Professor Andy Hogg, Chief Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes. Fair use, low resolution image to identify the subject

Claim: Australia’s Supercomputer Gadi will Solve the Climate Crisis

Essay by Eric Worrall

Because when your models can’t predict the climate, what you really need is a bigger computer, right?

Supercomputer Gadi crunches climate change

By Marion Rae

Updated June 23 2022 – 6:26pm, first published 6:23pm

New funding will unlock powerful Australian simulators to give the world’s scientists a better chance of tackling climate change.

The inaugural director of the new facility, Andy Hogg, said cutting-edge computer simulations and models will crack open climate change, extreme weather events, and past and future Earth systems.

“This will not only mean more powerful and insightful research, but hopefully better decisions for the pressing challenges and acute stresses our nation and world face,” Professor Hogg said.

But he says computer models are only as good as the people behind them.

“We are creating an open source weather, climate and Earth system modelling powerhouse that anyone across the globe will be able to access,” Prof Hogg said.

Based at the Australian National University, the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator can calculate predicted weather and climate conditions from a few hours to many decades in the future.

Read more:

Open source sounds promising. But perhaps Professor Hogg should have also mentioned, climate modelling systems are also only as good as the data they use. As Anthony Watts and many others have documented, much of the world’s climate data could charitably be described as junk.

5 22 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alexy Scherbakoff
June 24, 2022 6:09 pm

A better GIGO machine.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
June 25, 2022 7:33 am

The real problem is knowing the right question to ask:

Tom in Florida
Reply to  yirgach
June 25, 2022 11:16 am

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 25, 2022 12:11 pm

How many angel can dance at the head of pin?
How Unicorns reproduce?
Wrong questions.

Wrongest of all questions there, even as in the premise of philosophically theoretical one:

“How many multiverses are there?”


Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 25, 2022 1:48 pm

Freedoms Must Be Surrendered – I Robot.
If not worth it, then what!?

Reply to  whiten
June 25, 2022 3:12 pm

If I may. Pardon me, but got to do it.

Eagles – Hotel California (Lyrics) – YouTube
nice one

Barry James
Reply to  yirgach
June 25, 2022 8:04 pm

As long as they continue to abide by the IPCC directive to assume that CO2 is the control knob for atmospheric temperature as their starting point (the GI part), all they will ever get will be faster GO.

Barry James
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
June 25, 2022 7:56 pm

Yeah. They will be able to get from GI to GO a lot faster. Applause everyone.

June 24, 2022 6:09 pm

Maybe a super duper computer will explain why overlaps collapse climate sensitivity. As if we did not know already…

comment image

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  E. Schaffer
June 24, 2022 6:27 pm

I would like the 1976 U. S. Standard Atmosphere (Some places). Without looking up anything, the Mississippi River had exceptional floods from 1973 though 1975, 1974 down some. Atmosphere dropped so much rain to make 1973 and 1927 floods equivalent. Looking up I found that each put 125 cubic nautical miles of water in the Gulf.

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
June 24, 2022 9:08 pm

125 cubic nautical miles of water is a lot of water.

That’s one hell of an amount for us mere mortals to contemplate.

And to think, some people get all hot under the collar if you don’t keep the water turned off while brushing your teeth, then turn it on when you are done brushing.

They should contemplate just one single cubic nautical mile of water if that was what they had available to use to brush 3 times a day. (Hint: That is one HECK of a lot of water. I don’t care if you’re Aquaman or not.)

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  H.R.
June 25, 2022 6:41 pm

The volume of water in the Gulf is about 580,000 cubic miles, or 380,600 cubic nautical miles (a rather unusual unit). 125 cubic nautical miles is thus 0.033% of the Gulf’s volume. If the Gulf were enclosed the extra water would have raised its level by 1.6 feet. That may seem like a lot, but compare it to the average depth of the Gulf, which is 5,300 feet – suddenly it doesn’t seem all that impressive.

Reply to  E. Schaffer
June 25, 2022 4:23 pm

E. S…good stuff….
IMO Probably a cloud cover that gets closer to a real Earthlike upward flux of 240 would be more representative, but it is hard to achieve in the online UChicago possible selections. Anyway, your point is valid, cloud cover, of which Earth has about 65%, renders CO2 forcing irrelevant in comparison…You can run it yourself as you have for the 800 ppm doubling case, you will get about 2 C warming if CO2 increases to 3200 ppm. To get to 3200 ppm CO2, fossil fuels will have been depleted twice over. The “triple amplification” by water vapor is already included by running Modtran with fixed RH.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
June 26, 2022 6:30 pm

There is no valid cloud scenario in modtran to represent an approximation of a global average. And in hitran you have it neither. Yet there are a couple of more or less linear relations that help to triangulate a valid approximation. And we are only discussing the LW side here.

The respective CRE (cloud radiative effect) depends on altitude, lapse rate and optical thickness. The latter point is why a “cloud cover of 65%”, including a lot of low optical depth clouds, is not really helpful. For any given CRE overlaps with GHGs, especially vapor, will be the larger, the lower the cloud is.

With these simple considerations you can pull out a lot of information even from the simple modtran.

Doing so you get 2W/m2 for 2xCO2 and only about 0.65W/m2 for WV feedback. And that is only good enough for a climate sensitivity of 0.67K. Yet this excludes other feedbacks, of which the most notable is “lapse rate feedback”, which is not a feedback all, but negative anyway. It is roughly a 30% discount on surface warming vs. troposphere warming. So that is only 0.47K for doubling CO2, plus any further positive feedbacks. Not that they would even matter at this point.

Mike Smith
June 24, 2022 6:12 pm

Ahhhh, yes, the historic data. Nail and head Eric.

Garbage-in, garbage-out holds true no matter how super your computer.

Reply to  Mike Smith
June 25, 2022 8:01 pm

Just produces more garbage faster….

Ron Long
June 24, 2022 6:28 pm

We need a volunteer to unplug Gabi. Problem solved. Next?

Reply to  Ron Long
June 24, 2022 8:43 pm

The \wind will stop blowing and the power grid will collapse hence shutting down Gabi no volunteer needed

Reply to  H B
June 25, 2022 5:38 am

Open Source, these days means, no actual shutting down possible.

Chris Hanley
June 24, 2022 6:28 pm

Sorry guys there is no need for another climate model, so far the Russian model INM-CM is doing fine.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 24, 2022 6:57 pm

What we need is an ultra-MAGA Russian colluuuuuuuuuusion model. Probably Simon has one he can lend us.

June 24, 2022 6:29 pm

Somehow, I’m sure that the Australian super computer will come to the conclusion desired by the Australian government of the day. CAGW isn’t science, it is socioeconomic vaudeville. Song and dance theatre as science. P.T. Barnum is roiling in his grave.

Reply to  Philip
June 25, 2022 5:43 am

A “super computer” can do far much better politics than Australian government, especially an ‘open source’ one.

June 24, 2022 6:35 pm

 Australia’s Supercomputer Gadi will Solve the Climate Crisis

It’s already been established scientifically that there is no crisis.
So what are they going to solve exactly?

Reply to  Mike
June 25, 2022 5:49 am

The political crisis, the ‘electrolyte crisis’ perhaps!
Hard, but hopefully solvable.

A wee bit harder than solving what a ‘woman’ is, but hopefully solvable.



Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
June 24, 2022 6:37 pm

If that Ozzie computer could solve the climate crisis, it would be remarkable feat given that there is no genuine climate crisis, just a manufactured one.

Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
Reply to  Nik
June 24, 2022 6:57 pm

Who needs a new computer. The Science is settled, Al Gore said so..

They gave him the Nobel prise, so it must be true.

Michael VK5ELL

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Nik
June 24, 2022 7:24 pm

Righty oh, Nik! When supercomputer Gadi “cracks open climate change” will 2+2 sum to 4 within, or will just another simulation pleasing to its funders’ and operators’ established interests be coaxed forth from its ultra-quick new math? Honest koalas, wombats, platypuses, kangas and their joeys breathlessly await the answer.

Reply to  Nik
June 25, 2022 8:25 am

Well see, it has worked already and it hasn’t even started yet. Crisis Solved!


Reply to  Nik
June 25, 2022 8:26 am

Where can I find data for climate crisis?

June 24, 2022 7:03 pm

You should just watch the ECS & cloud feedback symposium sessions on the youtubes posted by dresser. Even Schmidt’s given em schmidt throughout. It’s great fun.

June 24, 2022 7:07 pm

Lorenz discovered that the climate, being chaotic, can not be successfully modeled. I just stumbled over the following quote:

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.


Reply to  commieBob
June 25, 2022 6:29 am

But the Future proves the Past, in so many regards.

Like for example, the future of applied communism around the world, proved beyond any doubt the past of Marxism. Proved how silly, stupid and criminally delusional Marxism is.

And it is a given for high intelligent and highly conscious self aware beings, like us humans, to straggle at their best, for even the slightest of chances to have some kinda of the smallest ‘vision’ of the future to be.


June 24, 2022 7:19 pm

42, all you need to know.

Any time now.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Pauleta
June 25, 2022 5:58 am

Life, the universe and everything.

So long and thanks for all the fish!

Reply to  Pauleta
June 25, 2022 8:00 am

Would not be surprised if that the final answer, as in some way is stands also ‘clearly’ for;
“LOL” … Laughing Out Loud.



Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
Reply to  Pauleta
June 25, 2022 8:29 am

“42” = ASCII for “*”. “*” is of course a place holder for some meaning to be determined later. Or in a loose interpretation: “Whatever you make of it.”

Lost Adams far too soon.

Reply to  OweninGA
June 25, 2022 10:45 am

via Roman numbers

LII, (L2), (<2) , <<-LL, <>-LII, LII-42-<>.

<> is the full inverse-opposite in meaning of v v – (v.v).
v-5, v v-5 5 (5.5).
v-5 danger, pestilence, big problem. v v-5 5 loud and clear pestilence.

just a silly exercise outside the ASCII 🙂


Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
Reply to  whiten
June 25, 2022 1:20 pm

Got to say this;
very much probable, that my previous reply makes no sense at all there.
What so ever. 🙂

Oh well… no parapet shooters there, at all!


June 24, 2022 7:20 pm

Now they can get the wrong answer faster and with more significant digits.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
June 24, 2022 9:13 pm

It’s much, much worse than we thought!

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
June 24, 2022 11:27 pm

Ha ha ha

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
June 25, 2022 5:58 am

But how else would you pillage billions of taxpayers dollars?
ever changing climate is as good of an excuse and a permanent black hole as any.

Reply to  Alex
June 25, 2022 4:41 pm

You can spend a lot of money trying to change the weather. Someone gets it so it’s economic stimulus.

Andy Pattullo
June 24, 2022 7:24 pm

Yes a shinier Ouiji board, a bigger crystal ball and a bushel of tea leaves are all we need to predict what’s coming. They worked so well in the past didn’t they? This is the problem. People seeking and disseminating the truth will try any method and change methods as the need arises. People telling lies just stick with the same old routine over and over because the output is predetermined and the methods are irrelevant.

Clarky of Oz
June 24, 2022 7:25 pm

This should be pretty simple for the supercomputer. After all it only has to make a choice between two well known possible outcomes.

  1. “Sorry Dave, I can’t do that.”
  2. “The answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.”
Gordon A. Dressler
June 24, 2022 7:26 pm

We have already had one “great thinker” chime in about the promise offered by supercomputer Gadi:

“To see what can be, unburdened by what has been. And then to make the possible actually happen.”
— Kamala Harris

burl Henry
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 24, 2022 8:12 pm


Both you, and the Australians, need to read NASA’s Fact Sheet “Atmospheric Aerosols: What Are They, and Why Are They So Important?

Just Google the Title.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  burl Henry
June 24, 2022 8:57 pm

Have you forgotten that I found no need for further discourse with you regarding your SO2 aerosol claims not all that long ago?

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
burl Henry
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 25, 2022 7:01 am

Gordon A. Dressler

NASA states that SO2 aerosols are REFLECTIVE, and therefore causes cooling of the lower atmosphere, and the Earth’s surface..

Like a sunshade.

Their ppm .concentration in the atmosphere is meaningless. QED.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  burl Henry
June 25, 2022 7:55 am

Totally off topic.

I ask that you quit your childish pestering of me with your garbage.

burl Henry
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 25, 2022 2:22 pm

Gordon A. Dressler:


Continue wallowing in your ignorance.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 24, 2022 9:16 pm

You really can’t do that quote without the choreography.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 24, 2022 11:24 pm

You forgot to include where she giggles uncontrollably. Every time she does that, she reminds me of Rosanne Barr.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 25, 2022 8:22 am

Kamala Harris is the new Yogi Berra

Barry James
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 25, 2022 8:22 pm

I need a laughing emoji.

Johne Morton
June 24, 2022 7:30 pm

Computer models…an article in Nature yesterday ( gives us yet another example of the anti-correlation between models and observations.

Some researchers argue that the record is simply too sparse to show clearly what is going on, or that there is too much natural variability in the system for researchers to spot long-term trends. But it could also be that the IPCC models are missing something big, says L’Heureux, “which is a more serious issue”. Seager thinks the models are indeed wrong, and that the planet will experience more La Niña-like patterns in future”.

They then go on to propose a Rube Goldberg-type convoluted way the supposed melting of Greenland could somehow affect ENSO:

“England and his colleagues model how an AMOC collapse would leave an excess of heat in the tropical South Atlantic, which would trigger a series of air-pressure changes that ultimately strengthen the Pacific trade winds. These winds push warm water to the west, thus creating more La Niña-like conditions. But England says that the current IPCC models don’t reflect this trend because they don’t include the complex interactions between ice-sheet melt, freshwater injections, ocean currents and atmospheric circulation. “We keep adding bells and whistles to these models. But we need to add in the ice sheets,” he says”.

You can’t make this up…

Reply to  Johne Morton
June 24, 2022 10:38 pm

You mean that The Science isn’t yet settled?

June 24, 2022 7:43 pm

So now they’ll be able to get the wrong answer quicker?

T Gasloli
June 24, 2022 7:54 pm

Does the supercomputer run exclusively on renewable energy?

Is it carbon neutral?

What happens to the supercomputer when the wind stops blowing in the middle of a model run?

June 24, 2022 7:59 pm

Faster super computers simply spit out garbage quicker; they don’t “solve” anything,….


June 24, 2022 8:44 pm

Someone here rightly claimed “garbage in garbage out”, and size/power of the computer makes NO DIFFERENCE. So true…

June 24, 2022 8:46 pm

“[…] charitably described as junk.”

That charity could stand for a lot more donations.

The *ahem* adjusted temperature series of various sorts lead one to conclude…………… anything you want.

June 24, 2022 8:56 pm

They can’t even predict tomorrow’s weather.

June 24, 2022 9:03 pm

 The new Supercomputer Gadi will churn out junk results from junk data, exactly in line with government junk policy statements, faster than ever seen hereto.

Paul Johnson
June 24, 2022 9:14 pm

What if the new computer doesn’t give the answer that Professor Hogg wants?

June 24, 2022 9:20 pm

If your program is garbage, a faster computer just gets you the wrong answer sooner.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Bill Toland
Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2022 1:58 am

This is the problem precisely. A faster computer is pointless if the program is wrong. The climate is so complex that it might not be possible to ever model it accurately. What is absolutely clear is that computer climate models are not improving at all despite running on faster and faster machines. This means that the assumptions built into the computer models are wrong.

Reply to  Bill Toland
June 25, 2022 8:46 am

Right, now if we can just complete replacement Earth, we can use it to compute a real model after it finds the question for which “42” is the answer, of course. That might have enough computational power to do the calculations properly. Analog computers are always best (for single tasks that is). (Do I need /sarc for obvious Hitchhiker’s guide references?)

burl Henry
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 25, 2022 4:55 pm

Bill Toland:

Yes, the major assumption built into the models (that greenhouse gases are the Control Knob of Earth’s Climate) is totally false. They have little, or climatic effect.

The actual Control Knob for our climate is simply the amount of SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere, primarily from random volcanic eruptions. And unless they can learn when the next VEI4 or larger eruption will occur, they will never be able to predict future temperatures.

Unfortunately, the cause of our changing climate is so simple that most people refuse to accept it, even though its premise is falsifiable (empirically testable), and has been tested and validated hundreds of times.

burl Henry
Reply to  burl Henry
June 25, 2022 4:57 pm

“little or no” climatic effect”,

Robert B
June 24, 2022 9:24 pm

Might it not be better to program it to solve the problem of how to make the grid cope with solar cutting out, heaters being turned on and EVs being plugged in during early evenings? If the bloody thing puts out any result that isn’t ” its worse than we thought” they will get a bigger one, and we are headed there no matter what you would find if science just shut up and did it’s job.

June 24, 2022 9:29 pm

climate modelling systems are also only as good as the data they use. 

This is false.

A reliable analytical model only needs fundamental constants to produce a useful result.

For example, ocean surface cannot sustain a temperature above 30C and ocean water cannot exist below -2C. So I predict, to the first order, that the average global surface temperature will be 14C; the average of the two extremes.

This result will be proven more accurate than any current climate model. In fact, if you look at warm ocean regions like Nino34, the CIMP3 models of 2000 vintage are already provably wrong per attached with forecast 2020 temperate averaging around 30C and sustaining above 30C for months already. The actual Nino34 temperature has a very slight negative trend of minus 0.16C per century over the satellite era.

A structural engineer starts with fundamental properties like Young’s modulus and then use analytical models to determine stresses based on loads and then checks against yield strength to see if the structure holds up. Ability to actually determine the load cases comes with experience. For example, a dam spillway design will be based on some probable flood data and that data can be highly variable.

Empirical relationships are useful where the system is not well understood but beware system non-linearities. For example, the albedo of the clouds above oceans has quite a sharp minimum at 27C.

Screen Shot 2022-06-25 at 2.10.56 pm.png
Last edited 1 month ago by RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
June 24, 2022 10:42 pm

You are correct with regard to structural models. But the global Climatr Change models are trying to solve an initial-value problem, so those initial values are critical toward getting to a correct-ish answer.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 25, 2022 12:11 am

so those initial values are critical toward getting to a correct-ish answer.

No – the climate system is self-regulating. It has stood the test of time with massive internal and external changes as well as severe shocks.

A climate model should be able to start from any conditions and end up stable. That is the first step. If it cannot do that then it is bunkum.

I can confidently predict that no open ocean water can or will sustain a temperature above 30C. It is physically impossible with the current atmospheric mass. That should be a hard limit in all climate models. In fact, if they were useful analytical tools, they would arrive at that value no matter the starting conditions.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  RickWill
June 25, 2022 11:24 am

Yet tropical waters are above 30C in summer.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 25, 2022 4:09 pm

Yes for maybe August. Just like the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal in April.. But they cannot sustain above 30C and if you are looking at waters around Florida they are not open ocean. The surrounding land causes mid-level air divergence from the Gulf of Mexico.

Last edited 1 month ago by RickWill
Patrick F. Plemmons
June 24, 2022 9:39 pm

You silly people post your arcana and make your little jokes while the leftists run roughshod over the real world. The “climate change “ scam is winning while you debate the number of angels on a pinhead. Speak up, grow a pair and engage!

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Patrick F. Plemmons
June 24, 2022 10:17 pm

Please enlighten us on your successes. What? Letter to the editor? Contact your local member? Harangue people on street corners?

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
June 24, 2022 11:04 pm

Thanks for asking, Alexy. First, stop treating this as a scientific matter. It’s a political matter. Second, make your voice heard where it will make a difference, not here. Third, be clear and strong about the truth. “Climate change” is a lie, pure and simple, call it out as such and don’t equivocate. Finally, understand who the enemy is and fight them on every front. The enemy is the international left, the UN, the WEF, leftist oligarchs like Soros and Fink and Gates. Instead of blithering on about albedo and ENSO, understand you are in a war and start fighting.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Dustoff82
June 25, 2022 12:09 am

It is a scientific matter. That is the basis of climate change rhetoric.
How do you propose I fight these entities? Wave my fist? Buy a pitchfork?
I will reask you the question I asked Patrick.
What have you done that has been successful?

Mark BLR
Reply to  Dustoff82
June 25, 2022 6:56 am

Second, make your voice heard where it will make a difference, not here.

Please provide (at least) three concrete examples of these “places where your voice will make a difference”.

Please provide templates for how we should phrase our contributions in those places to ensure that they “will” indeed make a desired “difference”.

What? Letter to the editor? Contact your local member? Harangue people on street corners?

Please provide answers to the question actually asked.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Patrick F. Plemmons
June 25, 2022 11:31 am

The only way to change the warmist’s propaganda is to make the argument that warmer is better. Most people do not care about the science, mainly because it is too far over their heads so they instead react emotionally. Sales 101. It will be much easier for people to accept warming as good rather than to teach them science that they have no desire to learn.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 27, 2022 7:14 pm

I couldn’t agree more.

We can disagree on whether there is any enhanced greenhouse effect due to elevated CO2, we can disagree on whether fossil fuel burning has raised the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place. We can bicker about whether aerosols are a minor or determinative factor to observed temperature rise. We can dispute whether the observations are being validly collected such that maybe there hasn’t actually been any real rise.

We don’t need consensus on these points. If we agree that there is no climate emergency, and any minor warming from whatever cause is likely to be beneficial, that should be the main message. The “cure” threatens to k!ll us, and the sickness, is imaginary.

June 24, 2022 9:49 pm

Garbage in, garbage out.

lyn roberts
June 24, 2022 10:52 pm

Maybe they can let it loose on the power question here in Aust. 1st the sun does not shine at night therefore no Solar Power. 2nd the wind does not always blow, today is the almost perfect example not a breathe of wind, therefore no wind power either. You work it out, where is our power coming from. Could it be coal.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 25, 2022 8:28 am

Thorium Liquid Salts Cooled Reactors

UK-Weather Lass
June 24, 2022 11:47 pm

A PC in the hands of an excellent programmer can overachieve. A supercomputer in the hands of a charlatan will always underachieve but does at least get twelve hour clock time right twice a day.

What if nature doesn’t want to follow our human logic because randomness offers her so much more freedom and excitement?

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 25, 2022 12:40 am

Another team of programmers overestimating their ability to simulate the real world.

Peta of Newark
June 25, 2022 2:20 am

Quote:Professor Andy Hogg, Chief Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes.

…….not researcher or scientist?

Centre of Excellence?
Climate Extremes?

They really do lay it on thick – just who exactly are they trying to convince?

Australia National University?
Super Computer

Are they:

  • children at play
  • adults who have lost their way, their minds and self awareness
  • are they drunk or sky-high on ‘something’
  • are they simply lonely and need attention
  • ##
  • heading for A Very Big Fall
  • Is this actually a cry for help? (for something else entirely unrelated)

A small start but at least they got Climate Extremes correct, with Australia being a desert that’s the only sort of weather and climate you will ever get there

## As John McEnroe famously raved at Wimbledon a long time ago…
You Can Not Be Serious?

Michael in Dublin
June 25, 2022 5:40 am

I would remind Prof Hogg, “Pig swill in, Pig swill out” or something like that.

R Taylor
June 25, 2022 6:04 am

No-one know better than Andrew McC. Hogg that carbon dioxide cannot be a signficant driver of atmospheric temperature (Glacial cycles and carbon dioxide: A conceptual model, Geophysical Research Letters, 2008) but, fortunately for is career, he doesn’t know it.

jacques serge Lemiere
June 25, 2022 6:41 am

computer models are only as good as the people behind them.

good at what?????

and computer models can predict climate..well as people behind them?

Mark BLR
June 25, 2022 6:43 am

cutting-edge computer simulations and models will crack open climate change, extreme weather events, and past and future Earth systems

“A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention … with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla.” — Mitch Ratcliffe

PS : Slashdot’s “Quote (/ Quip) for the day” about a month ago, which made me LOL …

As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.

June 25, 2022 6:58 am

Australia? what is the “CO2” content of electric energy there?
What are the induced “emissions”?

Danley Wolfe
June 25, 2022 6:59 am

Good luck with this project, I wish them well. It can help clear the forest from the trees.

Shoki Kaneda
June 25, 2022 8:17 am

Processing faulty models faster and in more detail will make them better.

June 25, 2022 8:26 am

The goal of the supercomputer is to impress people.
The prediction is decided in advance (a coming climate crisis)
Seems to impress people, coming from a supercomputer.
They could make the same wrong prediction on the back of an envelope.
But most people wouldn’t believe that.

June 25, 2022 8:27 am

Could it solve the American inflation?

June 25, 2022 12:00 pm

If you don’t know the natural rules , a supercomputer is useless !

June 25, 2022 1:58 pm

Computers give us answers but do they solve problems? I am aware they can solve math problems but that isn’t what I am talking about. They give us information but just because you have more information that doesn’t solve the problem.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
June 25, 2022 11:38 pm

The problem is not the computer. It is the programme. The programme is useless. Why? Because there is not enough data to make it work, and they have designed it to need that data, instead of writing a programme that can work with the data available.

The programme, as a result, has to simulate data, and then feed it into itself, to pretend to work. Unsurprisingly, the programmer of the simulation always creates exactly the data needed to have a climate catastrophe as the output.

I am not sure if the better analogy is a self-unplugging robot or a clockwork orange.

June 25, 2022 11:57 pm

It would probably help a lot if they actually started using models instead of linear progressions of unrelated data.

Craig from Oz
June 26, 2022 6:05 pm

can calculate predicted weather and climate conditions from a few hours to many decades in the future

A few hours? I think we can agree most adults can already do that.

“you think it will rain later?”

June 28, 2022 4:34 am

I thought that the science was settled. So why do they need more calculations?

%d bloggers like this: