Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

The BBC's Distributed Climate Prediction 83

Posted by Zonk from the admirable-goal dept.
CongoJoe writes "The BBC has teamed up with Oxford University to conduct the world's most ambitious climate modeling experiment." From the article: "Trying to predict climate change is hard. There are lots of factors involved - air temperature, sea temperature and cloud cover all play a part - as do dozens of other variables. Therefore, there are a huge number of calculations involved ... Using a technique known as distributed computing, we're hoping to harness the power of thousands of PCs around the world. If 10,000 people sign up, we'll be faster than the world's biggest computer. And we're hoping to be even better than that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The BBC's Distributed Climate Prediction More

The BBC's Distributed Climate Prediction

Comments Filter:

  • I wonder what would happen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by artifex2004 ( 766107 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:19AM (#14732885) Journal
    if those 10,000 people turned their computers off, when not in use, instead?

    Not that I don't think this is a good investment of spare cycles. I'm just wondering what the power savings would be, as an alternative.

    Also, I notice there is no OSX client, only Windows and Linux.

    • Re:I wonder what would happen (Score:5, Informative)

      by iangoldby ( 552781 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:34AM (#14733054) Homepage
      RTFA.

      They explicitly tell you in the instructions (several times) that you should not leave your computer switched on any more than you would without the simulation. You should use your computer as normal, shutting it down when you don't need it.
      • RTFA.
        They explicitly tell you in the instructions (several times) that you should not leave your computer switched on any more than you would without the simulation. You should use your computer as normal, shutting it down when you don't need it.


        Actually, the information isn't in the article. It's off in the FAQ. The 4-part instructions just say install it and sit back, too. :)
        • Actually, the information isn't in the article. It's off in the FAQ.

          Fair point. I suppose I'd regard the FAQ as part of the documentation, and therefore part of the article. But you certainly wouldn't see it at a cursory glance.

          Regardless, I wonder how many people will simply ignore the advice and leave their PC on 24x7?

          I won't be downloading the simulation. My home PC is generally only switched on for a short time each evening while I check email and read the news. I would take way longer than their target

          • Regardless, I wonder how many people will simply ignore the advice and leave their PC on 24x7?

            Well, and another kicker is, many modern CPUs consume more power when busy than when idle. Especially since chipmakers wised up and started implementing the ability to idle down in order to decrease heat and, of course, use less electricity. So basically, this program is going to use more electricity even if every single person turns their machines off when they step away for more than a minute or so.

            But you are

      • If you want some numbers for a rough estimate, my Athlon 64 system runs at about 85W power consumption idle and 120W at full CPU load. Running the simulation when you were planning to keep the computer switched on anyway consumes an additional 35W, and obviously running the simulation when you were planning to keep the computer switched off consumes an additional 120W, unless you subtract the idle power draw of an ATX PC which can be 2-5W. Multiply that by 10,000 computers and you're talking about 350 kW or
        • So, 10.1 million computers would be 1.21 gigawatts! But the only power source capable of generating 1.21 gigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning. Unfortunately, you never know when or where it's ever gonna strike.
      • Even so, increased CPU load during otherwise idle times will increase power consumption, albeit not as much as the difference between idle and off.
    • ...anyway; we can't possibly predict climate without taking technological changes into account, and we can't do that at all.

      Technology is the single biggest human factor that we have reason to believe affects climate; it is the primary whipping boy for the "we're killing our planet" hysterics, after all, yet none of these "studies" can even make a start at predicting what is going to be the motive and/or non-motive power technology set du jour in twenty, fifty, two hundred years. Although we do know that

      • Re: FLAMEBAIT??? (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by fyngyrz ( 762201 )
        I'm not the least bit concerned with the moderation as the implied comment the moderator made with it; that wasn't flamebait, it was bloody fact is what it was. You cannot, repeat CANNOT, predict climate in any even vaguely accurate manner without those inputs. Clearly, the moderator who marked that post flamebait doesn't understand simulation OR science. Not to mention was too much of a know-nothing to try and contest the actual point I was making.

        Anyone who thinks you can create a predictive simulation

        • "The whole thing is an exercise in naval gazing and cynical grant-acquisition."

          You may have faired better had you bothered to find out how the model currently caters for the things that you are complianing about and what it is they are hoping to achive with the experiment.

          Calling internationally respected scientists cynical money grubbers based on your own false and myopic assumptions is definitely flamebait and I applaud the moderator for their good judgment.

          • You may have faired better had you bothered to find out how the model currently caters for the things that you are complianing about

            So, Sparky, you think the BBC and its co-modelers know what technological changes are coming. What energy sources will be in use. When this will happen. When the next change comes. Etc. And you are assuming all of this is plugged into the model, apparently. You think I should check to see if the modelers have "properly" predicted the future of all energy technologies and i

            • The only hysterical (both meanings) one is you. For a start the BBC is pushing the experiment not designing it.

              The UK MET office models make various assumptions about the effect of future tech on CO2 output, particulates, volcanic activity and a gazillion other things that you would not understand. The models make predictions on both past and future climate using a massive number of senarios with different inputs for the variables you speak about. The models themselves are not that difficult to research,
              • Utter nonsense. First of all, you have no idea what I am able to understand. You don't know me. Secondly, you assume I don't have a clue, but that is because you choose to hurl imprecations rather than address the point I raise (of course, you probably can't address the point I raised, no one seems to be abel to, and that is my point.)

                Finally, covering a "range" of factors means that the output of the simulation covers a *range* of outputs, but it still does not mean that the simulation predicts what tech

                • The fairy godmother is unreliable and inherently unpredictable.

                  From a civil engineering point of view you can only make rational predictions using non-existant infrastructure. Making predictions with non-existant technology is called science fiction, it's more comforting and definitely more readable, but it's still fiction.

                  BTW: The point you are trying to make is philosophical one, it is neither scientific or pragamtic in any meaningfull way. Science is based on the assumption (faith) the Universe is

                  • Making predictions with non-existant technology is called science fiction, it's more comforting and definitely more readable, but it's still fiction.

                    Yes, that's exactly my point. The predictions made by these long-term climate simulations are almost certainly nonsense (barring luck) because they are presuming a particular infrastructure, and that presumption is, just as you say, science fiction.

                    Your outlook, the presumption that since you don't know something (the actual state of technology during th

                    • "Yes, that's exactly my point."

                      You have missunderstood me, again.

                      "Even small changes affect complex systems. Weather prediction has shown us that very, very clearly. We can't even predict temperature even 24 hours in advance without a significant margin of error. Climate is a far more complex system."

                      You have also missunderstood the term "climate". ie: The long term statistics of weather. You cannot predict where an idividual steam bubble will form in a pot of simmering water but you can certainly

                    • You have missunderstood me, again.

                      No, I didn't misunderstand you at all. I was simply pointing out (with some amusement, I admit) that your reasoning applies to the problem, once you realize that the inputs to climate simulation contain science fiction — specifically innaccurate technology information. I realize you have an emotional stake in this and can't look at it dispassionately, but that doesn't make the point invalid. You're feeding the simulation garbage; you're going to get garbage resul

                    • Wow that is one huge essay, pity you still miss the point that you cannot in any reasonable prediction insist on perfect input and assumptions. I won't answer the whole thing but this bit, "and never have tested in the past (because the current situation never existed in the past)", is patently false and shows you are simply attacking the models on assumptions you have pulled out of your arse. If you are certain that I am wrong and the models are in fact useless then submit your theories to Nature or IPCC,
                    • Wow that is one huge essay, pity you still miss the point that you cannot in any reasonable prediction insist on perfect input and assumptions.

                      Pardon me, my mistake. I thought, since you were attacking my knowledge of simulation with such gusto, that you actually knew how simulations worked. Now that you have shown you don't, I won't worry about your opinion any longer.

                      You have a good day!

                    • Not content with having Tapecutter beat me up with superior knowledge of simulations, further cogent argument rears its head from the slashdot intelligentsia, going directly for the topical kill.

                      I truly admire the way you took the point I was making and using critical thinking, scientific method, and relevant examples, just tore my position apart. No question, a beautiful job. You are such a stud. The "simulate with trash data then treat the results as gospel" crowd is so lucky to have you on their side,

  • I am concerned about sending my spare CPU time overseas, i mean, they say they are "climate modeling", but could they not just as easily be selling this "distributed" computer network to the black market, or Iran, or doing nuclear weapons simulations?

    I mean, they ARE british, and you all know what happened last time they got their hands on a bunch of CPU time- that poor kursk...

    How bout the dental hygene simulator project?

    sorry, just had to rip on some of my brit friends today :)
    • You are paranoid, this is the BBC.

      Most likely their true purpose is something mostly harmless, such as CGI scenes for the next Doctor Who series, or perhaps an accounting system for the billions they collect in licence fees.

      What is "that poor kursk", exactly, the Russian city or submarine? Neither was constructed on British CPU time as far as I know.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I am concerned about sending my spare CPU time overseas, i mean, they say they are "climate modeling", but could they not just as easily be selling this "distributed" computer network to the black market, or Iran, or doing nuclear weapons simulations?

      You could always donate your CPU cycles to help Fold Proteins at the Baker Lab [bakerlab.org] here at the University of Washington.

      Then you'd know your CPU cycles were doing good American scientific research.

      And Prof. Baker is a neat guy, very slashdot.

  • Extra Power Consumption (Score:4, Interesting)

    by alanxyzzy ( 666696 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:33AM (#14733031)
    I just happened to have the computer I installed the software on plugged into a Brennenstuhl PM230 [brennenstuhl.com] power meter. With the client suspended, the computer draws 78W, running it draws 103W. 25W times 47,000 hosts is more than a megawatt!

    Case/PSU: Asus TA-211 [cclonline.com]
    M/B: Asus K8V-X SE [cclonline.com]
    CPU: AMD Sempron 2800+ [cclonline.com]

    • 25W per machine is presumably better than you could achieve using a dedicated server farm though? And you also save the energy costs of building the machines and shipping them from China.

  • This climate prediction group has been going around 2 years. All that has happened is they have managed to talk the BBC into some free advertising. I tried running the software but I found that it caused localized warming especially around my CPU.

    • I tried running the software but I found that it caused localized warming especially around my CPU.

      At least you got the software to actually work. For some reason that no one seems to care about on the forums, my machine can't talk to their servers. I am running FC4 at work on a machine I am required to keep up, and would love to run this stuff (any BOINC project) since it will be running when I am not around, but can't. At home, no problem, but at home, the machine is off. Right next to the FC4 machine

      • I certainly understand where you are coming from there. I felt their Linux support was very poor considering the number of clients they would be likely to get. I realize that the total number of Linux installs is tiny compared to Windows but they are run by people that historically are interested in this sort of thing. At a minimum I think they should have given it a primative GUI and made packages for all common distros (no .deb as usual).

        • Re:Old news (Score:2, Interesting)

          by jazir1979 ( 637570 )
          I just downloaded and installed it on FC4, via their shell script, and it has a GUI that works just fine.
          • I just downloaded and installed it on FC4, via their shell script, and it has a GUI that works just fine.

            That's what happened to me at home as well (over dialup), but here at the office, no joy. I posted to the forum, had something like 50 views in a couple days, still have zero replies (after over 120 views and 55 days). They have no support, which I guess is understandable, but at the same time, it seems a shame to know there are probably a lot of resources not being used.
  • At least I guess its a new version of this, ran the cpdn client for a few months ages ago (must be well over a year ago actually). I eventually stopped because I have a variable speed fan, and the cpdn client kept my cpu working hard enough to spin the fan up to 5000 rpm, which is a bit noisy. Normally that only happens during heavy gaming.
  • Why do I doubt that 10,000 garden PCs offering up idle time will compete with the current t500 leader (280.6 TFlop/s, 131,072 processors)?

    Seeing as even a moderate sized cluster is say a dedicated 256 nodes, surely this isn't going to offer anything more than loose change. 1 million PCs, chipping in 5% of their time sounds useful.
  • Hmmm, creepy.

    I just saw the story now, never heard about this thing before.
    I download the software, I install it, I run it, I select "new user", enter my google mail as mail to be used... and surprise: "that email is already in use and you entered a wrong password".
    And no, I am 100% sure I didn't do it before, and there's nothing in my e-mail about it, and the passwords I use for "low security" and/or "disposable" things is completely different from my e-mail password, etc.

    So, that tells me one of two thing
    • Have you used the address to sign up for either the old (two years old) Climateprediction.net client, or anything else that uses BOINC?

      Because that would do it.
      • Seti@home ? Folding@home ? Nothing else with distributed computing I can recall.
        But then again, my problem is I didn't *HAVE* a gmail address 1 year ago, and if *I* would have joined, I would have used my "default"/"disposable" password... which does not match.
        • Certainly Seti, and I _think_ Folding are using Boinc now, so you might have an account through them. But I may well just be wrong.

          I gave up on it ages ago, anyway - unlike Seti and Einstein, the Climate one has work units that go on for months, and if you box isn't on 24 hours a day then you may well fail to get all the work done before the deadline. I think they made a huge mistake with the setup, so I abandoned it.
    • Seems to be bugged, I get that message whatever email address I put in.
    • This is discussed in their help section on the site. I'm getting the same thing no matter what email I enter, including ones I can guarantee have not been signed up. [I also signed up for the discussion boards on the site, but the confirmation email hasn't come yet... and it's been about 1/2 hour.]

      Apparently that's just the response you get when the servers are overloaded and can't process the registration.

      Just close it and try later.
  • Sure it is, if you're going for a really high degree of granularity. Town-by-town climate change, just where along the coastline that hurricane is going to hit, or whatever. Modeling on the larger scale is probably a lot more feasible given their resources.

    But then, there are plenty of people doing larger-scale modeling. And there have been, for years. And it's not like they keep their results secret. So we can just Google them.

    (Insert gratuitous "Doesn't anybody use Google anymore?")
  • You know, I would actually consider running this if the BBC didn't have such a reputation for being nationalistic information hoarders.

    Time and again they release something cool, a new media archive for example, and trumpet it far and wide only to say in the fine print that it is only for people who live in the UK.

    How do I know that they won't take the work of my processor and only allow people in the UK to view the aggregate results? "I'm sorry, but the final assembly work was paid for by our TV tax, which
    • How do I know that they won't take the work of my processor and only allow people in the UK to view the aggregate results? "I'm sorry, but the final assembly work was paid for by our TV tax, which you don't pay, so go away."

      You can always sign up and pretend you're from Leeds - they don't actually check where the account is actually located, provided you use a .uk or .eu or .com site that has service in the UK.
    • Don't worry - information wants to be free, remember? The results will soon leak out and be available all over the world, just like those Abu Ghraib photos and Oreo cookies...

      (Sorry 'bout that - it just occured to me last night, while watching TV, that it's the little things that piss people off about American social imperialism. Oreo cookies displacing local styles and brands of biscuit, fugly American-styled cars from Japan and Korea displacing attractive cars from Japan and Korea, etc...)

  • There are a number of things TFA doesn't tell you, or misleads you about.

    1) The Climate Prediction experiment has been going on for several years now, first as a standalone application (like Seti@home), and now as both as a BOINC [berkeley.edu] (Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing) application.

    2) There are multiple BOINC [distributed computing] projects with greater than 10,000 users (see here [boincstats.com], and here [boincsynergy.com].) - thus even if the BBC meets it's goal of 10k users, it will still be far from the largest.

  • Why is it... (Score:3)

    by thrill12 ( 711899 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @01:48PM (#14734569) Journal
    ..that people applaud something like Mersenne's Prime or SETI when spare CPU cycles are concerned,
    but when an action to the benefit of everyone - namely checking up on the environment - is undertaken using the same technology that those same people start commenting on artificial climate change:
    "what about the power usage", "this will cause more rapid climate change" etc etc.
     
    Is it either that

    a. those people believe the climate WILL change through use of more computers ...

          1. but do not want to know about it

          2. and feel that any action towards proving it further is useless

    b. are in the climate-does-not-change-artificially group and will take any reason - even those undermining their own stance - to support it because....

          1. they do not want to know whether they are wrong

          2. feel that there is enough proof already that the environment is not changing

    Could anyone explain the logic behind the reasons A1-B2 ?
    • ..that people applaud something like Mersenne's Prime or SETI when spare CPU cycles are concerned,
      but when an action to the benefit of everyone - namely checking up on the environment - is undertaken using the same technology that those same people start commenting on artificial climate change:
      "what about the power usage", "this will cause more rapid climate change" etc etc.

      Actually, you can also sign up to share your unused computer cycles for Biological Structure prediction, here at the UW in Seattle.

      Just
      • Sorry, here's the Baker Lab [bakerlab.org] link, for the Biochemical Structure prediction effort, folding proteins with your home computer. They also have another Beta for a different project as well.
      • I do notice they are not mentioning anywhere what form the use of any discoveries will take. I have little desire to volonteer my time and cycles without compensation to an effort that ultimately just ends up as another set of restrictive medical patents.

        • While you have a good point, in that it might be used for restrictive medical patents, as a Bioinformatician I've actually used some of their genetic libraries for pattern matching as part of open scientific research funded by NIH, NIAID, and now NIA.

          So, since the BBC is just the front for a great scientific college, I'd be ok with that.

          You could always help out the Baker Labs [baker.org] here at the University of Washington, folding proteins with your spare CPU cycles. The protein folding is for various projects worl
          • It was the "Baker Labs" thing I was referring to; I went on a look-around on the website, but nowhere could I find addressed who was going to own the results, or in what form they were going to be made available. And "Public research" is of course not a guarantee that the results will actually be avaiable on a royalty-free or similar basis.
            • I agree, there is no guarantee.

              I can, however, as someone who worked on the same floor as the Baker Labs - they're in J wing, I was in K-wing, and David Baker's been at many Biochem seminars that I've been to, attest that the vast and overwhelming (something like 90+ percent) of Protein Structures developed by Folding Predictions are for other open research, usually funded by NIH, NIAID, and various equivalent groups in places like the UK, where the research is published in Science or Nature or Cell and the
              • I'm now over by Lake Union, but my girlfriend works one floor down from the Baker Labs at the UW, so I can attest it's pretty above-board.

                Don't get me wrong; I'm sure it is above board, and from all I see it's good people running the place.

                But this is rather like the issue of software licensing. You can have a great group of people doing wonderful work, and you know they will share the work right back with the community. But people do leave or get replaced, companies get bought up and so on and so forth. We
                • Don't get me wrong; I'm sure it is above board, and from all I see it's good people running the place.

                  But this is rather like the issue of software licensing. You can have a great group of people doing wonderful work, and you know they will share the work right back with the community.

                  True, but in the end we come back to the scientific dilemma of sharing code (open source) and information (public research science).

                  Anyone can file a patent, but it's a lot harder to do so if there's prior art - and when you h
                  • Anyone can file a patent, but it's a lot harder to do so if there's prior art - and when you help an open project like what the Baker Lab does, there's a much greater chance that that will create prior art, and hence not lead to restrictive patents.

                    David's a nice guy. He runs a good lab, and they do good work that a lot of other good scientists use, but I can't guarantee anything since he's not me.

                    I think we may be talking past each other a bit here. Again, I have no doubts about him or his lab; that's not
                    • I think we may be talking past each other a bit here. Again, I have no doubts about him or his lab; that's not what worries me. In fact, it looks like just the kind of place I'd want to work in. To put it this way, even if you were he - even if I were he - I would still not trust this fully. He (you|me) is not in control of what his superiors may get into their heads to do if the project turns up something that is economically hugely valuable.

                      True, but actually his lab provides Protein Folding prediction so
    • but when an action to the benefit of everyone - namely checking up on the environment - is undertaken using the same technology that those same people start commenting on artificial climate change: "what about the power usage", "this will cause more rapid climate change"

      The reason this comes up is that when the topic is climate-change-related people have climate change on their minds. Consider the mind as a disorganized collection of files with links between them whose strength is based on the number of it

    • There is no logic ... the problem is that people are simply not taught by our education system how to think or how to reason.

  • Help make the slashdot team [cpdn.org] the biggest team on the planet. Watch the team progress [cpdn.org] grow. You know you need to.
  • this Sunday at oh dark 30 (ok, 5:30 am PST, but I like to sleep in until 10 or 11 am) on this very subject.

    Global Warming - it's a really hot issue at the Beeb.

    Plus, as a bonus, it has absolutely nothing to do with certain cartoon riots, and they get to avoid talking about the whole smoking ban that's also causing ill feelings.

    That, plus the fact that Seattle is famous worldwide as Green central for US cities (hey, I know it's not true, we killed the monorail and all that, plus we drive a lot, but they actu
  • Maybe they're going to try and top 11C warming [climateaudit.org] that they managed last time.

    It should be "How I bombed the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and waited for the headlines"

  • Answers to some comments (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16, 2006 @03:57PM (#14735973)
    In a long term ClimatePrediction.net user let me answer a few questions:

    1. the extra electricity used is insignificant in global terms. In winter the extra heat generated means you don't need to keep your central heating so high. Super-computers use lots of electricity themselves so running these same simulations on one (actually would take dozens) would not be better.

    2. We are currently at just under 50,000 users, sounds a lot but there are millions of potential models to crunch - although useful science can be done with a smaller number. I would expect over 100,000 users to enrole in total. Some users are experiencing problems, they seem a very small percentage of the total judging by the posts on the help lines. Many of the problems are due to trying to run it one machines not powerful enough, climate simulations are heavy duty programs and need a beefy machine to run in a reasonable time.

    3. The exeriment is an 80 year hindcast + 80 year forecast 1920-2080, even if a model does not complete the hindcast will be useful. The second BBC program is scheduled for May which is the "end" of the project, in pratice the scientists will be able to use results reported for at least a year after than. Its the science that counts.

    4. The data is not being hoarded by the BBC, it is kept by the ClimatePrediction.net team, and is available to scientist throughout the world.

    5. in a few days the ClimatePrediction.net servers will start dishing out TCM models to their users, that will add another 45,000 odd machines.

    6. ClimatePrediction.net is in the midst of a sulphur cycle experiment, which compelements the 2x CO2 doubling and THC slowdown experients. There is at least one other experiment in beta.

    7. ClimatePrediction.net has already had one major paper in Nature, as well as many others, this is the distributed project that seems to producing the best science.

  • Suppose the Republican Party graciously donates the spare cycles of all the computers at its headquarters, and the results magically turn out to mesh with their official line that there's no such thing as global warming?

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close