago | (#41672839)

Surprising nobody has identified the purchase price in a fraud lawsuit - yet.

Re:GW? (1)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about 2 years ago | (#41673619)

At least they don't have to pay Apple for rounding errors.

obligatory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672663)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those?

Re:obligatory... (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#41672877)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those running Linux!

Re:obligatory... (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about 2 years ago | (#41674991)

*golf clap*

72,288 cores ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672687)

That won't be science, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Climate research vs. weather prediction (3, Interesting)

BigT (70780) | about 2 years ago | (#41672695)

All this computer power is going to climate study/prediction, while weather prediction is limping along with .07 petaflops. See much more discussion on the topic here: http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/05/us-climate-versus-weather-computers.html [blogspot.com]

next step is weather control and you need to resea (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41672739)

next step is weather control and need to research in a lab setting be for taking it full scale

Re:next step is weather control and you need to re (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 2 years ago | (#41672901)

With the amount of energy that thing will release? I'd say this step is weather control...

Re:next step is weather control and you need to re (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about 2 years ago | (#41674999)

We'll need a white fuzzy cat supply.

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (3, Informative)

buglista (1967502) | about 2 years ago | (#41672837)

You are a dick; in future please try googling for something before spouting off. Even the UK has a petaflop for weather. http://www.zdnet.com/met-office-buys-ibm-petaflop-supercomputer-3039457156/ [zdnet.com]

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#41673073)

All the good that does them. They're still wrong more than half the time, that's worse than Environment Canada.

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | about 2 years ago | (#41673115)

He is a dick for pointing out that currently IN THE US the weather computing power is at 0.07 petaflops? What was he supposed to google? How about "Is is a dick move to point out the lack of computer weather prediction capacity in the US without providing a non-sequitur mention of UK computer weather prediction capacity?"

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673511)

Well, you could search for "US meteorology petaflops" and you get the an article in the first link on Google.... which happens to be the same computer being discussed in the summary here, because NCAR does short term forecast computation work too. So with this unit alone, US weather computing power is 1.6 petaflops too.

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41674053)

Didn't take long to using Google to find stuff like a news release from a couple months ago of NWS starting up their WCOSS system that will have 2 x 200 TFlops by next year. Might not seem like much, but this is their system for running daily predictions, and they are building two identical systems in different cities to make sure they have a complete back up system. There is also a contract with IBM to continue expanding the system over the next several years. In some sense, this system doesn't have to be that big, as they know what they will run on it every day. In other words, that is their "production" setup that runs through the current data at certain points at a day, without researchers say trying several new things at the same time to look for improvements.

The more confusing thing that might not be available with a quick search is that weather (not climate) research is done on many supercomputers through the US. This includes several petaflop systems from the one being discussed in this story here to the Jaguar and other systems at ORNL. A year or two ago, NOAA thought it should centralize computer resources and do a better job of sharing/using resources other agencies already had. So it is hard to point at a single supercomputer and say "This is the weather supercomputer" because they get a bunch of access on many systems.

Why is this modded down? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41674841)

Why is this modded down while the original post at +5 is wrong? The computer is not going to be used only for climate modeling, just the media isn't going to get all thrilled to talk about more mundane uses like weather prediction and research.

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673047)

Weather prediction = 7 days

Climate prediction = 1000 years

Gee I wonder why you would need more processing power ...

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673121)

Do random number generators really need a lot of processing power?

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41673153)

Random numbers that fit your model, yes.

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (1, Insightful)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41673521)

Weather prediction = 7 days (mostly wrong)

Climate prediction = 1000 years (no idea on accuracy)

Gee I wonder why you would need more processing power ...

I tidied that up a bit.

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (1)

inhuman_4 (1294516) | about 2 years ago | (#41673415)

I had no idea that is crazy. Does anyone know of other research services are being left in the dust like this?

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41673567)

Weather prediction is mostly limited by the amount and precision of data and the fact that it's impossible to accurately predict a chaotic system after a certain point, not computing power.

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 2 years ago | (#41673571)

With all the money invested into this they better find out that Global Warming is real and Man made otherwise they'll have the budgets cut pretty hard.

Re:Climate research vs. weather prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41675019)

With all the money invested into this they better find out that Global Warming is real and Man made otherwise they'll have the budgets cut pretty hard.

It's easier to get funding for a petaflop climate research computer than a social network surveillance computer. Start the first project, let it fail and repurpose the computer.

Yeah, but... (1)

HtR (240250) | about 2 years ago | (#41672709)

... how many apps does it have?

Re:Yeah, but... (2)

HtR (240250) | about 2 years ago | (#41672813)

and how much thinner is this new version?

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 2 years ago | (#41674825)

The keyboard on this one glows!

global warming (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672761)

I wonder how much heat that machine emits.

Re:global warming (2)

cruff (171569) | about 2 years ago | (#41672863)

The facility is mainly cooled by the ambient air, except for the hottest days of summer. Despite the approximately 30x increase in compute capacity, the Yellowstone cluster only requires not quite 2x the electric power of the previous system, Bluefire, a Power 6 based cluster.

Improving the speed of inevitability (2, Funny)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 2 years ago | (#41672779)

NCAR - We confirm your still f#cked, only faster!

The day after (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672781)

yesterday.

How much CO2 does it take (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672807)

to power this behemoth?

I guess by the time they make a climate prediction breakthrough, the energy required to power would have produced megatons of CO2 that would have negated the progressions....

Re:How much CO2 does it take (1)

pipatron (966506) | about 2 years ago | (#41673101)

Hopefully they built it in a country where nuclear or hydro is still legal.

Re:How much CO2 does it take (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 2 years ago | (#41674781)

No it's coal-fired

Precision vs. Accuracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672853)

Wow, I didn't know we had data collection points every 10km on the earth's surface, to provide input into a simulation. I suppose that now, we can get an excruciatingly precise, with no increase in accuracy climate predictions.

Re:Precision vs. Accuracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673635)

Wow, I didn't know we had data collection points every 10km on the earth's surface, to provide input into a simulation. I suppose that now, we can get an excruciatingly precise, with no increase in accuracy climate predictions.

Yeah. It's amazing how much territory you can monitor when you have these big infrared cameras looking down from the sky.

The Ultimate Question (1)

Kostic (2754035) | about 2 years ago | (#41672893)

...is CAN IT RUN DOOM?

Re:The Ultimate Question (3, Funny)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#41673103)

Sure, but Crysis only gets 3fps.

Re:The Ultimate Question (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | about 2 years ago | (#41673925)

Does it run NetBSD?

speed is not the issue (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672911)

The models suck. They've always sucked. Of the roughly 39 current climate models, not one of them has predicted anything accurately... even when trying to predict old conditions with older data. A faster computer will just get you the same wrong result, only faster.

In other news... (5, Funny)

fredrated (639554) | about 2 years ago | (#41672921)

Climate deniers have rejected the results of the new, higher speed climate models in 3 femtoseconds, proving even faster than the new supercomputer.

Re:In other news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672953)

Because the results are still wrong. Why do you assume that because you can produce a flawed analysis sooner, that we would roll over and accept it? Think that's harsh? Show me ONE climate model that has accurately predicted anything, ever.

Re:In other news... (3, Insightful)

Ironchew (1069966) | about 2 years ago | (#41673347)

Show me ONE climate model that has accurately predicted anything, ever.

With impossibly high standards like yours, it's a wonder any other physical model still holds up.

QED, for instance, will never accurately predict where a photon is going to land, but it will give you the probability of a photon hitting a specific area. Probability is a huge part of science and no scientist will tell you anything is 100% certain. Very high certainty for a range of conditions is what a model is intended to provide.

Re:In other news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41674857)

>>Show me ONE climate model that has accurately predicted anything, ever.
>With impossibly high standards like yours, it's a wonder any other physical model still holds up.

His standards aren't nearly high enough. A climate model has to make accurate predictions again and again to be believable. It should be able to explain the past. Failures need to be explained and rectified.

At the present, climate forecasts are no more reliable than astrological forecasts or a magic eight ball.

>QED, for instance, will never accurately predict where a photon is going to land

It is astoundingly precise at describing the behavior of ensembles, which it is designed to do.

Re:In other news... (0)

radtea (464814) | about 2 years ago | (#41675051)

With impossibly high standards like yours, it's a wonder any other physical model still holds up.

There's nothing particularly high about the standard of "accurate" prediction, although with climate models we're in the peculiar position of being asked to take the results at face value long before anything like a decent empirical check can be made.

The comparision with QED is entirely wrong-headed, because QED is an exact theory that can be used to compute results in its domain with astonishing accuracy and checked by controlled experiments, whereas climate models are a pile of approximations that cannot be used to predict anything that is subject to experimental--or even observational--verification on a timescale that would be useful to resolve the thorny political questions raised by the gigatonnes of garbage we are dumping into the atmosphere.

Please note that I am in favour of cap-and-trade as a means of reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions independently of the correctness of the GCMs, which makes me honest, unlike the vast majority of "the science is in" folks who want to defend their political positions by hiding behind science they don't understand.

Re:In other news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41675251)

>Please note that I am in favour of cap-and-trade as a means of reducing CO2

Why? Who are you to prevent me from distributing a wonderful plant food that's helping to restore Earth's previous lush flora and fauna? Earth's forests are growing vigorously and even IPCC notes that Earth's terrestrial biomass is increasing (something like 0.7 G ton C / year IIRC).

>and other greenhouse gas emissions

Like water vapor? Water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas.

>[reduce CO2] independently of the correctness of the GCMs, which makes me honest

But maybe we should increase CO2 emissions? How is it "honest" for you to note that GCM's are not credible, and then adopt the conclusions that come from a long chain of dubious logical deductions?

Re:In other news... (0)

Shark (78448) | about 2 years ago | (#41675099)

I think his point is that most (all?) models that have been presented and taken into consideration as input for things like regulations, taxes, and other major social and economic changes, have predicted in no uncertain terms things that should have happened by now but haven't.

I'm fine with the fact that it's not an exact science but if you're going to turn the world on its head because of some doomsday predictions, you better not be several orders of magnitudes wrong with your figures. I don't think the problem is lack of computing power, it's the futility of trying to model chaotic systems with this many variables over any kind of relevant timeframe.

I could be wrong but these models are essentially giant divergent equations: past a certain timeframe, they could predict nonsense like 2km of rise in sea levels. You tweak the variables (because for the most part, you can't have actual measurement for all of them) until the figures seem realistic but I doubt there's any way to make it work reliably beyond a total fluke.

Re:In other news... (0)

Bryansix (761547) | about 2 years ago | (#41673031)

I don't know what a "climate denier" even is. However, what I hope this new processing power brings is an end to the excuses as to why the current models are so bad and a new age where models are truly scrutinized to see if they are in fact accurate or not.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673159)

But it won't. They're the same models, only faster. And its really easy to test them... put old data in, see if you can accurately predict what happened next. None of them can.

Re:In other news... (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41673561)

But it won't. They're the same models, only faster. And its really easy to test them... put old data in, see if you can accurately predict what happened next. None of them can.

Well, sure you can! You have data from yesterday (literally) to plug in now. That'll change those results, it will!

/snark

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41674247)

Yep, they've actually been running the same models as they have been running since ENIAC. Researchers have never thought of ways to add detail or improve models at the cost of more processing power. They just keep building bigger computers to run them faster. Just like gamers build faster computers to get higher frame rate in Doom and glxgears. They evaluate their success by the amount of idle time on the computer, and will be thrilled to get it go from 99.99% idle to 99.999% idle.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673257)

So it's 30 times faster, allowing them to add more variables. That's awesome. Really. /sarcasm

In my opinion, they still won't be able to build an accurate model until they can calculate the interactions of every single particle in the solar system. (Ok, maybe just the inner solar system.) Hardware-wise, I think it's a wee bit shy of that lofty goal.
Raw power requirements aside, they'd still need a far better understanding of exactly how all of those particles interact with each other, before they can even approach trying to design an accurate model. You can't account for a variable that you have no prior knowledge of, and quite frankly, we don't meet the prerequisites.

From a skeptic's POV, it's just a souped-up way to procedurally generate a fantasy world, with variables that can be tweaked to produce the desired result.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41674173)

I think you just convinced me that all computer modeling is useless. I think I'll be getting a big bonus for convincing the company I work for to axe the whole set of engineers doing FEM structural and thermal analysis, just think of all the wasted money I will be thanked for saving.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41674261)

Wow.... I... ok. Why would you need that level of fidelity? Would they be allowed to model a granite rock as a uniform block is that allowed? Are you making a point, or is this satire? Reading the comments today I am not sure anymore.

Recursion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672923)

It needs to take into account all the heat it generates and the CO2 produce to calculate the heat it generates and the CO2 produced to calculate the heat it...

Re:Recursion... (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41673579)

It needs to take into account all the heat it generates and the CO2 produce to calculate the heat it generates and the CO2 produced to calculate the heat it...

That data is called "anomalous" and discarded.

Super! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672965)

Not to mention playing a REALLY FAST game of Angry Birds!

Why does NASCAR need a supercomputer again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41672969)

It's just goin' around in circles... shouldn't be that hard to predict.

And just how much heat does it generate?! (2)

ewg (158266) | about 2 years ago | (#41673015)

If climate scientists run a supercomputer in a room full of warming skeptics, does it give off any heat?

Re:And just how much heat does it generate?! (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41673591)

If climate scientists run a supercomputer in a room full of warming skeptics, does it give off any heat?

Which one generates more heat? I need a grant here; come on!

Re:And just how much heat does it generate?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673791)

Well computers of course always give off heat .. you're moving electrons back and forth at high
frequencies . but in the hands of an accomplished climate scientist it not only produces hot air
but enough lies and deceit to generate millions in grant money.

Climate research died 3-4 years ago at the "Climate Research Unit" at East Anglia University, thanks
to Mr.Manning and his team of fraudsters.

And, still... (1)

NikeHerc (694644) | about 2 years ago | (#41673145)

From the summary: NCAR believes it is the world's most powerful computer dedicated to geosciences.

And, still, it won't provide enough computational power to discriminate between natural phenomena and anthropogenic global warming.

Yellowstone - with that name, does it run Caldera? (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | about 2 years ago | (#41673149)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldera_Network_Desktop [wikipedia.org] (reincarnated edition ;-))

Re:Yellowstone - with that name, does it run Calde (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673327)

Funny choice of software - the volcanic caldera in Yellowstone is going to blow; it's been very active the past few years.

Doesn't Matter (2)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41673331)

They've got 72,000 cores, but their software license only allows them to use 2 at a time.

Re:Doesn't Matter (3, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41673465)

Oh, they're running things off of Oracle then?

Re:Doesn't Matter (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41673547)

Worse: they're running the simulations in ANSYS.

Re:Doesn't Matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41674753)

What's wrong with ANSYS simulations?

Re:Doesn't Matter (2)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41673601)

They've got 72,000 cores, but their software license only allows them to use 2 at a time.

Bah, doomp, tsii!

And I'll bet ya.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673375)

Betcha $100,000,000 they power this climate change research computing system off coal power.

Nyak Nyak.

What on earth does this mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673377)

"..such as methane gas released from thawing tundra on polar sea ice.."

If that's a typical example of the level of scientific accuracy of these models, no wonder they are so comprehensively wrong...

speed improves faking of data (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673395)

We can massage the data to our liking even faster than people can review the results.
 

77 Teraflop Supercomputer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673411)

It just might be able to play Crysis!

Is that peta-monster green enough? (1)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#41673463)

Or will it heavily modify the climate itself with its power hunger while computing?

Garbage In - Garbage Out (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41673771)

It doesn't matter how detailed your simulation is if it is operating on faulty models. If it only simulates part of the problem or ignores significant factors such as changes in solar radiation, density of space dust, etc. There are so many complex inter-relations that they will never have an accurate model.

With this type of simulation step N+1 depends upon the results of step N so the margin of error will increase until it is meaningless.

If they cannot predict the weather tomorrow, then they have no business attempting to simulate the 'average' weather years from now.

The results of this simulation have a 99.999% chance of being wrong and ultimately they will tweak the simulation until it gives them the result they are looking for. How else do they 'know' their simulation is working unless it produces what they expect from the beginning?

Quite disappointing (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | about 2 years ago | (#41674451)

If they were really concerned about climate change, they would be using an adiabatic computer [strangepaths.com] for their simulations.

Re:Quite disappointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41675041)

The real concern is the LACK of climate change. See http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/NASA_vs_IPCC.jpg

Humans have killed the climate!

Bad math (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41674535)

1.5 petaflops is not "roughly 30x" 77 teraflops; it's just under 20 times.

Can it play Avatar in real time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41674715)

Probably it can play "Avatar" movie in real time, finally useful supercomputers are coming :). Unfortunately in low resolution. Full res takes 30-90 core-hours per frame(!).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?