Notes on two presentations by Gordon Bell ca. 1998
|
From: Del Cecchi on 4 Feb 2010 00:44 nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article <57f7bab3-3dda-4fef-8e1a-6c1f72f46191(a)h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> My desktop will run circles around the >>>>> supercomputers I used to use and that I still think of as the genuine >>>>> article.) >>>> That's because of the past tense. =A0That little 'd' at the end of "use.= >> " >>>> You could go back.... >>> Each of my hearing aids is tens of thousands of times more powerful >>> than the first supercomputer I used :-) >> Anyone who used the old machines can remember how much science could >> be done with them. Can we now do billions of times more science? > > Grin :-) > >> As far as I'm concerned, it all went wrong when computer rooms became >> warehouses. > > That's a very reasonable viewpoint. I might disagree that it's the > sole place where things went wrong, but I won't disagree that it is > one of them. > > > Regards, > Nick Maclaren. You can do a billion times more science because you can do things now you couldn't do at all then. Like model the weather hundreds of years in the future. ok, the climate not the weather but whatever.
From: nmm1 on 4 Feb 2010 04:05 In article <7sv55fFfmpU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Del Cecchi <delcecchinospamofthenorth(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >You can do a billion times more science because you can do things now >you couldn't do at all then. Like model the weather hundreds of years >in the future. ok, the climate not the weather but whatever. One can debate how much that is due to computing power and how much to more and better data, but the computing power is certainly used for that. And might be essential for it. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Robert Myers on 4 Feb 2010 13:32 On Feb 4, 4:05 am, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article <7sv55fFfm...(a)mid.individual.net>, > Del Cecchi <delcecchinospamoftheno...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >You can do a billion times more science because you can do things now > >you couldn't do at all then. Like model the weather hundreds of years > >in the future. ok, the climate not the weather but whatever. > > One can debate how much that is due to computing power and how much > to more and better data, but the computing power is certainly used > for that. And might be essential for it. And the fact that we now how the capacity to *appear* to be able to do this kind of modeling and that (mirabile dictu) the modeling predicts problems that require massive funding don't make you at all suspicious? As I've pointed out, prospective modeling of weather patterns a few months in advance has a dismal track record. Given that reality, why should I take climate "modeling," which is little more than a not always successful exercise in retrospective curve-fitting, any more seriously? And I strongly suspect that Del had his tongue in his cheek. Robert.
From: Eugene Miya on 4 Feb 2010 15:39 In article <89be10d8-02e5-4464-b922-8bcd850370c1(a)j1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Except that it would imply that I take myself that seriously, and >I don't, I'd hand out another R Myers prize for getting it. See; this is why tee shirts are real and easier. It doesn't matter whether you take yourself seriously; and I don't myself. Much less serious than the money Gordon gives out. -- Looking for an H-912 (container).
From: Eugene Miya on 4 Feb 2010 15:55
In article <7sv55fFfm...(a)mid.individual.net>, Del Cecchi =A0<delcecchinospamoftheno...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >You can do a billion times more science because you can do things now >> >you couldn't do at all then. =A0Like model the weather hundreds of years >> >in the future. =A0ok, the climate not the weather but whatever. Whatever tee shirst were passed out in Portland. I doubt that science has an improvement metric like 10e9. On Feb 4, 4:05=A0am, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: Nick: >> One can debate how much that is due to computing power and how much >> to more and better data, but the computing power is certainly used >> for that. =A0And might be essential for it. One of the values, Robert, is that some guy, like where Nick is, gets frustated enough that they go off and develop a new tool like calculus. In article <e5754988-bb6c-46cb-92ed-e9db8d1b939a(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote: >And the fact that we now how the capacity to *appear* to be able to do >this kind of modeling and that (mirabile dictu) the modeling predicts >problems that require massive funding don't make you at all suspicious? The problem comes from the composition of things a person or the field of people agree and believe (say Stefan-Boltzmann power law) with other information/agorithms, etc. A threshold is reached when some skepticism is reached. It will likely be when it's the other contributor's science than our own individual information. It computing, it was when the NCAR 7600 was running 24 forecasts taking 27 hours (typical story given). We all have stories based on the skepticism we know ("So what does this 'Chemical Option' mean?" "Oh, your usual non-persistent nerve agent") about simulation. >As I've pointed out, prospective modeling of weather patterns a few >months in advance has a dismal track record. Given that reality, why >should I take climate "modeling," which is little more than a not >always successful exercise in retrospective curve-fitting, any more >seriously? What about a 4 word linguist model for seasons? And the semantics are like winter -> it's cold/cool (unless Equatorial regions, and note I didn't use month). Or assumptions when to expect rain? Or snow? >And I strongly suspect that Del had his tongue in his cheek. The spreadsheet has changed a lot of people's views of wanting to do shotgun science. -- Looking for an H-912 (container). |