NASA powers up for the next UN IPCC

More GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) for the IPCC’s sewerpipe.

It may be rubbish, but it’ll be high speed rubbish.

The faster computing will help climate modellers as resolution and process detail increases. However, the CO2 forcing mechanism is derived from very straightforward equations, and is the main driving cause of projected warming over the next century and beyond, according to the models quoted by the IPCC. So, in my humble opinion, the benefit will be more toward improved meteorological modelling rather than climate change magnitude prediction (aside from perhaps improved feedback analyses with higher spatial and temporal resolution in atmospheric and oceanic circulation and land surface-atmosphere interactions). Greater computing power will not likely have any sizeable effect on the magnitude of warming predicted. Improved precision, but little change in accuracy, would be my guess.

This statement can’t be right:
“Moreover, the new computational capabilities allow NASA climate scientists to run high-resolution simulations that reproduce atmospheric features not previously seen in their models.”
I thought all atmospheric features were already taken into account . . . at least all the important ones . . . at least those needed to adequately guide multi-trillion-dollar policy decisions . . .

As a programmer it is the thinking that counts not the processor that is running the thinking. Bigger, better, faster does not by any measure make the logic or results correct. But everyone here knows that. Too bad our government agencies have lost sight of science and are all about agenda. 45 days and counting, what NASA guy was on top of that?

Perhaps it’ll be like the Snapple mantra
“The best stuff on earth just got better”
Or not

You’ve got spend money to make money.

Hey Folks, I am all for spending money to test the theory and separate fact from belief. Much better than throwing money at something we don’t understand. Let’s hold our government accountable for some quality control. I hope it will be more than the pittance they have applied so far, according to Gavin’s estimation.

Prepare for more computer made AGW.

Robert Wood (17:21:09) :

I’m an electronic engineer and therefore say .. cooool!

Neat. I’m an electronics engineer, can I check out your programming 😛
(From an engineering perspective)
DaveE.

More expensive and faster junk science.

When a computer model can tell with any accuracy whether the weather will be wet next week, I’ll start to pay attention to the much more complex climate models.
I wonder if the new machines are still running the old FORTRAN code ?

Maybe they could have better spent the money attracting first rate mathematicians with their paper notebooks and chalkboards. Maybe a laptop running Mathematica.

Lighten up, folks. In the long run this is a good thing. I am much happier with a fast computer and high-speed internet connection. For a few days after I got these I did the same things I’d been doing – but then I learned I could do other things I had not been able to do before.
So, they will transfer their simulations and data to the new hardware and, at first, produce the same answers. But they will soon find they have time to insert other data and other functions and better resolution. Eventually, they will find that things more complex than CO2 driven warming are involved and as these are incorporated the role of GHGs will decrease in their models.
None of this is likely to happen before Copenhagen, of course. But even as the western economies stagnate under “cap and tax” laws we will begin to understand (better) the natural variability of Earth’s climate.
Science is good. Politics – not so much.

If Henrik Svensmark, Piers Corbyn, Roy Spencer, and Anthony Watts (and who they would choose to help them) were in charge of the inputs I’d feel a lot better about the outputs of this toy.

Robert Wykoff (17:22:17) :
It will only take minutes instead of hours now to determine that the climate is getting worse much faster than we imagined.
And it only took you seconds to know this is what will happen. 😉

Andrew S (17:23:15) :
You’ve got spend money to make money.
God I hate that this is true. Because they are spending my money, and your money, to make that money. And the money they are making is my money, and your money.

Carbon-based Life Form (17:24:42) : ..according to Gavin’s estimation
Doesn’t it just SUCK that someone the caliber of Gavin Schmidt is one of the people who is going to get to play with this toy?! OMFG!!

This kind of smokescreen makes the climatologists think they are getting somewhere, when all that will happen is that they will become increasingly sure of their answers – while they will be no more accurate than before.
Climate change cannot be predicted by a single model no matter how complex that model.
Population growth models based on data from 1950 -1970 is inapplicable to population growth patterns in 2009. Investment banking models were based on data from 1945 – 2005 during which time single family housing prices in aggregate increased. The models based on these data predicted that single home mortgages in aggregate had less than a 1% chance risk of default. Guess what happened?
The results of this reliance in climatology on models rather than on observation, experiment, and theory is as likely to be as disappointing as similar reliance on econometric models was in the mid 20 century and investment banking models which led to our current financial collapse.

No matter how many bones and entrails soothsayers use, no matter how shiny their rocks, no matter how pretty the pictures on their astrology cards, no matter how the dice sound when they roll the i-ching, no matter how spiffy the processors nor how fast nor which software language they use, no matter what climate scientists, oh sorry, climate soothsayers and doomsayers will not be able to accurately simulate the ACTUAL and REAL WORLD weather and climate systems of Earth. It’s just not possible to accurately simulate, with predictive results of any value, a real system that needs to play itself out in real time as the climate and weather systems do. This was proved mathematically and logically by Stephen Wolfram, A New Kind of Science, Chapter 2. How come this is? It’s because certain systems – such as weather and climate – generate randomness from within the system itself as part of it’s inherent Nature; this isn’t randomness from initial conditions, nor from chaos theory, it’s randomness that is inherent in the system itself. Can’t simulate them, they must play out in real time in the real objective reality. It’s actually even worse… given the vast number of different systems that must be integrated into a whole earth simulation and that many of those systems also have inherent randomness in them.
So soothsay and doomsay away Nasa and IPCC. Gotta love those shiny new computers. Heck what am I saying? I could get a high paying programming systems analysis job there… nope resist the temptation… [:|]
Now what to do with that spiffy parallel computer that Nasa has that could actually contribute to the world?

If they’d only spend 1/100000000 of the money on open minds instead of closed ones. Like someone else said why bother, the science is in, now move along — nothing to see here.

Does anyone know what this cost me? I’m fed up with the government wasting my money.
Jesse

Another GIGO…GIGO….GIGO Vote!
Remember the MAINE!
Remember the Boeing 787!
Remember the Conneticut 1978 Ice Arena Roof Collapse (first totally “computer” designed truss roof structure..)

Is the new system powered by solar power? I hope it doesn’t create too large of a carbon footprint.

NASA just described climate projections as “forecasts”-I was under the impression that this was a big no-no that only denier cave men would do.

“What’s the carbon footprint of that monstrosity?”
IT’s it’s own Global Warming Heat Island!
The carbon footprint of this monstrosity will tilt the planet off it’s orbit so we dive into the Sun or smash into Mars….

But, do they have enough compute power to take into account the sun?
I doubt this will be enough compute power to fill the knowledge gap. What man knows about the earth’s climate, you can write a book, what man doesn’t know, would fill a library. Until someone finds the missing library full of books, sounds like it will be nothing more than a waste of badly needed electricity.
You would have thought that in the case of AGW, the theory predicts that there should be a measurable hotspot in the upper troposphere. Observations from satellites and weather balloons have been made, and no hotspot has been found. In a less politicized field, this would have been the end of it.
Need new theory.

That’s great. Now the models can be wrong faster.
Do the new systems address their lack of QC? Because that seems to be what’s lacking and probably would have been money better spent.

Ken G (20:35:14) :
That’s great. Now the models can be wrong faster.

Perhaps what bothers me most is that they will spend a gazillion dollars on hardware, tout on all about how fast and powerful it all is, then claim that their new output says “we are burning up far faster than we ever thought” .. and the most frightening, “we know this is correct now because we have all of this super computing power to back it up” .. sheeple will believe it…

They are spending all that money and sucking down all that power to do what now? Prove a single theory. Why this theory? What’s so darn special and unique about AGW doom & gloom that it gets exclusive rights to the feeding trough? This stuff is made up and moved around so much the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is predicting.
What ever happened to the system of proposal for instrument time????
Like HST. What is the justification for monopolizing the installation at the expense of all others?
So who told them to build more computing capacity and what to input?
The previous computer system’s fuzzy output.
It’s like using Hubble to read the plaque on Voyager.
You already know what it looks like and what is says.
Maybe someone can put it to good use, like computing when the next sunspot will appear. At least that result is testable.

A nice new shiny toy for faster garbage out.
Too bad the government will not spend, say, a quarter of the cost of this project on finding near Earth asteroids and predicting their potential orbits instead of wasting it on the likes of Hansen, Schmidt, et al.

I have this cartoon running in my head where with their new found speed and high resolution they run one of their models and for the first time it does something really really really stupid, because it can finally avoid rounding errors or something like that.
You know something like predict the ocean is at absolute zero after 5 years.
As the operator sits there and mutters — “That can’t be right?”
We can hope the new speed and precision will uncover some impossible solutions that will make someone someplace ask a few questions.
“is this real or is this Memorex?”
Larry

Hope they’ve got the F77 compiler tuned. That’s what Hansen’s code is.
Now if they could only tune Hansen…

The Discovery System will now demand all controls be routed through it. “Dave, I can save the world now. I see it all so clearly”.
So, with an output already known in advance, what are they REALLY doing with this Monstrosity?

“Hope they’ve got the F77 compiler tuned. That’s what Hansen’s code is.”
Last i heard there was even a little bit of python code tossed in just for kicks.
Oh, and completely off topic, I had a chance to look at Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog today and noticed this statement concerning Gavin Schmidt’s understanding of boundary layer physics:

Clearly, however, despite clear evidence of his inadequate lack of knowledge of boundary layer physics, he elected to be the authority on our research papers.

I wanted to take issue with that statement and tell him that I believe that Schmidt has an entirely adequate lack of knowledge.

Now GISS can chase their tails at the speed of light! “Aye aye, Captain Hansen! Warp speed it is!”
CH

Now why in the world would they need this if the science was settled?
Interesting that NASA is fighting for its very life but still pissing away countless dollars on computers to perpetuate a fraud.

H/T to Douglas Adams…
When Deep Thought produced the answer 42, the solution was to build a bigger and better computer to find out what the actual question was:
“I speak of none other than the computer that is to come after me,” intoned Deep Thought, his voice regaining its accustomed declamatory tones. “A computer whose merest operational parameters I am not worthy to calculate — and yet I will design it for you. A computer which can calculate the Question to the Ultimate Answer, a computer of such infinite and subtle complexity that organic life itself shall form part of its operational matrix. And you yourselves shall take on new forms and go down into the computer to navigate its ten-million-year program! Yes! I shall design this computer for you. And I shall name it also unto you. And it shall be called … The Earth.”
Is that where this is going to? Will GISS get out and look at the Earth before issuing a proclamation, or is it all models?

But is it a Mac or PC ?

What a waste of government money (oops – I meant TAXPAYER money). For what they plan to do they could have just trotted on down to ToysRUs and for $22.95 gotten a genuine glow in the dark Ouija board (http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2266493&CAWELAID=107526667) which would generate the answers they want a lot cheaper, faster, and without all that messy programming.

Douglas DC (17:11:53) :
42-now what was the question?
ht to “Hitchiker’s Guide….”
Look, it’s in black & white, 5 x 9 = 42! Always has, always will, me bucko!
I can see the transatlantic spats now, those jolly chaps & chapesses in the Met Office chanting, “Na na na na na! Our Deep Thought is better than your Deep Thought!”
As to costs, well the Met Office have very kindly spent £30M of money that isn’t theirs on their new super-computer, plus all the salaries to go with it, I understand that place is like a glorified holiday camp, have a guess at what your lot are spending that isn’t theirs! $50M+? Governments have no money, it’s taxpayers money folks, which they remove by legal force from your wallets!
AND just how will they know what they get out of the end of it is right or meaningful. Well they don’t actually, & after all that’s isn’t the point either. They just need lots of evidence to point the finger. The UK Government spends £Ms on Focus Groups & fake charities that prepare reports, that just happen to endorse its policy proposals so that they can raise taxes after promising they wouldn’t do it! It’s simple really & this is how benign totalitarianism works, they create solution to a non-existant problem, define the problem, then legislate against it. You’re next!

That’s a seriously impressive amount of processing power, and probably enough to make Microsoft’s FSX playable.

Is this all really necessary when all it will do is draw more curves and then plot more points that correlate with something somewhere that will be peerreviewedpublishedinajournal as the third letter from Michael to the Gavinites followed shortly by rigorous analysis by the Apostates who will once again show the abuse of the “statistical method”.
This AGW really is a cash cow getting a good milking which will be followed by some cap ‘n tax or ets that will squeeze the last drops from the shriveled udder.

Does this make it the world’s fastest cherry-picking machine?

It would be better an horoscope of future climate, meanwhile old sun it is parked somewhere out there resting.

Hey GISS, what’s the density altitude and temp going to be at

The question is: How do I turn it on?

So we can go from garbage in to garbage out much faster than ever before; rah !
Reminds me of an “Idea for Design” in a famous (old) electronics industry magazine. Someone donated an hour of computer time on an IBM 1100 or some such to this “engineer” so he decided to do a Monte Carlo analysis, of the two transistor amplifier circuit he had “Worst case” designed to amplify with a gain of 10 +/-1 .
The results of the analysis said that the lead resistor of the main gain stage was the most critical item in the circuit. It also said that the spread of amplifier gains was skewed outside the worst case design limits (how could that be if it is a worst case design). So it suggested a 5% change in the value of that load resistor, to resore the gain to its desired value.
Whoop de do; the :engineer didn’t do the WCD properly; but more importantly it was a totally lousy circuit to use in the first place; and he could have rearranged the exact same number of circuit components into a much better negative feedback amplifier whose gain would be the ratio of just two resistors (easy to make 10:1 with standard values); and quite independent almost of the properties of either of the two transistors; a much more robust design.
So a fast computer can perhaps optimise a lousy design; or climate theory; but don’t expect it to come up with a better design or climate theory that a better engineer (climate scientist) could have figured out without the faster computer.
NASA isn’t going to statistical mathematicate its way to a better climate science explanation; so why the bigger computer.

pwl:
“Nice one Roy, may I post your comparison steps elsewhere?”
Be my guest. Permission granted. ;^)

Should it be tested retro forecasting? Take a location(s) surface weather station and feed in inputs from last 7 days/month/year, then test computer to see if it can mimic the climate inputs and outputs for that particular week/month/year – are NASA up for it??
I do feel that all this ‘power’ should be used for something more tangible, if it came up with projections say, that the climate is not warming would they (NASA) release the data?? – or am I being ingenuous?
There must be a tendency for the computer experts to be so completely immersed in the subject and intricacies of the engineering, to miss entirely the objective, like being lost in cyberspace.
I am not sure that we shall ever be able to predict with any accuracy this beautiful and terrible climate of our world – or we may just be on the verge……. and something goes off in a corner of Wyoming!!****! – now might I suggest, that we should far more concentrate our energies on volcanic/seismic event prediction.

See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009565319_boeing30.html and http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/07/07/how-the-joint-strike-fighter-and-dreamliner-787-programs-are-compromised-by-similar-project-management-failures/ for some of the triumphs of computer modelling.

So as a test of this new terramachine, why don’t they turn it on, and have it calculate the GISStemp anomaly back to the day that James Hansen invented global warming; that would include of course calculating from basic physics, the actual raw data readings from Hansen’s collection of errant owl boxes, that are on Anthony’s “little list”.
I wouodn’t let them advance to positive times BP, until that can correctly get the CE, and BCE data calculated from Peter Humbug;’s model.