The original press release from the Met Office that started this story is here. There’s no mention of a carbon footprint in it, but they did manage to provide a photo of it with a green halo, shown below. When such a machine is powered up, does it make a “giant sucking sound’? In other news, Obama inauguration sets new record for private jet use. – Anthony
Met Office forecasts a supercomputer embarrassment
A new £33m machine purchased to calculate how climate change will affect Britain, has a giant carbon footprint of its own
For the Met Office the forecast is considerable embarrassment. It has spent £33m on a new supercomputer to calculate how climate change will affect Britain – only to find the new machine has a giant carbon footprint of its own.
“The new supercomputer, which will become operational later this year, will emit 14,400 tonnes of CO2 a year,” said Dave Britton, the Met Office’s chief press officer. This is equivalent to the CO2 emitted by 2,400 homes – generating an average of six tonnes each a year.
The Met Office recently published some of its most drastic predictions for future climate change. It warned: “If no action is taken to curb global warming temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5ºC and could rise as much as 7ºC above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Early and rapid reductions in CO2 emissions are required to avoid significant impacts of climate change.”
However, when it came to buying a new supercomputer, the Met Office decided not to heed its own warnings. The ironic problem was that it needed the extra computing power to improve the accuracy of its own climate predictions as well as its short-term weather forecasting. The machine will also improve its ability to predict extreme events such as fierce localised storms, cloudbursts and so on.
Alan Dickinson, Met Office Director of Science and Technology, said: “We recognise that running such massive computers consumes huge amounts of power and that our actions in weather and climate prediction, like all our actions, have an impact on the environment. We will be taking actions to minimise this impact.”
Dickinson believes, however, that the new computer will actually help Britain cut carbon emissions on a far greater scale than those it emits. He said: “Our next supercomputer will bring an acceleration in action on climate change through climate mitigation and adaptation measures as a consequence of a clearer understanding of risk. Ultimately this will lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.”
Machines like the Met Office’s new computer are important tools in the battle to slow climate change. They are the only way to assess the potential impact of rising CO2 levels over the coming years and decades.
This is because producing even a short-range weather forecast requires billions of calculations, something that would take weeks to do by hand. Computers enable forecasts to be generated in time to be useful.
Dickinson said: “Our existing supercomputer and its associated hardware produce 10,000 tonnes of CO2 each year, but this is a fraction of the CO2 emissions we save through our work. We estimate that for the European aviation industry alone our forecasts save emissions close to 3m tonnes by improving efficiency.
“Our next supercomputer will bring an acceleration in action on climate change through climate mitigation and adaptation measures as a consequence of a clearer understanding of risk. Ultimately this will lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.”
When it is finally completed, around 2011 the Met Office machine will be the second most powerful machine in Britain with a total peak performance approaching 1 PetaFlop — equivalent to over 100,000 PCs and over 30 times more powerful than what is in place today.
However, supercomputers and data centres require vast amounts of power – a problem that increasingly confronts the global information technology industry. Last week Google admitted its systems generate 0.2g of CO2 per search, even though each one lasts just 0.2 seconds.
Concerning the melting of the Antarctic ice, there is an idea that the Antarctic Peninsula area is volcanic, which is why it is melting compared to other areas. There was a report recently that they were going to put an underwater robot underneath the ice to find out if there is volcanic activity going on. The Antarctic Peninsula looks like a chan of volcanic mountains, doesn’t it ?
They used the term “Climate Change”. So, by the end of 2009 they will change the story to how to use their new Supercomputer to increase and optimize the CO2 emissions in order to combat the next Ice Age. They will claim to be ahead of everyone when they decided to aquire this tool… afterall, they talked about climate change and not global warming. Or maybe they will say that it was necessary to spend so much time and money on global warming models in order to combat Global Cooling… afterall they claim that the planet is cooling because of global warming.
I know this is OT but I found an interesting story about frogs being “eaten out of existence.” I’m not sure how this story reconciles with the standard party line that global warming is killing all the frogs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/4307043/Frogs-being-eaten-into-extinction.html
Do you think CO2 in the atmosphere is making the frogs (and “Sea Kittens”) more tasty?
Terrific. I suppose they’ll be naming it “Al”?
We all know “all pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others”.
— Hats off to George Orwell, even though I took the liberty to change “animals” to “pigs”.
Seriously, just because the common folk are supposed to suffer and scrape by doesn’t mean the government is going to. Government’s appetite is never sated. If it’s good times, there’s plenty of money to be spent. If it’s bad times, when else do we need government more?
Paul shanahan (11:05:07) :
I have to say, I’ve seen many a theory on what humans produce, but the truth is, we don’t really, really know. We can guess by using predictions and maths but not until we can tag each particle with “Human” or “Nature” lables will we ever really find out.
Paul,
Thanks for your reply. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of what is the weight of the carbon dioxide in an average human exhalation. And what is the average number of exhalations per minute/hour/day/whatever.
I can get myself to tons/year from there.
Tim
Hunter,
Re Burning Up a Computer
Supercomputers require massive cooling, as in cryogenic temperatures. The energy required to produce that cooling is what they are referring to.
Tim F (10:42:22)
Paul shanahan (11:05:07)
There is a good article today over at Roy Spencer’s blog as to the sources of atmospheric CO2.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
I am so very proud that our very own GB Met Office is doing it’s bit to combat global cooling:-)
If you must use the word then pleases spell it correctly.
Its, HYPOCRITES
Not trying to change subject, but since this is dated today…
Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural?
January 21st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Perhaps newspaper editors are starting to see a shift in public opinion.
Formerly the story angle was the noble smart scientists being silenced by powerful oil companies. And the greenies started out with that angle. But perhaps they were a bit too quick to go for that, as the oil companies never did really get involved as adversaries.
So now the story needs a new edge. Silly boffins lecturing us from ivory towers, and wasting our money?
What we have is an advanced version of GIGO. It has been upgraded to GIFGOF:
garbage in faster, garbage out faster.
Roy Spencer is not a team player and has a bad attitude by going against Gore, Obama and Hansen…how dare him be so arrogant! (just kidding) hehe
thanks for the link
Apparently it’s not as easy being green, as it is to tell others to be green.
I didn’t include references. Article on Antarctic volcano at volcano. Article on robot going to go underneath Pine Glacier at robot. Lastly, an article on Pine Glacier and volcanoes that have erupted nearby atPine Glacier
From Roger Sowell: “The benefit from oil field simulations was the cost to find oil went down dramatically. The lay-language used was that before that, oil formations were thought to be like a watermelon, just find the rock with the oil, poke a hole in it and the oil would flow. The Cray results showed oil formations were more like a bunch of grapes, and required poking a hole in each one to produce more oil.”
Sorry, but that is simply inaccurate, perhaps the view of someone in the computer industry. Geologists knew all about inhomogeneity in reservoir rocks well before anyone tried to model it on a computer. There may have been an engineer or two would say something similar to your watermelon analogy, but they would then endure the geologists favorite past time, abusing engineers. The supercomputer has allowed models to come up to a level that geologists can tolerate, but they have done little to add to the knowledge of the complexity.
The main impact supercomputers have had on the cost to find oil has been in the processing of three dimentional seismic data. In that respect the contribution has been significant.
Getting back to climate science, it is a common perception that petroleum geologists are skeptics because they are paid by oil companies. In most cases I know of, their skepticism stems from their familiarity with paleoclimate, and their mistrust of attempts to model of complex natural phenomenon, a mistrust developed through seeing so much failure.
Personally I would name it Marvin, as in “the paranoid android” from HGTtG fame. All it churns out is doom & gloom.
I would suggest that if these supercomputers need “cryogenic” style cooling, why don’t they take the damned thing down to Antarctica & run their models there, then at least we won’t have to endure the bovine faecal content of the output, (excuse my French & please feel free to remove if considered appropriate)!
I note that the artcle re warming in Antarctica has now appeared on the bbc website, a bit different in wording from the tv report with even more doubting re AGW causes I felt, perhaps not. Are they carefully positioning themselves for an easy escape from looking like complete fools?
atb
Dear Met Office,
Just tell everyone it is getting colder, dont waste £33m and save loads and loads of CO2….not that it matters that much.
Dave Wendt (11:11:45)
I’m with, buddy. The whole point of industry is to improve the quality of life for the masses. Nobody but the elite want to go back to the days medieval. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, I speak only for myself, but I really liked what you had to say.
The next phrase will be “Climate Instability”.
This sounds really scary and covers everything produced by the weather.
Really scary!
I predict that “deep thought” (oops, “deep black”) will flop away for years and the final answer will be 42. The acolytes of climate modeling will then announce that AGW is proved conclusively.
D Werme,
You are likely to be absolutely correct about what geologists knew and when. All I remember is what we were told about the watermelon and grape theories. I worked in the refineries as an engineer, not the oil production side. We did not suffer abuse by geologists! We got our abuse from the marketing-types.
The 1991 article I referenced earlier does speak to the seismic data processing that you mention.
As to the first use at UT for oil reservoir simulation, it may be that the supercomputer was used to confirm the geologists long-held belief that the grape structure (non-homogeneity) was more accurate than the watermelon. It was a long time ago, and I have searched for an article to refresh my memory without success.
Roger,
I knew that.
It was their poor use of language I was enjoying a jab at.
BTW, if the Met office dedicated its power supply to windmills, they could have cut that footprint by half.
This press release by the Met is like all other annoying eviro-fascist propaganda- poorly written, deceptive and uninformative.
Roy Spencer thinks 86% of CO2 can be explained by rising temperatures, not by human causes.
Anthony, this is an interesting article that is in need to be “thrown for the Lions”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
REPLY: He posted an earlier version of that here last year:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/#comments
I’ve been reading his current article. His latest effort today is a response to Tamino’s recent critique to the two part post Spencer made here last year. Spencer refuted Tamino’s critique last year, see this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/08/dr-roy-spencer-evaporates-taminos-critique/
Tamino doesn’t like to lose, hence the renewed attack almost a year later to the day. I’ll probably repost Dr. Spencer’s most recent article here, but I want to digest it first.
– Anthony