Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain’s worst polluters
Excerpts from the story by the Daily Mail See WUWT’s original story on this
The Met Office has caused a storm of controversy after it was revealed their £30million supercomputer designed to predict climate change is one of Britain’s worst polluters.
The massive machine – the UK’s most powerful computer with a whopping 15 million megabytes of memory – was installed in the Met Office’s headquarters in Exeter, Devon.
It is capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second to feed data to 400 scientists and uses 1.2 megawatts of energy to run – enough to power more than 1,000 homes.
The computer used 1.2 megawatts to run – enough to power 1,000 homesThe machine was hailed as the ‘future of weather prediction’ with the ability to produce more accurate forecasts and produce climate change modelling.
However the Met Office’s HQ has now been named as one of the worst buildings in Britain for pollution – responsible for more than 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
It says 75 per cent of its carbon footprint is produced by the super computer meaning the machine is officially one of the country’s least green machines.
Green campaigners say it is ‘ironic’ that a computer designed to help stave-off climate change is responsible for such high levels of pollution.
But Met Office spokesman Barry Grommett said the computer was ‘vital’ to British meteorology and to help predict weather and environmental change.
He said: ‘We recognise that it is big but it is also necessary. We couldn’t do what we do without it.
‘We would be throwing ourselves back into the dark ages of weather forecasting if we withdrew our reliance on supercomputing, it’s as simple as that.’
The figures have been published by the Department of Communities and Local Government which calculated the ratings and emissions of every public building in the country.
————————————-
“We couldn’t do what we do without it.” – like botch the BBQ summer forecast?
Mark (08:29:38) : CO2 is not pollution!
According to the warmers it is. And by their definition they are polluting.
They require us to have small “Carbon Footprints” like the good citizens of Somalia, Afghanistan and Burundi. Our lives would be so much better if we lived like them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita (Note the countries at the bottom of the list)
Thus they jet around with their huge “Carbon Footprints” to conferences to try and convince governments and us to reduce ours.
But then again perhaps they are talking about the pollution that it spews out when it manipulates the data.
Far more accurate, far more greener and far more cheaper…
http://bsornot.whipnet.net/images/redneck/redneck.weather.station.jpg
“All we have to do to prove global warming is turn it on!”
Seriously, the Met Office, and NASA in their attempt to “keep up with the Joneses”, should be assessed the extra costs of dealing with that extra CO2. So… how much do we figure farmers and foresters owe them?
Best,
Frank
I don’t get it. You publish a post by Przemystaw, but when I simply say I agree with his post you hold mine up in “moderation.”
What’s up with That?
OOPS, Mea CULPA!
I see I SHOT TOO SOON.
Sorry . . . . 🙁
The thing is, and what they get away with, is truly awful weather prediction for EVEN the next 48 hours. It’s either completely vague or totally wrong! Seriously, they are completely useless. I have been monitoring weather predictions for a while, and they say words like, “Chance of…Could be…Possibility of… Maybe…Some areas will see…” I want to know what the weather will be in my county for tomorrow and the next few days. And I’ve completely given up checking with the Met Office as it’s just a joke. I might as well guess, and I’ll be just as accurate. I’ve also noticed that they completely change their forecast as more info comes in (obviously) – so what’s the point of giving a 3-day forecast then? They should just be honest and say ‘we’ll give you tomorrow’s forecast but that’s all we can offer’. They’ll still get that wrong – or use vague words and phrases so that they can say they were right in places! It really blows my mind, it’s so useless as to be a national disgrace.
I think I can guess the real reason for this new computer….
Met Office researchers where finding solitaire, Freecell, and on-line poker weren’t running fast enough.
That’s a “Carbon Dioxide Footprint” NOT a “Carbon Footprint”, two entirely different things assuming you want to respect chemistry. I ask that we all start using the proper term “Carbon Dioxide Footprint” for it. Thanks.
Leo Simpson explains it quite well here:
“For a start, let’s consider this highly emotive term “carbon pollution” which is constantly being bandied about. It only takes a moment’s thought to realise that there is no “carbon pollution” problem. It did exist 50 years ago, when we had steam trains and diesels with smoky exhausts and coal-burning power stations which had less than complete combustion. It used to be called soot. But it is not a problem now, in most countries. Now I know that some people use “carbon” as shorthand for carbon dioxide but it is sloppy thinking and generates worry in the unthinking masses that we are spewing all this carbon into the air. We’re not.”
“We are burning tremendous amounts of fossil fuels and that is putting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the air. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that is a big worry, isn’t it? Well, maybe. But all these doom merchants who worry about carbon dioxide never say anything at all about the other greenhouse gas which is produced when fossil fuels are burnt. What is that? It’s called water vapour – the same stuff as in clouds. Is water vapour a problem? Definitely not.”
Let’s have no more of this carbon pollution nonsense
http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_111426/article.html
‘We would be throwing ourselves back into the dark ages of weather forecasting if we withdrew our reliance on supercomputing, it’s as simple as that.’
He who does not have a brain needs a brain outside.
As I said before… they should have used a bunch of PS3 in parallel instead… at 299$ each in September, that will be a very good deal… and that includes a Bluray player in each one of them!!!
Dr. Joe Papp (10:07:02) :
Sorry mate, nuclear doesn’t cut it in the EUSSR!
France, who generate about 80% of their electricity by nuclear are counted as highly carbon polluting because they are given a carbon equivalent rating!
This is because the greens don’t like nuclear any more than coal. What they really want is NO power generated!
DaveE.
GIGO was probably “garbage in, GOSPEL out” originally. I heard it in during the Vietnam War when I was working in defense and often produced GIGO myself.
Sometimes you hit the nail, sometimes you hit your nail.
McNamara, the Secretary Of Defense, seems to have believed (then) that analysis could always find the right strategy for government. And his prior successes made that hard to argue with. Especially since no one actually knew what his techniques were worth.
Mc thought you just needed good numbers and ultra smart people – people like himself of course. The computers made the process faster.
I suspect the Met Office is on the same course. It is a matter of computability.
i.e. would the data actually be adequate even with perfect programs and the computers to execute them?
How does the output scale? Will increasing the computer speed improve results? Or just produce them faster?
Piers Corbyn using the laws of physics and a calculator does far better than the Met Office. See http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=72&c=1
DERise (10:36:32) : “But they need a computer like this to painstakingly maintain through retrievable records, boldly apply completely unbiased corrections, and maintain as thoroughly impartial a register of climatic conditions as humanly possible!”
Not to mention the two million lines of Mannomatic statistical code that can grind 2+2=4 into 2+2= -1√(F.A.)
Garbage in, pollution out.
Phillip Bratby (13:22:51) :
Piers Corbyn using the laws of physics and a calculator does far better than the Met Office
If somebody knows him, please tell him to openly challenge the UK Met Office’s new computer to forecast next UK winter. If he wins then this new computer should be unplugged and all those “new age, post-modern metereologists” quit their jobs for ever.
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (09:29:18) :
“Irony” and “hypocrisy” in reference to what or to whom? Eco wacko? Journalist stupidity? Green idiots? Supercomputer? MET representatives?
The MET is bad (read: ironic, hypocritic) for wrong forecasts, or the supercomputer is bad for excesive carbon footprint?
You saw irony and MET hypocrisy in the text, I saw the repetition of idiotic green propaganda and deranged eco mentality which counts today every human activity in new Eco-Units of carbon footprints – with supercomputer playing title role with the MET episode.
Sean (10:12:10) :
“I wish everyone would stop complaining about the MET office computer.”
I couldn’t agree more.
CodeTech (10:56:07) :
Quote – “Having someone insist that I need to reduce my “carbon footprint” while going out and buying size 100 shoes is “ironic”.”
I will use your words verbatim – “Perhaps you need to look up the meanings of:”
Goebbels’ famous saying – every lie repeated 100 times becomes a truth.
I’m sure you never lived under communist regime. The best method to imprint Orwellian/Communist/green idea in society’s brains (here carbon footprints) is to repeat it or disseminate as irony, hypocrisy, or sarcasm. The more it will be laughed off the more effective the method is.
John Peter (11:46:02) :
Quote – “I live in United Kingdom and have been exposed to three faulty summer predictions and last winter’s complete failure to predict the cold/snow.”
As I can recall all the MET forecasts were in the form of 60%:40% of ***probability*** (the numbers were different). It has just happened that MET forecasts belonged to the second part with the lower probability. Bad luck for the MET. I do not see any ironic relation between the forecasts with the new supercomputer (and its “carbon footprint”). What MET representatives were saying is another subject which I clearly stated in the first part of this comment (answering to Fred from Canuckistan)
Regards
Typo in the headline: “were” should be “we’re”
Correction:
Is – It has just happened that MET forecasts belonged to the second part with the lower probability.
It should be – It has just happened that the real weather belonged to the second part with the lower probability.
Regards
BTW, Piers Corbyn says “It is not a matter of technology but of the application of Physics and equations. Just as computer models of the economy fail so does the Met office approach to long range forecasting. We can predict in detail months ahead how solar particle and magnetic effects modulated by Lunar and other factors cause the Jet stream – the tracks of low pressures – to shift. This is the key to weather type prediction for Britain Ireland and Europe.”
As always, it is not a matter of belief, decrees or even bills which make for the advancement of science and welfare and progress of the people of the world, but the gift of enlightened individuals and their efforts to achieve a goal.
A sum of a lot of zeros always equals zero. Knowledge, information, as energy, it is a quantity which can not be sliced or divided infinitely the same as a cake can not.
Dr. Joe Papp (10:07:02) : “Wait, maybe the SuperComputer runs off NUCLEAR? Then it has NO carbon footprint.”
IF .. there was no CO2 involved in nuclear construction, maintenance, decommissioning, fuel manufacture and fuel disposal. Dunno about that.
As nuclear output will not increase by 1.2 MW to balance this additional demand, the law of conservation of energy tells us to expect a consequential increase in fossil fuel consumption.
anna v (11:11:34) : “The carbon footprint is immaterial, as carbon is not a pollutant anyway.”
It is material here in the UK as we are within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Today’s CO2 price is €15.25 per tonne (see pointcarbon.com). I don’t know where the estimat of 12,000 tonnes of CO2 came from, but it equates to €400,000 for the UK taxpayer. I’d rather our taxes were spent something useful.
One ought suggest they use the resources of Piers Corbyn, the Imperial College educated astrophysicist who, with his £50 casio calculator, gets it right almost every time for uk and worldwide forecasts, much to the public envy of the Met Office with their very considerable supercomputers, and who get it wrong everytime.
It just goes to show that millions of pounds worth of supercomputers are more fallible than a humble calculator and human aptitude, if the input is mistaken. It just calculates the wrong results much faster, as noted.
The position of the Met office is understandable. They nowadays only predict uk based weather, although they were set up as a world meterological centre during the days of empire for maritime prediction. With the decline of the UK as a world power, the Met more or less lost its raison d’être, and so now grasp (follow) the AGW thesis to give themseles a world reputation again.
The machine was hailed as the ‘future of weather prediction’ with the ability to produce more accurate forecasts and produce climate change modelling.
Newfangled contraptions! I’ll still put more stock in my trick knee. Or, if that fails, going outside and sticking a hand out and looking up.
1 Teraflop can’t be right, can it?
I can’t find the reference, but I’m pretty sure that this machine does 1.3 Teraflop using far less power.
Paul.
Przemysław Pawełczyk (13:53:03) :
How do you pronounce your name in English please?
Regards