Scientist’s Proposal for Climate Modeling Bypasses Supercomputers

Scientific studies on climate helped establish a consensus. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

BY JOHN MARKOFF

 
Creating a supercomputer that can model the future of the planet is perhaps the most daunting challenge facing climate and computer science experts.

The task would require running an immense set of calculations for several weeks and then recalculating them hundreds of times with different variables. Such machines will need to be 100 times faster than today’s supercomputers. If such a computer were built today, a so-called exascale computer would consume electricity equivalent to 200,000 homes and might cost $20 million annually to operate, contributing to global warming.

For the reason, scientists are waiting for low-power computing techniques capable of significantly reducing the power requirements for an exascale computer.

But Krishna Palem, a computer scientist at Rice University in Texas, believes he has found a shortcut. By stripping away the transistors that add accuracy, it will be possible to cut the energy demands of calculating while increasing performance speeds, he claims.

“Scientific calculations like weather and climate modeling are generally, inherently inexact,” Dr. Palem said. “We’ve shown that using inexact computation techniques need not degrade the quality of the weather-climate simulation.”

To create models, scientists turn the world into a three-dimensional grid and compute the equations. Current climate models used with supercomputers have cell sizes of about 100 kilometers, representing the climate for that area of Earth’s surface. To accurately predict the long-term impact of climate change will require shrinking the cell size to a kilometer. Such a model would require more than 200 million cells and roughly three weeks to compute one simulation of climate change over a century.

“We can’t do a lab experiment with the climate,” said Tim Palmer, a University of Oxford climate physicist. “We have to rely on these models which try to encode the complexity of the climate, and today we are constrained by the size of computers.”

Dr. Palem says computing the rate of global warming may be possible with a computer that would use specialized low-power chips to solve a portion of the problem. He describes his approach as “inexact” computing.

The stated goal of the engineers who are trying to design an exascale computer is to stay within a power budget of 30 megawatts, experts say.

Dr. Palem has been imploring the computing world to back away from its romance with precision for more than a decade. He has recently developed allies among climatologists like Dr. Palmer, who in the journal Nature recently called on the climate community to form an international effort to build a machine fast enough to solve basic questions about the rate of global warming.

Not everyone is convinced Dr. Palem’s computer architecture ideas will be applicable. “For consequential problems, where inexact results could cause a bridge to be mis-designed, or erroneous conclusions about the mechanics of climate, the inexactness is problematic,” said John Shalf, department head for computer science at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Dr. Palem and Dr. Palmer are trying to overcome these objections.

“It’s a trivial amount of money when you think of climate impact being in the trillion of dollars,” Dr. Palmer said. “It’s actually an existential question. If it’s at one end of the spectrum, we can adjust, but if it’s at the other of the spectrum, we’re not going to come out of it unless we cut emissions in the next decade.”


Taken from TODAY Saturday Edition, The New York Times International Weekly, May 23, 2015

Related articles

• What is the next step after electric cars?
• Fracking report a 'road map' to safer energy production
• Fracking report a 'road map' to safer energy production
• Fracking report a 'road map' to safer energy production
• Autonomous taxis would deliver significant environmental and economic benefits
• Scientists seeking better way to screen chemicals for cancer-causing effects
• Most fracking waste dumped in unlined pits in CA, study finds
• Do Costs Matter When Climate Change Policies are Being Considered?
• Self-Driving 'Robocabs' Could Help Curb Global Warming
• Science lacking on safety of fracking boom, study says

The Warning The Water Is Giving Us

English: Bunker Hill in downtown Los Angeles as seen from Los Angeles City Hall. Photographed and uploaded by user:Geographer Category:Images of Los Angeles (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Los Angeles is the second largest city in the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

BY CHARLES FISHMAN


California was wet all over as March began: torrential rain, heavy snow, mudslides. The drought barely noticed.

The water crisis there is now in its third year; some scientists believe 2013 was the driest year in California since 1580. The state, the most populous in America, gets 75 percent of its water from snow, and this year, 70 percent of its usual snowpack is missing.

Britain’s problem has been exactly the opposite: biblical flooding. The Thames has been flowing at its highest level, for the longest period, since 1883. Storms across south western England have left Brits kayaking through their towns. According to Britain’s weather service, the rain across England and Wales is the heaviest in 240 years.

There have always been floods and droughts. But water problems of all kinds seem more common and more urgent because they are.

In 2013, the world had a record number of $1 billion weather disaster – 41, topping the previous high from just three years earlier. Almost all 41 involved water-flooding, drought or damage from cyclones.

There are three reasons we’re seeing more water issues.

The first is population growth. The drought in California is made worse by the fact that the state’s population is one-third bigger than in 1990. Ten million more people live there today. Their added water use drains the equivalent of a 40-hectare lake, 15 meters deep, every day. The challenge of supplying water to growing populations is acute in mega-cities like Beijing, Delhi and Los Angeles.

Living standards have also been rising in developing nations like India, China and Brazil. The more people rise to the middle class, the more water they use- for toilets, for clothes washers, for daily showers. People with modern plumbing often use five or 10 times the water as those without it.

Finally, climate change is likely to make routine cycles of weather more severe and perhaps more frequent. The Thames Barrier, a mechanical dam that protects London from flooding, was used 35 times during the 1990s. This January alone, it was used 17 times. And this year’s flooding comes just two years after another natural disaster in the same part of England: the worst drought in 100 years.

The consequences ripple widely. The American drought has crippled California farmers, who grow 60 percent of the country’s produce, and has left the nation with its smallest cattle herd in 60 years, sending beef prices to record highs. Economists estimate that the flooding in Britain could shave a full point off of its G.D.P.

Often, what we do about the weather is tough it out and hope things go back to “normal.” But what we’ve seen with water over the last decade is a warning. Tumult may be the new normal.

There are two secrets to understanding and addressing water problems. The first is that all water problems are local. Whatever the connections to weather patterns over the Pacific, England’s flooding has to be fixed in England. The drought is California’s problem – conservation in Kansas won’t help. But that’s actually good news. Communities – cities, states, multistate watersheds – have the ability to solve problems right where they are happening.

The second thing to remember is that water doesn’t respond to wishful thinking. It responds to careful, permanent changes in how we live, how we farm, how we build and what we charge for the water itself. The British government has a nine-year-old report about preparing for increased flooding. The title:

“Making Space for Water.” You’re not going to hold back the flood. You have to anticipate it, and adapt.

Most big communities in California have yet to mandate water-use reductions. In part, that’s because water use has already changed there, slowly but dramatically. In 1972, the average resident of Los Angeles used 715 liters a day. Today, the average is 465 liters.

Here’s what the change means: The Los Angeles metro area has 50 percent more people than it did 20 years ago, but it uses the same amount of water. The drought, bad as it is, would have been far worse if people were still using so much water. Thinking ahead matters.

The amount of water on Earth doesn’t change-no “new” water is being created, no water is being destroyed. It simply is used, evaporates and is used again. But we’re being reminded that water doesn’t end up where we want it, when we want it.

In a world of big problems, water problems are among the biggest. But unlike many other big problems – climate change, economic inequality – most water problems are solvable. There’s usually enough water, and even enough money. What we need is time and the realism to tackle the problems.

In that sense, the current water tumult is doing us a favor. If we pay attention, water is giving us fair warning.

-----
Charles Fishman is the author of “The Big Thirst: The Secret Life and Turbulent Future of Water.”


Taken from TODAY Saturday Edition, March 8, 2014

Related articles

• Highway Sound Barriers Were First Proposed To Keep Movie Studios Quiet
• Startup Weekend Launches Startup Foundation Initiative in Partnership with Kauffman Foundation
• Meet the Success Coaches: Kathy Rollins
• 5 Low Maintenance Plants To Turn Your Backyard Around
• L.A. school district requires 'ethnic studies' class to receive diploma

Quitting in Anger Is Usually a Bad Idea

In the doghouse...again (Photo credit: maxymedia)

01-August-2014
-----


by Phyllis Korkki


"I quit!"

What beleaguered worker hasn't fantasized about saying those words and walking out the door? Wisely, most don't go that far, at least not then and there.

It's fairly common to feel a passing urge to quit your job when you've hit a rough patch, says Nancy S. Molitor, a clinical psychologist in Wilmette, Illinois, and a psychologist and public education coordinator for the American Psychological Association. But she said the idea is surfacing in more employees' minds these days.

Many of the clients have acquiesced at their jobs over last five or six years, just grateful to be employed in an uncertain economy, Dr. Molitor siad. Some were promised raise or bonuses or stock once the recession ended, but now that better times have arrived, companies are hanging onto their cash and withholding those promised rewards, she said.

One result is employee resentment.

Sometimes an employee wants to quit because of an untenable working situation: an overbearing boss, a difficult co-worker, a crushing workload. Often, the reasons for feeling upset and wanting to quit are legitimate, Dr. Molitor said.

But resigning has huge consequences, so you never want to make that decision while in the grip of intense emotion, she said.

Wait at least a week. Discuss your feelings with a friend, family member or therapist. Colleagues are another option -- they may have a much better grasp of office politics -- but amek sure you trust them to keep your confidence, she said.

Anytime you cannot concentrate, or if you find yourself thinking the same thoughts about your job over and over again, "that's a huge red flag," she said. You are reacting to pure adrenaline and emotion. Take some time to calm down, and if necessary seek professional help. If you feel you are in danger of quitting suddenly, take a day off to clear you head, she advised.

Sometimes when we feel unhappy or helpless in our personal lives, we project that onto our jobs -- and onto the boss, who has power over us, Dr. Molitor said.

Once you have cleared your head and separated emotion from reality, you may be able to find a way to change your work situation so that it's no longer intolerable, Dr. Molitor said.

Many employees need to work harder at advocating for themselves, she said. If you felt that you deserved a raise and didn't get one, try asking for one and you might succeed, she said.

When preparing to talk to your boss about your concerns, it's wise to write down your points in advance, she added: "That forces you to be coherent."

After careful consideration, you may determine that your only option is to resign, but do so politely, and with plenty of notice. If you quit suddenly and make a dramatic exit, you can probably forget about your employer as a reference, and word will spread that you left your company in a troubled situation.

Suzanne Lucas, a former human relations professional who writes a blog called the Evil HR Lady, says in a column for CBS News that it's generally a bad idea and "just darn rude" to quit a job on the spot. But she notes exceptions that would justify a quick departure -- for example, if staying in a job would put you in some kind of danger (a violent co-worker, say, or a safety violation), or would make you break the law or violate your ethical or religious standards.

In most cases, though, you can give notice. Just try to be gracious, because "how you end things is incredibly important," said Robert I. Sutton, a professor and an organizational psychologist at Stanford University in California.

According to the "peak end rule," as articulated by the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, the final memory that your co-workers have of you is likely to be much more vivid than most others, Professor Sutton said. If possible, you want that memory to be positive. He said that you, too, would feel better about the experience in retrospect if you quit in a graceful way.

"I'm a big fan of quitting," Professor Sutton said, so long as it's done for the right reasons and in the right way.


-----
Taken from TODAY Saturday Edition, April 20, 2013

Related articles

• Depressed IT worker quits job for being 'paid too much'
• Three Hallmarks of Good Performance Evaluations
• Why Do People Actually Quit Their Jobs? (Infographic)
• Good to Great: Humble Beginnings to Millionaire for PrintRunner CEO, Mike Zaya
• Tough or Toxic: The Cost of Bad Bosses
• How to get your boss fired
• National › Stigmatized nuclear workers quit TEPCO
• Want To Keep Your Team Happy? Talk To The People Who Just Quit
• People voluntarily leaving jobs at highest rate since 2009 downturn
• Caple: Baseball in the Land of 10,000 Lakes

Schwarzenegger vows to veto California tax boost

Now this makes sense to me… way to go, Conan! Hasta la vista!

----------

Posted: 18 June 2009 1237 hrs

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

SAN FRANCISCO: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has warned lawmakers against trying to raise taxes to plug the state's budget deficit, vowing to veto any proposed tax increase.

Speaking after meeting with Democratic legislators who have been working on a budget bill, the Republican governor said he would resist any attempt to hike taxes or fees for public services.

"I made it clear to them that even though they've done a good job, I cannot sign a budget that has tax increases in there," Schwarzenegger told reporters at a news conference in Sacramento.

"We just had the largest tax increase in the history of California four months ago. To come out with another tax increase four months later is irresponsible."

California is grappling with a 24-billion-dollar deficit caused by plunging revenues as the recession bites hard in the most populous US state. Schwarzenegger has warned that the state will run out of money next month unless lawmakers agree on a budget soon.

Schwarzenegger said he could not sanction tax increases on the public after Democratic lawmakers rejected his proposal to slash the pay of 235,000 state employees by five per cent.

"I think it would be very unfair to the people of California to protect state employees, to vote against a cut in state employees' salaries of five per cent while they raise taxes on the public," he said.

- AFP/so

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• It's in Voters' Hands: California Voters Must Approve New Budget Plan (crooksandliars.com)
• Long awaited budget plan approved in California (financialpost.com)
• Schwarzenegger's book ban hits Pearson (telegraph.co.uk)
• Calif. Prisoners Want to Keep Luxe Life (abcnews.go.com)
• Billions in the Red: Fiscal Reckoning in CA (time.com)
• Republican governors split over Obama stimulus (windsorstar.com)
• Schwarzenegger: No borrowing to keep California running (cnn.com)
• Arnold to Force 200K Workers to Stay Home (abcnews.go.com)