WUWT readers may recall the story by the Daily Mail about the new supercomputer.
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.
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. 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.
With all that power, surely it must produce some quality digital reckoning.
Bishop Hill has located the “supposedly secret” winter forecast sent to the British government. The details of the forecast produced are nothing short of astounding.
When the kerfuffle over the Met Office’s winter forecast blew up, I wrote to the Quarmby team to see if they had actually received a copy of the Met Office’s cold-winter forecast, which was apparently sent to the Cabinet Office. It is alleged that the forecast should have provided sufficient warning to the government machine to ensure that everyone was ready for what happened in December.
Today, rather later than I expected, the Quarmby team have responded and have helpfully provided a copy of the forecast:
Met Office Initial Assessment of Risk for Winter 2010/11
This covers the months of November, December and January 2010/11, this will be updated monthly through the winter and so probabilities will change.
Temperature
3 in 10 chance of a mild start
3 in 10 chance of an average start
4 in 10 chance of a cold start
Precipitation
3 in 10 chance of a wet start
3 in 10 chance of an average start
4 in 10 chance of a dry start
Summary: There is an increased risk for a cold and wintry start to the winter season.
Looking further ahead beyond this assessment there are some indications of an increased risk of a mild end to the winter season.
Yes that seems clear, doesn’t it? Seeing the numbers produced, personally, I think this less expensive computer, using Digital Advanced Reckoning Technology (DART) can do the job of making odds equally well, using less power, less space, and less money:
I really love this one:
Looking further ahead beyond this assessment there are some indications of an increased risk of a mild end to the winter season.
I think its been done, something about “March coming in like a lion and out like a lamb” IIRC. But really, I never thought that a “mild end to winter” could be categorized as a “risk”.
But this forecast for the start of winter still doesn’t square with the Met Office map output.
Here’s the Met Office supercomputer enhanced model output forecast from October 2010: 
See the story about that controversy here and here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Come on guys, give their the new supercomputera break. After all, it sits someplace at the end of a runway somewhere. Doesn’t it?
The supercomputer is their version of “putting a finger on the scale.” It uses so much electricity that warming is sure to follow. 😉
I can imagine the puzzlement of the government after receiving this top secret forecast… “Something might happen. Or not.” “Oh thanks. Great advice.”
What better way to say “wasted taxpayer money”!
Just The Facts says:
January 21, 2011 at 1:15 pm
R. Gates says: January 21, 2011 at 11:08 am
“The Met Office Super Climate computer, after running non-stop for weeks on end came up with the ultimate answer to the puzzle that is the climate…the answer was:
And your not going to like this….
42.”
Funny, I like it. Are you starting to come around to the possibility that Global Climate Models (GCMs) might not be particularly accurate yet? Maybe I can help some more…
“Many atmospheric general circulation models (GCMs) and chemistry–climate models (CCMs) are not able to reproduce the observed polar stratospheric winds in simulations of the late 20th century. Specifically, the polar vortices break down too late and peak wind speeds are higher than in the ERA-40 reanalysis. Insufficient planetary wave driving during the October–November period delays the breakup of the southern hemisphere (SH) polar vortex in versions 1 (V1) and 2 (V2) of the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) chemistry–climate model, and is likely the cause of the delayed breakup in other CCMs with similarly weak October-November wave driving.”
” Clearly, if CCMs cannot duplicate the observed response of the polar stratosphere to late 20th century climate forcings, their ability to simulate the polar vortices in future may be poor.”
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-651.pdf
“It is unclear how much confidence can be put into the model projections of the vortices given that the models typically only have moderate resolution and that the climatological structure of the vortices in the models depends on the tuning of gravity wave parameterizations.
Given the above outstanding issues, there is need for continued research in the dynamics of the vortices and their representation in global models.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf
_______
Thanks for those links. I have no doubt that all the GCM’s have major flaws, and that the real root cause is trying to model a system at the edge of chaos.
Having said that, it doesn’t mean that some level of AGW isn’t happening…it’s just that chaotic influences such as the sun, AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc. can’t be accurately modelled, and so how do you describe the initial and final states of the system if you can’t really model chaos?
On a side note, I found this little article which ought to make the AGW skeptics roll with laughter. It seems global warming has caused the first rays of sunlight to come up over Greenland this year two days earlier (at least according so some). Read this and have a good laugh:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/sun-rise-early-greenland_n_811657.html
Very strange days we live in…
with not enough information. I read somewhere that information theory would state that to accurately model a chaotic system would take a computer as large as the system you’re trying to model…with the same amount of energy input.
George Lawson says:
January 21, 2011 at 11:42 am
“The question is, what was the source of the information that led Roger Harrabin of the BBC to report that the MET Office had in fact given that secret report to the government that January was going to be very cold?”
Yes, this is the most important new question raised here.
Ack! I got snipped!!! For shame… I have been meticulous in avoiding the dreaded scissors of decorum, and am devastated that I have transgressed the code, however inadvertently. I realise after some easy research that I misspelled the name of the chief scientist at the Met office, Julia Slingo. I really thought that I had the right name, but erred… Really! I’m innocent! Stop looking at me like that! Oh the horror of it all….
😉
If I were to look for positives here, I’d have to say that the Met Office decision making process has improved. They used to know-not, and they knew-not that they knew-not. Now at least they know, that they know-not.
As for the “censorship” by the Cabinet Office – I fear that was just a simple misunderstanding. Someone in the Cabinet Office probably said: “You can’t publish that garbage!” and the Met Office took it as an instruction, rather than as an assessment.
42 was the answer…
…and now the Met Office wants a bigger better computer to work out if this is in Farenheit or Celsius.
Bruckner8 says:
January 21, 2011 at 10:43 am
This super computer has played a major role in heightened skeptical awareness. The excesses of its cost and pollution footprint, combined with its complete inability to predict, is Exhibit A for the gross scam perpetrated on the people of the world. This single device has made many more people take pause, and say “now wait a minute…”
You just have to remember who programmed the little beastie.
It should come as no surprise whatsoever at the amazing skill on display.
thanks for giving me a laugh.
Many years ago I read that a weatherman could be right 60% of the time by always forecasting, “The weather tomorrow will be like it was today.”
I assume the same works for a forecast for the next season, so “Spring will be like the spring of last year,” and this will be correct most years. (I’m not sure what they meant by “like” but it was something like warmer or cooler than normal, and wetter or dryer than normal.) If the MET abacus machine cannot equal this naive forecast, it has less skill than graffiti written on a wall.
And after a long, uncomfortable silence, the most powerful computer ever designed spit out a single phrase in response: “Who can say?”
Ironically, a computer that could understand uncertainty might be quite advanced, indeed.
On the other hand, if it just threw equal chances at every outcome, that’s kind of sad.
What an absolutely useless piece of machinery in that location. Outrageous waste to be placed at the Met!
Meanwhile pensioners are freezing to death.
Ummm, 15 million megabytes is only 15 gigabytes. My 2 year old computer has 6 gigabytes and can be expaned to 12 gigabytes, or 24 if i replace will 4 gigabyte modules.
R. Gates says:
January 21, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Mr Gates thanks for sharing the ridiculous.
From the same Huffpost article – i kid you not!
“Another weird result of global warming may be that satellites speed through air faster due to increased levels of carbon dioxide creating a less dense atmosphere.”
ThinkingScientist says:
January 21, 2011 at 1:17 pm
RE JPeden at 12:39
The Met Office prediction amounts to 40% chance of colder than average and 60% chance of average or warmer than average.
I know, I was being sarcastic, but it looks to me like what I said is possibly the way the Met actually thinks! Check it out: the only way the Met Office can say it did predict a greater chance of a cold/colder start of Winter, vs mild or average, is if it thinks that it did because 4/10 is greater than each of the two 3/10’s seperately! Which would mean that either the Met is in much worse shape than we’ve imagined, or it thinks we are as dumb as it needs us to be.
R. Gates says: January 21, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“I have no doubt that all the GCM’s have major flaws, and that the real root cause is trying to model a system at the edge of chaos.”
Agreed, Earth’s Climate System is unbelievably complex and continuously evolving, and GCM’s development is still nascent. But why are we investing a tremendous amount of time and resources reacting to alarming prognostications from these obviously flawed models?
“Having said that, it doesn’t mean that some level of AGW isn’t happening…it’s just that chaotic influences such as the sun, AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc. can’t be accurately modelled, and so how do you describe the initial and final states of the system if you can’t really model chaos?”
I am reasonably confident that some level of Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening. Between increases in carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, changes in ozone concentrations and distribution, increases in particulates and aerosols, soot, land use changes, urban heat islands, etc. there seems likely to be a net positive Anthropogenic thermal contribution. However, I have no confidence that these Anthropogenic forces, and particularly CO2, are the primary driver of Earth’s temperature, or are overwhelming Earth’s array of natural climate drivers/variables including…
1. Earth’s Rotational Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html
which results in day and night;
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_rotation_cause_day_and_night
influences Oceanic Gyres;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre
helps drive and direct the Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
especially around Antarctica;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conveyor_belt.svg
which is also called the Antarctic Circumpolar Current;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current
and the Arctic:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=47170&ct=61&article=20727
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/flows.jpg
Earth’s Rotational Energy also influences Earth’s Polar Vortices;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
which “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”
http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/
Here’s an animated model of the Arctic Polar Vortex;
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010000/a010005/vortex.mpg
and here’s an animation of the currently unformed Arctic Polar Vortex:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_nh_anim.shtml
Here’s an animation of the currently unformed Antarctic Polar Vortex;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml
2. Earth’s Orbital Energy, Elliptical Orbit around the Sun, and Tilt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html
creates seasons;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
which drives major changes Polar Sea and Land Ice;
tba
the freezing and melting of which helps to drive the Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
On longer time frames in which changes to Earth’s orbit, tilt and wobble called Milankovitch cycles;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
which may be responsible for the periods of Glaciation (Ice Ages);
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm
that Earth has experienced for the last several million years of Earth’s climatic record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
3. Gravitational Energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy
The Moon and Sun have significant influence on Earth’s tide;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
http://www.themcdonalds.net/richard/astro/papers/602-tides-web.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
as well as the Moon, Sun and Earth’s gravity influences Earth’s Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Gravitational_or_buoyant_convection
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=205
4. Solar Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
causes evaporation;
creates clouds;
results rain;
that transfers large amounts of moisture;
and results in rivers, etc.;
and evaporation and condensation may help to drive changes in atmospheric pressure:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/24015/2010/acpd-10-24015-2010.pdf
5. Geothermal Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
especially when released by volcanoes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
which have been shown to influence Earth’s climate;
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
including in the infamous Year Without a Summer;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
which was partially caused by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora
and is called a Volcanic Winter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
6. Cosmic Forces,
Cosmic Rays?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
7. Magnetic Forces
tba
8. Atmospheric Composition
Aerosols
Particulates
Greenhouse Gases
9. Albedo
tba
“Very strange days we live in…
with not enough information. I read somewhere that information theory would state that to accurately model a chaotic system would take a computer as large as the system you’re trying to model…with the same amount of energy input.”
Yes, it will likely take an absurd and distant amount of computing capacity to accurately model Earth’s unbelievably complex climate system. And then many generations and orders of magnitude of further computing capacity to account for and analyze the nearly unfathomable number of permutations that must occur in order to accurately predict Earth’s unbelievably complex Climate System over multi-decadal time frames…
“With a total peak performance approaching 1 PetaFlop…”
With all the accuracy of 1 CowFlop.
kcrucible says:
January 21, 2011 at 4:17 pm
The supercomputer is their version of “putting a finger on the scale.” It uses so much electricity that warming is sure to follow. 😉
——————————————–
I get the feeling the supercomputer is their version of “pull my finger.”
I also have a feeling that if the computer forecasted a temp of -40, they would want a million dollar grant to determine whether it was centigrade or fahrenheit.
Finally, just to save them some money, I will offer my standard prediction to the question, what are the odds of rain? 50 – 50. Either it will or it won’t. How could the odds be anything else?
You know that feeling in your lungs when you fall on your back and you get the wind knocked out of you? You try to get your lungs to work and they just seem to have gone to sleep and for a few moments you feel like you are going to die. Well I think I just got that in my brain after reading this post. It wasn’t anything all that unbelievable (at least, not by now) but when there are still lots of people out there who consider skeptics as “anti-science” while having faith in these soothsayers reading a climate horoscope… it feels like something has gone seriously wrong with reality. I mean something more than usual.
Gary Hladik says:
January 21, 2011 at 3:10 pm
“On the bright side, when not mispredicting the upcoming seasons, the MET supercomputer plays a mean game of chess!”
OF course it does! The people that created the programing KNOW how to play chess.
An old friend who was a NWS forecaster, said to me one day:”If you have no idea
it’s always: Partly to mostly with a chance of.”….
He didn’t need no stinkin’ supercomputer..
Well the agenda is to discredit the met office and this is followed by a lot of predictable, breathless commentary.
But it is all being done in an information vacuum.
The verbal forecast supplied here has been simplified, I guess, to make it easy for bureaucrats to skim? but it is near enough to useless for decision making. I would make a wild guess and suggest that this forecast is not to be used by the people whose real job it is to prepare for winter.
Weather is a matter of probabilities and probabilities do allow 2 sixes to be thrown every now and again. People who claim they knew that 2 sixes were going to come up, after the dice are thrown are just attention seekers.
Wes M says:
January 21, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Ok, here ya go:
3 in 10 chance of a mild recovery
3 in 10 chance of an average recovery
4 in 10 chance of a cold recovery.
The problem isn’t that they’re not using a computer–the problem is that they’re using a computer!
Everybody with any sense knows that any enterprise, whether it be an individual, family, business, or country, that spends way more money than it earns will have economic problems proportional to the difference in the two figures. It doesn’t take a computer to figure that out.
A “quick” check and that sort of computing power can be bought for less than 20% of the price and consumes about half the power, including heat-pump power. Look on the WWW for “NVidia Tesla”.
I reckon the green stripes on the cabinets are worth at least £3m 😉