If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   New Supercomputer will study climate change, compose Linkin Park songs   (latimes.com) divider line 123
    More: Cool, National Center for Atmospheric Research, atmospheric scientist, climate change, Wyoming, supercomputers, Central United States, carbon sequestration, Gulf of Alaska  
•       •       •

1140 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jun 2012 at 11:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-10 12:31:09 AM  
GIGO
 
2012-06-10 01:00:26 AM  
Unplug it.

Now...
 
2012-06-10 07:42:41 AM  
You need a supercomputer for that, not just a regular one?
 
2012-06-10 11:28:30 AM  
How Linkin Park songs are made:

LINKWITHSOUND
 
2012-06-10 12:00:39 PM  

Gunderson: How Linkin Park songs are made:

LINKWITHSOUND


Spot on. Cheers!
 
2012-06-10 12:07:01 PM  
What climate change?

www.woodfortrees.org


Cue the idiots who don't know the difference between these two sentences:

A) Temperatures are not going up presently.

B) Temperatures have never gone up.
 
2012-06-10 12:11:01 PM  

Gunderson: How Linkin Park songs are made:

LINKWITHSOUND


Nice!
 
2012-06-10 12:14:10 PM  

SevenizGud: What climate change?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue the idiots who don't know the difference between these two sentences:

A) Temperatures are not going up presently.

B) Temperatures have never gone up.


Is that graph just cycling through your head all day or something? It might be time to branch out a bit..
 
2012-06-10 12:35:55 PM  
Its pointless to look at climate change. It will be the same result no matter what. In the end, it doesn't even matter.
 
2012-06-10 12:37:50 PM  
So now they are going to do really inaccurate Navier-Stokes calculations much much much much faster? Sounds like the difference between runny stool and explosive diarrhea to me.
 
2012-06-10 12:38:19 PM  

SevenizGud: Erix: SevenizGud: What climate change?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue the idiots who don't know the difference between these two sentences:

A) Temperatures are not going up presently.

B) Temperatures have never gone up.

Is that graph just cycling through your head all day or something? It might be time to branch out a bit..

Are your thoughts of raping your dog just cycling through your head all day or something? It might be time for you to stop beating your daughter.


Wow, that was a good one. I can see yours is truly a formidable intellect.
 
2012-06-10 12:44:38 PM  

NeverDrunk23: Its pointless to look at climate change. It will be the same result no matter what. In the end, it doesn't even matter.


I don't know. I think this computer will take us one step closer.
 
2012-06-10 12:47:52 PM  

Erix: Wow, that was a good one. I can see yours is truly a formidable intellect.


Uhm, actually, I was just pointing out to you that your post was nothing more than false premise - but you didn't understand that either. No surprise there.
 
2012-06-10 12:49:53 PM  
You could greenlight a story about where to get a decent bagel in Idaho, slap the phrase "climate change" into the headline, and get the same thread. Pavlov would be proud. Or maybe ashamed.

This phrase, however:

TFA: The sheer speed of Yellowstone is designed to burst through the limits of chaos theory

Displays how the media is completely unable to accurately report on science stories. Yeesh.

/atmospheric science is not just climate change
//has account on Bluefire, soon to be moving over to Yellowstone
///getting a kick, etc...
 
Zel
2012-06-10 12:55:40 PM  

SevenizGud: What climate change?



Cue the idiots who don't know the difference between these two sentences:

A) Temperatures are not going up presently.

B) Temperatures have never gone up.


Ive see n that pic used before, each time like it had any meaning or carried some weight. Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?

I get a feeling you think it has to do with global warming.

And please dont put a straight line through a chaotic periodic system, its really misleading as spikes will strongly impact the result.
 
2012-06-10 12:58:50 PM  

Zel: Ive see n that pic used before, each time like it had any meaning or carried some weight. Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?


No, do your own homework, junior. If you don't know the first thing about climate change data expression, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread.
 
2012-06-10 01:05:02 PM  

Zel: Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?


HadCRUT3 is a combined temperature record from UK centers (Hadley Center + CRU). I'm not sure what the "vgl" stands for. What I find more interesting is the watermark for "woodfortrees.org" in the corner. Google says woodfortrees is a private data analysis/consulting company.
 
2012-06-10 01:17:16 PM  
Hrm I actually liked Linkin Park's first two cds, are they not cool anymore?
 
2012-06-10 01:52:00 PM  

SevenizGud: No, do your own homework, junior. If you don't know the first thing about climate change data expression, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread.


Oddly enough, if you post the data without messing with it, the graphs look a little more familiar:

www.woodfortrees.org
 
2012-06-10 02:11:47 PM  

whatshisname: Oddly enough, if you post the data without messing with it, the graphs look a little more familiar:


Oddly enough, cueing exactly the people who I said would be cued in my initial post.
 
2012-06-10 02:13:10 PM  
If you want to run climate models on your own PCs, go to BONIC, download it and participate in ClimatePrediction.net, using British climate models in a distributed computing environment.
 
2012-06-10 02:48:04 PM  
I wonder how far in advance it'll predict the eruption of the neighboring super volcano? Not that it'll matter...
 
2012-06-10 03:01:08 PM  
Zel: Ive see n that pic used before, each time like it had any meaning or carried some weight. Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?

No, do your own homework, junior. If you don't know the first thing about climate change data expression, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread.


First off it is the responsibility of a good scientist to make sure the data is understood. That includes labeling axis, titles and captions on figures. This plot, presented the way you did would never be accepted in any peer reviewed paper. Because of your attitude towards properly presenting data, I would guess that you are not a scientist at all, but a partisan hack cherry picking your data (another no-no for credible scientists).

Secondly, climate change is about more than just temperature. If you look at the figures for arctic ice melt you will find that the polar sea ice started declining dramatically at the same time as the temperature leveled off. The heat energy is going to phase change rather than to further heat the air. This is triggering a significant positive feedback loop - the less ice cover, the lower the albedo and the more energy absorbed in the ocean.

/I may not be working in rocket science anymore but I know unethical science when I see it!
 
2012-06-10 03:37:58 PM  
More cores does not change a hard problem into a classical problem.
 
2012-06-10 03:44:57 PM  
likeawhisper.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-10 03:49:50 PM  
Maybe you have it backwards. If the arctic ice started decreasing when the temperature leveled off, maybe less ice causes a negative feedback which stops the temperature from rising further. Why do you think there is a positive feedback, when the temperature has not been rising?

And what does your ethical science say about the increase in Antarctic sea ice?
 
2012-06-10 03:52:05 PM  

SevenizGud: whatshisname: Oddly enough, if you post the data without messing with it, the graphs look a little more familiar:

Oddly enough, cueing exactly the people who I said would be cued in my initial post.


The reason that everyone is in agreement that you are a complete and utter moron is because you can't seem to understand that a small flat spot is irrelevant.

Look at whatshisname's graph ... you know, the real one that shows all the data (as opposed to the cherry-picked one posted by liars). See in the 1940's ... a significant down trend. It was much more significant than the short flat spot you keep harping on about and yet the temperature still went up!!

Can you figure it out yet?? The dip in the 40's and the flat spot you harp on and on about ... they do not impact the overall picture. When you artificially attempt to assign importance to them you are just identifying yourself as a liar with an agenda.

Nobody is going to take you seriously while you insist on cherry-picked data.
 
2012-06-10 03:53:37 PM  

WelldeadLink: Maybe you have it backwards. If the arctic ice started decreasing when the temperature leveled off, maybe less ice causes a negative feedback which stops the temperature from rising further. Why do you think there is a positive feedback, when the temperature has not been rising?


Because your counter "hypothesis" would require thermodynamics to operate backward?
 
Zel
2012-06-10 03:59:37 PM  

dready zim: More cores does not change a hard problem into a classical problem.


They do if we had infinite cores, but that could cause a lot of heat to be exhausted from the data center.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Zel: Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?

HadCRUT3 is a combined temperature record from UK centers (Hadley Center + CRU). I'm not sure what the "vgl" stands for. What I find more interesting is the watermark for "woodfortrees.org" in the corner. Google says woodfortrees is a private data analysis/consulting company.


Thank you. So this is temperature in the UK, and i suppose the vertical axis is delta millifarenheit. woodfortrees can die in a fire for propagating unlabeled graphs.

NotARocketScientist: Zel: Ive see n that pic used before, each time like it had any meaning or carried some weight. Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?

No, do your own homework, junior. If you don't know the first thing about climate change data expression, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread.

First off it is the responsibility of a good scientist to make sure the data is understood. That includes labeling axis, titles and captions on figures. This plot, presented the way you did would never be accepted in any peer reviewed paper.


Thank you also. I'm actually reviewing a paper for pediatric genomics and the authors (who appear to be otherwise very accomplished and respected) have made these same mistakes. It appears common when someone is so immersed in their dataset they forget to ever actually explain what it is. This can be a confirmation bias, because you just 'know' the things youre looking for will be there... The biases in the statistical analyses are often overlooked until an outside observer tries to make sense of it.

That's why we use a peer-review system instead of cherry-picking graphics.

I could probably make a dozen graphics showing a downward trend by selecting the (in-)appropriate segments of whatshisname's full data post.
 
2012-06-10 04:03:44 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: WelldeadLink: Maybe you have it backwards. If the arctic ice started decreasing when the temperature leveled off, maybe less ice causes a negative feedback which stops the temperature from rising further. Why do you think there is a positive feedback, when the temperature has not been rising?

Because your counter "hypothesis" would require thermodynamics to operate backward?


Nope. I did not give a mechanism, so you can't refute my mechanism. But the existence of a negative feedback of some type makes more sense than the original claim of a relationship between two measurements. (And there obviously is a lot more involved in weather and climate than a single gas or a single mass of ice.)

The positive feedback correlation as stated doesn't make sense. The positive feedback claim predicts higher temperatures, while at the same time referring to a lack of increased temperatures.

Actually, it says "This is triggering", as if the feedback has already been observed. If there is increased heat, where is it? Does heat involve thermodynamics, Lou?
 
2012-06-10 04:06:25 PM  

WelldeadLink: Nope. I did not give a mechanism, so you can't refute my mechanism.


I think you just won the "stupidest thing ever said in a GW thread" award. Congratulations.
 
2012-06-10 04:35:56 PM  

Gunderson: How Linkin Park songs are made:

LINKWITHSOUND


this just made my day.
 
2012-06-10 04:40:16 PM  

WelldeadLink: The positive feedback correlation as stated doesn't make sense. The positive feedback claim predicts higher temperatures, while at the same time referring to a lack of increased temperatures.

Actually, it says "This is triggering", as if the feedback has already been observed. If there is increased heat, where is it? Does heat involve thermodynamics, Lou?


Where the heat is going.
 
2012-06-10 04:51:54 PM  

dready zim: More cores does not change a hard problem into a classical problem.


No, but they might change it into a statistical problem.
 
2012-06-10 04:54:20 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: This phrase, however:

TFA: The sheer speed of Yellowstone is designed to burst through the limits of chaos theory

Displays how the media is completely unable to accurately report on science stories. Yeesh.

/atmospheric science is not just climate change
//has account on Bluefire, soon to be moving over to Yellowstone
///getting a kick, etc...



Well, it didn't help that they interviewed the tech guy, who clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather prediction and climate change projections, and in his excitement probably talked out his ass to the reporter:

"These are chaotic systems, but it's just math," said Richard Loft, director of technology development at NCAR's Computational and Information Systems Laboratory. "We play statistics in the climate game. We feed in the basic laws of science, and out comes something that looks like the Earth's climate. It's an instrument. This is a mathematical telescope." ...

Those two sentences in bold are completely contradictory. Sigh.


Rather than warning of a tornado risk in the central U.S. between noon and 9 p.m., scientists might one day warn of a tornado risk in Woodson County, Kan., between 1 and 3 p.m. Rather than warning of a hurricane striking the coast of Texas, they hope to be able to warn of a hurricane striking the town of Freeport, with a top wind speed of 90 mph and a tidal surge of 4 1/2 feet.

That regional accuracy is particularly critical in the study of climate change. "The disaster of climate change happens on a regional scale," Loft said. "Everything is connected."


And that latter bit in bold is a completely different beast from climate projections, which are all about long-term trends. Why the hell didn't NCAR PR make sure an actual climatologist got to put two cents in?

It's also nice to see such resources being made available, but it's a big mistake to assume that faster computer and more processors will instantly equal better results - that again is the tech man talking, not the scientist. Yes, climate and weather models will be able to run faster at significantly higher resolutions, but that doesn't mean the model code automatically work as well at those higher resolutions - especially if you introduce new code meant to replace parameterizations of previously sub-grid-scale processes.


/just waiting for the first person to start complaining about the lack of miraculously good forecasts given the money spent
 
2012-06-10 05:11:32 PM  

Lydia_C: Why the hell didn't NCAR PR make sure an actual climatologist got to put two cents in?


I would guess that it comes down to the climatologist who was interviewed (I'm guessing an interview actually took place) simply didn't have anything to say that the journalist could (a) understand, and (b) easily frame as "bigger computer solves global warming" which is clearly the narrative the journalist was going for.

I work in the same building where the State Climatology Office is located, and that guy is always complaining about this kind of thing. Journalists are, at best, trained in journalism via a four-year college degree that may or may not have required even basic science courses. They write for an audience with an even worse science education, and need to grab people with easily relate-able stories. So a climatologist who goes on and on about the limits of predictability and the value of confidence in levels of uncertainty gets dropped, and when some tech expert blurts out "this'll solve all our problems forever", the journalist grabs onto that quote with both hands and refuses to let go.

And I'll give you three guesses which of the three gets blamed when all of our problems aren't solved forever ...
 
2012-06-10 05:29:42 PM  
The thread started out so well dumping on Linkin Park then went all climate change graphy. But I guess in the end it doesn't really matter.

/must be a LP lyric
 
2012-06-10 05:41:21 PM  

NeverDrunk23: Its pointless to look at climate change. It will be the same result no matter what. In the end, it doesn't even matter.


But, things aren't the way they were before.
 
2012-06-10 05:42:40 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Lydia_C: Why the hell didn't NCAR PR make sure an actual climatologist got to put two cents in?

I would guess that it comes down to the climatologist who was interviewed (I'm guessing an interview actually took place) simply didn't have anything to say that the journalist could (a) understand, and (b) easily frame as "bigger computer solves global warming" which is clearly the narrative the journalist was going for.

I work in the same building where the State Climatology Office is located, and that guy is always complaining about this kind of thing. Journalists are, at best, trained in journalism via a four-year college degree that may or may not have required even basic science courses. They write for an audience with an even worse science education, and need to grab people with easily relate-able stories. So a climatologist who goes on and on about the limits of predictability and the value of confidence in levels of uncertainty gets dropped, and when some tech expert blurts out "this'll solve all our problems forever", the journalist grabs onto that quote with both hands and refuses to let go.

And I'll give you three guesses which of the three gets blamed when all of our problems aren't solved forever ...


I hear you on the journalist issue, and have run into it myself. I also know that climate scientists as a group are often crappy communicators to the general public, and we need to get much better at that. But there's a good bit of fail in that article that goes back to a poorly-informed person making definitive-sounding statements, as if we haven't had enough of that already...

And yup, I can guess exactly who will get the blame for any unhappiness down the road. Sigh.
 
2012-06-10 06:29:10 PM  

SevenizGud: What climate change?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue the idiots who don't know the difference between these two sentences:

A) Temperatures are not going up presently.

B) Temperatures have never gone up.


Back again LIAR?
www.woodfortrees.org
 
2012-06-10 06:56:15 PM  
I like Linkin Park.

Sure I may have horrible taste in music in your opinion and that means I have a worthless human being with little intelligence and style, but I like Linkin Park's music.
 
2012-06-10 06:57:05 PM  

NotARocketScientist:
First off it is the responsibility of a good scientist to make sure the data is understood. That includes labeling axis, titles and captions on figures. This plot, presented the way you did would never be accepted in any peer reviewed paper. Because of your attitude towards properly presenting data, I would guess that you are not a scientist at all, but a partisan hack cherry picking your data (another no-no for credible scientists).

Secondly, climate change is about more than just temperature. If you look at the figures for arctic ice melt you will find that the polar sea ice started declining dramatically at the same time as the temperature leveled off. The heat energy is going to phase change rather than to further heat the air. This is triggering a significant positive feedback loop - the less ice cover, the lower the albedo and the more energy absorbed in the ocean.

/I may not be working in rocket science anymore but I know unethical science when I see it!


You didn't quantify the amount of arctic ice melt, which you would have done if you had any idea about science. So I am going to conclude, based on the evidence, that you have never had a science class in your life, and are in the 3rd grade.
 
2012-06-10 07:01:34 PM  
Unknown_Poltroon:


Back again LIAR?


Nothing says "liar" like posting the last 15 years of data straight from the source and giving the URL so everyone can check:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

How dare I lie by showing the actual data for the last 15 years.
 
2012-06-10 07:02:58 PM  
1998 0.486 0.739 0.520 0.608 0.570 0.579 0.651 0.616 0.400 0.409 0.342 0.424 0.529
1998 81 82 81 79 80 78 79 79 78 79 79 80
1999 0.366 0.540 0.290 0.322 0.248 0.266 0.282 0.253 0.274 0.241 0.223 0.338 0.304
1999 80 80 80 79 78 78 78 80 79 80 80 81
2000 0.212 0.363 0.334 0.446 0.271 0.252 0.261 0.338 0.309 0.213 0.159 0.179 0.278
2000 82 82 80 79 78 78 77 79 77 78 78 79
2001 0.329 0.289 0.475 0.426 0.399 0.416 0.452 0.498 0.405 0.378 0.491 0.323 0.407
2001 79 80 80 79 77 78 78 80 78 78 79 80
2002 0.568 0.593 0.586 0.443 0.432 0.455 0.462 0.417 0.413 0.362 0.397 0.326 0.455
2002 80 81 81 79 79 78 78 80 78 79 81 80
2003 0.514 0.427 0.418 0.408 0.439 0.437 0.457 0.514 0.499 0.550 0.419 0.519 0.467
2003 80 80 81 79 78 79 79 80 80 79 80 82
2004 0.496 0.560 0.501 0.484 0.323 0.350 0.380 0.418 0.442 0.468 0.521 0.381 0.444
2004 81 82 81 79 79 79 79 79 79 78 79 81
2005 0.452 0.364 0.493 0.530 0.476 0.506 0.532 0.502 0.498 0.495 0.478 0.366 0.474
2005 81 81 80 78 79 79 80 81 81 80 80 81
2006 0.320 0.435 0.380 0.378 0.352 0.442 0.456 0.482 0.425 0.472 0.440 0.518 0.425
2006 81 81 82 80 79 80 81 81 82 81 80 81
2007 0.601 0.498 0.435 0.466 0.372 0.382 0.394 0.358 0.402 0.362 0.266 0.226 0.397
2007 81 80 80 80 79 80 80 81 82 81 81 82
2008 0.074 0.198 0.447 0.278 0.283 0.315 0.406 0.407 0.378 0.440 0.394 0.330 0.329
2008 81 82 83 82 81 81 82 82 82 82 81 82
2009 0.376 0.374 0.369 0.409 0.401 0.499 0.504 0.531 0.462 0.442 0.446 0.418 0.436
2009 83 83 83 80 81 81 81 83 82 82 82 83
2010 0.477 0.462 0.568 0.558 0.512 0.530 0.536 0.486 0.392 0.397 0.452 0.269 0.470
2010 82 83 83 82 82 82 83 84 83 82 82 83
2011 0.203 0.268 0.326 0.404 0.339 0.426 0.450 0.432 0.361 0.342 0.270 0.252 0.339
2011 83 82 81 81 81 80 80 80 80 81 80 81
2012 0.231 0.207 0.308 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.249
2012 81 80 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


All lies, according to dipshiat.
 
2012-06-10 07:42:48 PM  
they "forgot" to mention it will be running Linux, as do 95% of all Supercomputers.


sorry, couldn't help it. its just so juicy.
 
2012-06-10 07:44:35 PM  

SevenizGud:
All lies, according to dipshiat


Your lies are not the data you do report ... your lies are in the data you omit because it does not support your agenda.

"Lies of omission" are still lies.
 
2012-06-10 07:54:25 PM  

Farking Canuck: "Lies of omission" are still lies.


Then stop lying by pretending temperature started in 1880. You lying liar. Always with the lying lies you lie through your lying liar's liar teeth. Liar.
 
2012-06-10 07:55:45 PM  

Farking Canuck: the data you omit


Hide the decline.
 
2012-06-10 08:29:59 PM  

SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: "Lies of omission" are still lies.

Then stop lying by pretending temperature started in 1880. You lying liar. Always with the lying lies you lie through your lying liar's liar teeth. Liar.


I do not measure or collect the data ... I can only get what the source provides.

You look at what the source provides and cherry-pick out just a few years and pretend it shows what is happening.

Intelligent people look at all available data ... you don't.
 
2012-06-10 09:30:35 PM  

SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: "Lies of omission" are still lies.

Then stop lying by pretending temperature started in 1880. You lying liar. Always with the lying lies you lie through your lying liar's liar teeth. Liar.


Not familiar with the Industrial Revolution are you? Taking a look at the graphs I can tell exactly where World War 1 and World War 2 occurred as temperatures dropped temporarily. That, alone, should tell you that human influences are there.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report