Feeds

back to article 'Climate change' event dishes up sous vide supercomputers

Call it climate or call it unusual weather, but last week's five-day heat wave in the Australian city of Melbourne got the sweat running at one of the country's major supercomputing facilities, the Victorian Life Science Computation Initiative (VLSCI). The problem for sysadmins at VLSCI was simple: with temperatures remaining …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge
Pint

How come the heatwave is roughly aligned with the population?

East side, and don't forget Perth on the left. Empty middle bit normal.

Good luck Aussies. I hope it cools down soon. Take care.

3
0
Silver badge
WTF?

But but...

Melbourne is down the bottom(ish), in the white (no heatwave) bit. What's the point of showing a heat map of today (yesterday), when the "heatwave" was last week?

Confused of Kent.

P.s. No fucking heatwave here...

3
0

Re: But but...

Read the caption. That's a pic of test heatwave *forecast* system that the BOM is developing. That's not the actual map of the heatwave.

0
0
Silver badge

New Zealand

147f there last week.

That is beyond hot. That is fatal.

0
0
Silver badge
Pint

Weather isn't climate

Or so we have been told repeatedly.

Beer --> Because at that temperature a cold one is always good.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Hey, where are the "weather ain't climate" denialists? C'mon out of the woodwork, fellas. We miss your increasingly unsupportable arguments.

3
3

The argument that it will cost less to adapt to climate change than to try to prevent it is also looking increasingly unsupportable.

9
1
Anonymous Coward

Are you saying that it's unsupportable to say that weather and climate are different things?

0
0
Silver badge

As I've stated on these forums many a time.

Let's assume, no matter what, that you're right.

What the hell would you like us to do about it?

0
0

What the hell would you like us to do about it?

Well, the sensible approach would be to accept that what the overwhelming majority of climatologists are saying is right, then have a political debate about how to tackle it. The stupid approach is to deny the science because its implications are financially, politically and socially inconvenient.

11
1
Silver badge

Re: have a political debate about how to tackle it.

That's what is happening already, you get the odd fuckwit (pretty much only on faux 'news' and in here) still;

a)denying it's happening

b)conceding it is happening but it's not man made

and increasingly

c)claiming it's a gubermint conspiracy to steal all our monies as taxes. (nope I dunno why either - hard to imagine oik osborne* getting a hard-on cos of all the tax he gets to take, but maintaining more then a semi-lob as he spaffs it all on hospitals and schools and suchlike, but that is apparently what is really going on.)

*can't be arsed to work out the merkin equivalent - prolly obamas fault :-)

a & b demonstrate scientific ignorance c is a well established political view.

this camp view all taxes at whatever level as evil (irrespective of their dependence on said revenues, we aren't talking about healthcare, pensions, disaster relief, we are talking about taxes and taxes are wrong)

frankly it's a waste of breath trying to communicate with these morons.

fuck em

see you at the ballot box

5
3

Re: have a political debate about how to tackle it.

Naughtyhorse, there are a couple of small but nevertheless pertinent points you fail to acknowledge:

Firstly, in reference to, "a) conceding it is happening but it's not man made... demonstrate[s] scientific ignorance". The inference in your statement is clearly that climate change is solely a man-made problem. From a scientific perspective, that is absolute hogswash. It may be that you have confused climate change with AGW.*

Climate change is a natural process but is one that we as a people are exacerbating. We may be proven to be the dominant cause, we are not however the sole cause. It could therefore equally be claimed that your statement here is also borne of a general scientific ignorance.

Secondly, with respect to your mini-rant in point (c), "claiming it's a gubermint conspiracy to steal all our monies as taxes..., well, there is a small basis of truth in there somewhere, but you need to dig a little deeper.

The UN have, quite recently, proposed various global taxation. One part of their proposal is to tax areas associated with AGW, with a view to funding international development aid through such mechanisms.

There are other examples to be had in other places, such as within the EU and indeed within individual nation states. So, there is indeed a basis for claiming that climate change and AGW either are, or may be, used to increase (as opposed to being solely an excuse for) tax burdens. For some, this is an uncomfortable truth they would rather ignore.

*Whilst you do not explicitly mention either term, I have reasonably assumed that you are referring to climate change on the basis that, if you were referring to AGW (which of course a contributor to climate change, but is nonetheless not climate change), then there would be no need to mention "man made".

3
5
Silver badge

Re: have a political debate about how to tackle it.

you ccould have just said you were in category b and saved so much time

:-D

7
2

This post has been deleted by its author

Re: have a political debate about how to tackle it.

"you ccould have just said you were in category b and saved so much time :-D"

Touché! Humorous, even though untrue ;)

2
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Re: have a political debate about how to tackle it.

Typical lefty insult with tenous arguments. Ignoring that poor old people die becuase they cant afford to heat their homes. Back to the stone age hippy and let people who want to heat there homes do so without stupid crackpot green schemes.

1
4

Re: Touché! Voter

Wow! It seems as though your basic reading and comprehension skills are on holiday this week. I'll try to put everything into single syllable words next time, in the hope that it aids your comprehension.

0
0
Silver badge

I guess the problem is that global warming causes:

- flooding in some places

- drought in some places

- heat waves in some places

- more snow in some places

I presume it also causes the weather to be the same.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying it isn't true and I doubt its a government conspiracy, but I haven't yet seen anyone with any idea of how to fix the problem, assuming that it is actually a problem.

Pretty much all I've seen is "carbon tax" and and massive hikes in airline ticket prices. Quite frankly I don't think either of those are going to stop us drowning/desiccating/freezing/boiling, possibly all at the same time. It all looks a bit like the plan of the Australian energy company which offers you the chance to pay them to go out and shoot overly-flatulent wild camels in order to off-set your carbon footprint.

Give me a plan, the woe-is-us refrain isn't actually helping but it is tedious. I suspect the problems come from trying to fix an unfix-able problem because the third world is too busy trying to work out how to not die of starvation now to be worried about someone else dying in 80 years time.

While I agree we should do what we can - far better house insulation would go a long way - we also need to come up with a plan on how to deal with global warming. I don't see that happening, or if it is its being kept rather quiet.

1
1

Easy solution

Move these computers here. We never have that problem in Kanukistan.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

The scientific consensus was 31 years of "maybe" not "will be" a crisis.

News editors and politicians;

Prove that science "believes" in climate change as much as you do and prove that science "believes" beyond "could be" and and find us one single IPCC warning that says; "inevitable" or "eventual" in "belief". Your belief in consensus doesn't exist unless 31 years of "maybe" and never "will be" a crisis is good enough for you to tell your kids to "believe" in the end of the world.

And get up to date;

*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.

*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).

1
9
Silver badge
Trollface

Spasming out?

Sounds like someone pushed the hot buttons of a denytard here.

And who mentioned Occupywallstreet and Kyoto?

8
2

@DestroyAllMonsters

"denytard"

That's... the best you can do in response? No wonder climate change campaigners can't understand why they've lost.

Thanks for your contribution. Close the door on the way out, .

6
14
Anonymous Coward

I'm wondering how having the high 90s% of scientists with specialisms in relevant fields agreeing with you is losing?

The people who believe that there is a global conspiracy of scientists to make up climate change or that all (for all practical terms of the definition of the word all) the scientists who have expertise in climate/meteorology or other related areas are mistaken are vanishingly small.

I also notice that while telling someone off for using inappropriate language for a discussion, you utilise sarcasm, then try to close off any response by telling the person to go away, it doesn't exactly help your point. A point that is which has nothing to do with science, just telling someone they're wrong with no supporting argument.

11
1

here we go again

No one with any sense is saying there isn't any climate change.

What you an nobody else can say however is what level of change is normal and what exactly is normal and what change is deemed acceptable. Until you can answer that you cant say that humans are to blame with its CO2 and that is all there is to it.

Instead of actually working this out we have jumped from oh look the ice is melting over there to, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

Lets be sensible, and cut back pollutants, invest in turning fossil fuels cleaner whilst developing new ideas, carry out smaller manageable reductions in CO2 emissions and spend all the rest of the wasted billions on proper research.

Knee jerk reactions on the back of political / economic motives will only serve the politicians and the corporations involves.

This polarised debate of AWG or not is not helping the planet, its not helping any of us at all, but it sure is helping the money grabbing arseholes who feed off this debate to line their own pockets.

Lets be really clear, share holders own these companies, the companies do as they are told to make them the shareholders money, they wont invest unless they get something back in their pockets, very few are in it to save the world and if you think they are then your being a bit naive

3
4
Silver badge

having the high 90s% of scientists with specialisms in relevant fields agreeing with you is losing?

It's quite easy really

you put your fingers in your ears and say loudly

'BELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBERBELERBELERBELERBER'

until the other guys lips stop moving.

then you stalk off home, taking your ball with you

winning!

3
4
Anonymous Coward

I'm wondering how having the high 90s% of scientists with specialisms in relevant fields agreeing with you is losing?

The problem is chum, science has fuck all to do with popularity. Science is about making predictions and observing effects and correlating them to the predictions - something both sides of this debate continually fail to do.

Thankfully, we have zealots - many of them posting in this thread - who are happy to castigate any non-believers as "deniers", "idiots", "morons". When supporters of a purported scientific theory behave more like members of a fundamentalist religion, scepticism can come easily.

Anyhow, if we make a jump, and assume that anthropogenic CO2 production is the cause of climate change, as is suggested by many, then the solution is clear and straightforward, and massively ignored - build lots and lots of nuclear power stations. At the moment, the Western countries are fucking themselves in the ass by making the worlds most expensive electricity from wind and solar.

5
6

"No one with any sense is saying there isn't any climate change... This polarised debate of AWG..."

I'm only addressing the specific sentences above in your post and not the rest of it quite deliberately.

I'm pleased to see that someone in these comments is able to discern the difference between climate change and AGW.

I'm quite frankly dismayed at how many journalists, bloggers, commentards etc. confuse, either deliberately or out of ignorance, the two. Yes, AGW contributes to climate change but it is, of itself, not climate change. (I would +1 your post for discerning the difference, but I try not to up/downvote posts to which I reply).

1
2
Anonymous Coward

@ac 20Jan 13:21

While we are talking about "Science is about making predictions and observing effects and correlating them to the predictions"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/

0
1
Silver badge
Holmes

IN a chotic system, whih climate is...

there is no 'normal'..and as with random monkeys, pick the right sequence and you can 'prove' any thesis you want.

Meanwhile its getting cold. here.

0
0

Re: Spasming out?

Typical lefty - no arguments just insults. What next violence? Please turn off your computer on the way back to the stone age and let the rest of us live in reality get on with it.

0
1

Ad populum. Yawn. These same scientists thought being gay was a sickness. And unleashed nuclear weapons upon us. Your idea of science is reading it on google or Al Gore said so and hes important so it must be right. Its all rubbish and greenies are terrorists who think nothing of letting people die of cold to satisfy their desire to inflict control via global warmin on the international community. Shame on you.

0
1
Silver badge
Flame

...and what's even worse!

My pool water temp hit 28oC, which is less than refreshing on a stinking hot day.

But don't worry, the beer was icy.

0
0
Bronze badge
Pint

Re: ...and what's even worse!

You have a pool !!! ... bloody luxury!

We had to make do with making sweat angels on the floor ....

7
0

Poor Design

The news here is that the Victorian Life Science Computation Initiative are such poor climate scientists that they didn't know enough to properly spec their own system.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Poor Design

Yup. The superconducting cooling fins didn't even reach the stratosphere. What sort of fucking design is THAT?

5
0

It is more than 42C!

It is illegal to use the reticulated water supply as cooling for permanent equipment in Australia. They must have had a recirculating chilled water system. If that was the case then calculating heat loads in the conventional sense flies out the window. For four 40+ C days in Melbourne you need to calculate your heat load against an ambient of 50C at least to account for the drop in efficiency of your heat pumps due to the exterior temperatures reaching about 50C or more where you hope to dump the heat, due to this heat. A rough rule of thumb is, measure your real heat load and then double it to cope with these extremes. Bert

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: It is more than 42C!

Then you take those calculations and compare them to the budget you've got, and do a risk assessment about how critical the services are.

So, you end up with a compromise solution.

3
0

Reading this while my car defrosts makes it a little surreal at best.

Posted from Birmingham, England.

4
0
Gold badge
Unhappy

Looks like you need a "swamp cooler" *unless* the humidity is sky high.

In which case even that won't work.

0
0

More politically motivated nonsense

Climate change bollocks - gay rights. Whats happened recently I though I could get away from all of that - it seems nowhere is safe.

0
0
Headmaster

Mercury is NOT a unit of temperature

It is a poisonous heavy metal, a planet or the name of an old god!

Because it is poisonous it has not been used in thermometers for years, these days thermometers use a coloured alcohol or they are electronic. So the statement "and in spite of the mercury getting close to 44°C" should be "and in spite of the red coloured alcohol getting close to 44°C" or "and in spite of the electrons getting close to 44°C".

Or, if you wanted to be CORRECT it should be "and in spite of the temperature getting close to 44°C".

0
0

Other locations...

Altitude offers cooler climes in Australia. Toowoomba is on a fairly decent data backbone so would be my first choice for a supercomputer. Next I'd pop one up near the Snowy Mountains Hydro to provide cooling and green energy. No sizeable Uni in the Snowy Mountains though, unlike Toowoomba which has USQ. If enough water can be sourced, I'd go Toowoomba.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.