"The scientific rationale for the Met Office buying powerful
supercomputers to improve weather forecasts is "clear and accepted" - Ed
Davey.

But Labour MP Graham Stringer said ministers should not rush into the
move as the computers would be a "lot cheaper and better in a few years
time".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15653374

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change boy to man
LibreOffice: http://www.documentfoundation.org/
openSUSE Linux: http://www.opensuse.org/en/

On Nov 9, 3:27*pm, Graham P Davis wrote:
"The scientific rationale for the Met Office buying powerful
supercomputers to improve weather forecasts is "clear and accepted" - Ed
Davey.

But Labour MP Graham Stringer said ministers should not rush into the
move as the computers would be a "lot cheaper and better in a few years
time".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15653374

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change boy to man
LibreOffice:http://www.documentfoundation.org/
openSUSE Linux:http://www.opensuse.org/en/

It matters not HOW big and powerful the Met Office computers are,
computers are as good as useless in the prediction of a chaotic,
fickle system like the atmosphere longer than a few days in advance.
Bigger, better and more colourful modeling will change nothing, and
convince nobody that their "forecasts" will be any better, or more
accurate than they are now - which isn't very. Maybe they should just
drop the dogmatic approach, and funding begging and toadying, and use
more lateral, and honest thinking.

CK

On Nov 9, 5:07*pm, Natsman wrote:
On Nov 9, 3:27*pm, Graham P Davis wrote:

But Labour MP Graham Stringer said ministers should not rush into the
move as the computers would be a "lot cheaper and better in a few years
time".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15653374

It matters not HOW big and powerful the Met Office computers are,
computers are as good as useless in the prediction of a chaotic,
fickle system like the atmosphere longer than a few days in advance.
Bigger, better and more colourful modeling will change nothing

Whilst I completely agree with you up to there. The fact we are
dealing with the pre-eminent and In my not inconsiderable opinion THE
MOST IMPORTANT meteorological office in the world (therefore the
material Universe)
And the money comes from a bottomless pit, the nation should give them
ten times more than they ask for.

It's only money.

World financiers can walk away with all they want for their own
personal uses anytime they like.

Having just one more reasonably powerful computer will allow model
runs to go through with lot less pressure on the droids in charge.

They won't learn what the meteorologists are twiddling outside the box
thouugh. That won't happen until the Thacherites remove ALL the
meteorologists from the matrix.

Quote from the link
Senior metereologists told the committee last month that a shortage of computing power was limiting the improvements the Met Office can make to the accuracy of its weather forecasts.

The head of the Royal Meteorological Society said more supercomputers
were needed to carry out complex calculations and the potential
economic benefits of more accurate forecasts were "enormous" in terms
of improved contingency planning for emergencies.unquote

Where you have misunderstood the problem is the matrix itself.

Computer models follow the Richardson model, which looks at the
problem from the inside out.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/.../reynolds.html
No solution can come from that direction.

It's the plague of Thebes. And nobody is in a position to bite the
bullet.

While computer models can churn out data based on the finest input
available, without understanding the actual CAUSE of weather, they
will never get past the 5 day blight.

So until people like me get to sort things out, they may as well find
the money for more computing power. Devolving it to universities might
be a practical solution. I think it would be better than concentrating
everything in one place where it can all go pear shaped every 6 hours
indefinitely.

It would certainly help us amateurs get at the gubbins, if only to
settle in our own minds how terribly wrong we are.
Or not as the case may be. (As in my case.)

What the King of Babylon did to sort out the finest think tank in
history up to then, was decide on killing all the scientists if they
couldn't prove they weren't jerking his chain.

Money was never an object. It wasn't in the age of the British
Empire. And it isn't even now in the US of A. We can get things done.
All we need is a chance to.

Graham P Davis wrote:
"The scientific rationale for the Met Office buying powerful
supercomputers to improve weather forecasts is "clear and accepted" - Ed
Davey.

But Labour MP Graham Stringer said ministers should not rush into the
move as the computers would be a "lot cheaper and better in a few years
time".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15653374

---------------------
Get away! Welcome to our world, Mr. Stringer.

On Nov 9, 2:27*pm, Graham P Davis wrote:
"The scientific rationale for the Met Office buying powerful
supercomputers to improve weather forecasts is "clear and accepted" - Ed
Davey.

But Labour MP Graham Stringer said ministers should not rush into the
move as the computers would be a "lot cheaper and better in a few years
time".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15653374

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change boy to man
LibreOffice:http://www.documentfoundation.org/
openSUSE Linux:http://www.opensuse.org/en/

Well though I don't trhink any super computer will stop the ludicrous
weather warnings . that is still a dafft thing for Stringer to say as
you will wait forever on that basis. Is it for weather forecasting or
climate change predictions

--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------
"Lawrence13" wrote in message
...
On Nov 9, 2:27 pm, Graham P Davis wrote:
"The scientific rationale for the Met Office buying powerful
supercomputers to improve weather forecasts is "clear and accepted" - Ed
Davey.

But Labour MP Graham Stringer said ministers should not rush into the
move as the computers would be a "lot cheaper and better in a few years
time".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15653374

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change boy to man
LibreOffice:http://www.documentfoundation.org/
openSUSE Linux:http://www.opensuse.org/en/

Well though I don't trhink any super computer will stop the ludicrous
weather warnings . that is still a dafft thing for Stringer to say as
you will wait forever on that basis. Is it for weather forecasting or
climate change predictions
==============================

Both. The ultimate plan is for a very high resolution global model ensemble.
Nested within that will be 100 metre resolution UK models. About a decade
away yet and needs awesome computer power.

Will
--

In article ,
Graham P Davis writes:
"The scientific rationale for the Met Office buying powerful
supercomputers to improve weather forecasts is "clear and
accepted" - Ed Davey.

But Labour MP Graham Stringer said ministers should not rush into
the move as the computers would be a "lot cheaper and better in
a few years time".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15653374


If that logic had been followed in the past, the Met Office would still
be running an IBM 360 from the late 1960s, or possibly something even
more primitive! Ever since Colossus, computers have always been "a lot
cheaper and better in a few years time".
--
John Hall
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw

On 09/11/11 19:15, John Hall wrote:
In ,
Graham P writes:
"The scientific rationale for the Met Office buying powerful
supercomputers to improve weather forecasts is "clear and
accepted" - Ed Davey.

But Labour MP Graham Stringer said ministers should not rush into
the move as the computers would be a "lot cheaper and better in
a few years time".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15653374


If that logic had been followed in the past, the Met Office would still
be running an IBM 360 from the late 1960s, or possibly something even
more primitive! Ever since Colossus, computers have always been "a lot
cheaper and better in a few years time".

Yes, programmers might still be feeding the KDF9 with programs on 8-hole
paper tape or perhaps popping round to Joe Lyon's to run a model on his
computer - as long as it wasn't running the accounting software. ;-)


--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change boy to man
LibreOffice: http://www.documentfoundation.org/
openSUSE Linux: http://www.opensuse.org/en/

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
...
Yes, programmers might still be feeding the KDF9 with programs on 8-hole
paper tape or perhaps popping round to Joe Lyon's to run a model on his
computer - as long as it wasn't running the accounting software. ;-)

Graham, that awakens some distant memories! My late brother worked for Leo
Computers (the computer subsidiary of Joe Lyons). I remember the stories
about repairs to the machine by opening a door in the side and pushing a
trolley in loaded with spare valves! He claimed that his first ZX 81 was
much more powerful.

Phil