Slashdot Mirror
NASA Releases Free Global Climate Model Software
ink_polaroid writes "NASA has released its Educational Global Climate Model (EdGCM) for high school and university desktop computers. The software incorporates a 3-D climate model developed at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York. It wraps complex computer modeling programs with a graphical interface familiar to most PC users."
It would be pretty cool to simulate enviromental doomsday scenarios such as the one seen in the movie The Day after Tomorrow.
And it does what exactly?
Is there a mac version?
That's great. One of my favorite software packages in the world is Nasa's World Wind, but when I tried to show it to my parents (both high school science teachers), the reaction was the same: we don't have time or computers to use this.
The state of public education (at least in California) is so poor that this is going to be great for college-level students, but much of the target audience will be left out due to budgets and a testing-centric curriculum.
2advanced.net - Business Quality Hosting
Is it fsp or rts? Is it multi-player and/or single player? And is there a God mode?
I mean we all have a few unused exaflops of processing power lying around for this kind of thing. And now, with a PC interface!
Post a 65 mb file to slashdot without a .torrent?!?!
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
"News for Nerds". Okay, I know there is considerable overlap between 'green tech' and /. subjects (and people interested in them), but 1 or 2 of these stories a day is enough, don't you think? Nerd != environmentalist (would be nice, though).
More interesting would be simulating the terraforming of mars. Could we raise the temperature sufficiently by introducing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? How about if we used a massive orbital mirror? Or maybe we could grind one of the moons into dust and make an artificial ring to increase ambient light. Inquiring minds want to know.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
Here is the story which just hit the wire:
In further news today: 1000's of computer's around the World today began running climate modeling software.
The Combined heat output from all this extra computer processing is expected to bring most model predictions forward by several years due to the extra heat expended.
--
SETI - The project were you can look for life on another planet whilst help kill off the current one quicker. I mean would an `intelligent` form of life be chucking out loads of extra signals wasting resources; Search for dead planets maybe, but intelligent life, HA.
I wish it had the source.
It would be pretty cool to simulate enviromental doomsday scenarios...
I thought they already said that in the story outline - yes, here it is:
It wraps complex computer modeling programs with a graphical interface familiar to most PC users
Obviously here they are talking about the Blue Globe of Death.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
LOL, maybe but we dont care about the stats anymore :D
We ARE ALL DoooooooMED!!!
Would be nice if they had a Linux port. Or if the source code is made freely available, someone would have written a clone [or hopefully nicer ;-)] UI!
Phew! I read "climax control software" first.
Use the same inaccurate software global warming hoaxers use to make their claims! Ignore the fact that the software isn't even able to predict cloud cover!
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
You can't prove anything! You can only disprove them. Read the books, then read the extensive biblography with so many references. Start lining up your facts and realize the load of crap we are fed on a daily basis.
By the way, "Global Warming made me do it."
Is a screensaver that shows the effects of global warming (rising sea levels, climate change, etc).
See Jimmy? This is where New York used to be...
The good news is that south Arkansas will have some very nice oceanfront property.
I dream in binary.
You might also want to check out the following (Distributed Computing) project:
ClimatePrediction.net
more like a "critical upgrade alert" from the real kings of kode. consult with/trust in yOUR creators, "predicting" the "weather" since/until forever. see you there?
The whole nature of chaotic systems is that iterative models cannot be used to predict future events. You can create models that demonstrates a theory, but the model is of little use in predicting what will actually happen.
Some things never change - death, taxes, and the fact that the climate is always changing.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
Hey, there is more OS X stuff there than Win32! No linux version, but hey, it still feels fucking cool.
Although everyone needs to stop copying the brushed metal and aqua buttons. If you are going to do it, don't make it look like shit.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
http://www.edgcm.org slashdotted?
It is on NetBSD/OpenBSD according to netcraft.
Must be a small budget project. Low end server hardware?
It depends on the area, but in Texas, high school football often runs a surplus, especially at the schools that have the star athletes you speak of.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You mean, adapting people to make them more like those found on earth?
Who's side are you on, anyway?
Why do I get the feeling that this research may have been funded by an oil company?
Scientist: "Global Warming is real, and we must study it more"
Liberal: "The world will end next week! Stop using oil"
Conserv^H^H^H^H^H Republican: "Global warming is a myth created to hinder my business"
Nerd: "I wonder if there is any software that can be used for climate modeling"
Not sure if it's the same thing, but Lawrence Livermore National Labs have done a Python-based set of tools for climate analysis called CDAT (http://cdat.sourceforge.net/) which is open source as well.
Has anybody gotten this working in Wine or WineX? Whenever I try to run it wine just immediately executes, reporting that the program exited with a successful status.
"We recommend that you NOT leave the GCM running on a Windows laptop unattended. We have found that some Pentium laptops have difficulty dissipating heat and may shutdown (hibernate) without warning causing the climate model to crash. This does not appear to harm the laptop, but can corrupt GCM output files."
You heard it here first, laptop heat can cause infertility and crash the planet!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Seriously, they should open source all this :) :(
Also, they should make the stuff at http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/ Open Source too (like binaudit, deszip, lsu, mftp, noshell etc)
For some wierd reason you gotta jump through hoops to download anything good from NASA
Ouch. Pretty harsh condemnation, from someone who invents polysyllabic words in an attempt to sound intelligent.
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
If you're having trouble downloading it, you can get it here.
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
Well, now that we all have a climate simulation software on our computers we can all backup our claims what will happen to earth with good simulation data.
Dr Cox probably has something to do with this software. This article in Nature seems to fit the overal description of the model the software uses. Some people have used this model to suggest that trees should be cleared so as to stop them becoming a source of CO2 others have used it to suggest he is a stooge. I don't know much about Dr. Cox but it seems he is attacked by the fringe from both sides of Climate politics, normally a sign that someone is at least honest. Your quote directly relates to the "tree" debate and will drive both sides into a frenzy.
"The climate will warm more in the future but the ability of the land to store carbon dioxide will be compromised," he said, adding that warmer soil was less able to hold the greenhouse gas.
Now I'm no climatologist but it gets hot here in Australia. When the Roo's, Sheep, Cows, Dogs, and other big animals want to escape the afternoon heat, guess where they go. They even scratch at the dust every now and then to reveal cooler earth underneath. Experienced farmers (rancher's if you like) leave at least one big tree accessable to thier stock.
I recognise some of Dr Cox's research and I think his "complexity" approach to the Climate is very interesting. The "dimming" effect seems to me well documented but poorly explained by anything else other than soot from coal & oil. Just like I doubt he is advocating mowing down trees, I also doubt he is advocating pumping soot into the air to keep cool by "almost canceling out the greenhouse effect".
I think his message is that humans can influence the climate but at the moment that is sort of accidental, hard to quantify and potentialy very dangerous for Humanity. So we should aim to learn about the factors and how they interelate before we try "hacking" the Climate, say by suddenly eliminating soot without considering CO2 & methane concentrations, "cloud seeding", and all manner of biofeedback.
I think we are learning (possibly the hard way) that we do have a significant and often detrimental impact on the biosphere and if we continue to ignore it Humanity will end up like a neglected Goldfish.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Look at this quote : "Scientists differ as to whether global warming is caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, by natural climate cycles or if it exists at all. "
This look suspiciously like one of those article which gives same air time to proponent of different theory even if the extrem majority of the community support one theory ("there is global warming") and only a few scientist, many having prooven link to the bush administration/petroleum industry support the other ("there is no global warming")
alone this "even if it exists at all" be given same weight as the rest make the rest of the article suspect.
Furthermiore as other poster remarked, the rest is not about "fossile fuel burning helps global warming" but rather "fossile fuel generate OTHER polluant which alleviate the CO2 problem". Frankly do you know what does sulfur does to the vegetation ? Do you know what Acid rain is ? Well next time you are in some aprt of Europe have a good look at what it did to the trees.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think it's based on dynamic equilibrium, note that the "environment which is not in equilibrium" is the Sun. The broader chaos theory. states that even chaotic systems are deterministic, so in principle are predictive. Without some sort of "model" you would be unable to get out of bed, as for the validity of any model refer to the genius of Godel.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The way I read it is that it is a powerfull model wrapped in a simplified GUI so that users can get a "taste" on a home PC. Not a UI you would use on one of them new fangled cluster things. Rip of the face and add $$$X in hardware and $$$Y in configuration. Think of it like a free "Doom engine" (pun intended) for researchers who have access to hardware but not the $$$ to develop serious tools.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
...and you would realise that Crichton is dragged up and shot down in nearly every one of them. Someone please mod the parent to hell.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
100,000 armchair climatologists fiddling with their own simulations, proving their theories to themselves.
At last my plans to dominate the world are complete. With this software I will be able to
place my chaos butterflies with precision and inflict devastating storms on my enemies!!!!!
Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
DAMN. That was funny. One of those rare instances where + 5 just isn't enough.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Reinformation - information we already know but weren't told about it for a few days.
This climate program is just going to come up with the same outcome that every semi-aware human has come up with. The world is fucked, we are partially to blame.
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/ warming_earth/skeptics.htm
s cience.php
"Laypeople frequently assume that in a political dispute the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, and they are often right. In a scientific dispute, though, such an assumption is usually wrong." - Paul Ehrlich
"It is human nature to protect your own interests. We may recall the extensive and incredibly successful campaign of the American tobacco companies to conceal the link between cancer and the use of tobacco products. For decades, they knew the reality of the addictive nature of nicotine and the carcinogenic effects of tobacco use. For decades, they successfully kept that reality hidden from the American public.
The oil, coal, gas, and mining industries stand to lose tremendously if the truth about global warming becomes accepted by American society. As the tobacco industry invested millions in keeping its deadly secret, so also have the oil, coal, gas, and mining industries attempted to hide and discredit the link between CO2 emissions and a warming earth. They have funded, promoted, and used as witnesses a handful of greenhouse skeptics, who have widely and loudly proclaimed that global warming is a myth."
Here is a mainline anti-global warming site. How long does it take to ferret out the who is doing it and if they have an agenda. Is this the future of dis/information???
http://www.globalwarming.org/
How can we combat disinformation campaigns in science with a puplic increasingly ignorant of scientific process (scientific method, peer review)?
To back up the parent poster, consider the following:
We are unable to predict the electron density at a specific point in a a metal wire, at a given time.
Yet, we _are_ able to predict the total behaviour of electricty in a wire. Given that electricity is motion of electrons, how does this arise?
Well, this is a common situation, where models of behaviour at different scales are related only through a very small number of parameters.
For example, we can predict the magnetic behaviour of a system from just two parameters (for an binary antiferromagnet), yet to calculate the behaviour of the electrons (which cause said magnetism) takes of the order of 100 or so (and about 15 orders of magnitude longer).
So for practical calculations on magnatic things, you don't need to do the quantum mechanical calculations, just the much simpler ones.
Sure, technically these are inaccurate. In my experience, we're off by 0.001%, and by about 3-5% in the second derivative. That's so accurate, that there are very many additional cases where the calculations show two possible results, and the experiments arn't accurate enough to tell these apart. Or, in plain terms, good enough.
I use magnetism and electricity as examples here, because if these agrregate models didn't work, then the computer that you are using to read these works also wouldn't work. That's a pretty solid argument for the usefulness of these types of models.
Brining this back to weather and climate, the weather researchers call 'weather' individual and specific data points, like cloud cover, rainfall on a day, and so on. 'Climate' is things like total rainfall per year, average temperature in a month - much broader, less specific information.
The SW is attractive partly for 4D visualizations of climate data in the NASA rendering model on desktops outside the Agency. It also includes a feature to generate a report from the data, within the model, and export it back to the NASA server, presumably retrievable by other people on the "extranet". But it's unclear how "trustworthy" the distributed models can be. Not that the NASA model is inaccurate (though it might be, perhaps as proven by such distributed experiments). But is there a way to crack the model, and send back reports of rigged experiments? If NASA turns this project into "Greenhouse@Home", the aggregated results could be used in research as serious as the distributed protein folding data consumed by pharmacos in a similar project.
If I were running a coal company, or other Greenhouse denier, I'd surely be jumping at the chance to throw some money at programmers to crack the clients. I'd throw thousands of crooked PCs at generating cooked data designed to demonstrate the safety of pumping billions of tons of C02 into the air. If I were as crooked as these companies already are, I'd infiltrate unsuspecting teams with crooked members and software, tainting all the data. If NASA doesn't have some kind of security check on the data they aggregate, this scenario is practically certain, as I'm not even crooked enough to be in the CO2 biz at all, let alone directing their PR.
At the very least, NASA should require code signatures to accompany any data submissions, and tightly analyze any submitted code for such bias. Scientists are used to trusting, but verifying, data - peer review and grant competition. But this system might turn out to be so informal, so cheap, and so nonthreatening to the funding process (to the contrary: it's great promotion) that it slips through the usual vetting system. So it will be less trustworthy, but more trusted, than the normal science that protects us, that it sells out. Caveat Computor!
--
make install -not war
Be careful of the quality of software. In the 80s there was a lot of hype about climate modeling based on a simple planetary weather program. The software represented the atmosphere as a single vertical profile of physical conditions. When modelers plugged in the post-nuclear dust clouds it prodicted huge temperature drops. However, more sophisticated "3D" models thta inorporated oceans and continents and wind currents found much smaller effects. These defects didnt really slow down biased scientists who kept on promoting their political agendas nonetheless.
>Use the same inaccurate software global warming hoaxers use to make their claims! Ignore the fact that the software isn't even able to predict cloud cover!
The only hoax being perpetrated is by those few delusional Limbots and fringe right-wingers who have yet to look at the actual data. The Arctic ice cap is thinning, the Antarctic ice cap is breaking up and melting where it is over water, sea temperatures are rising, and if you want to see glaciers in the US's Glacier National Park, you'd better go soon.Whether the observed golbal warming is a function of human activity, strictly natural processes, or a mixture of both is still an open question. That it is occurring is an observed fact. Claims to the contrary have all of the intellectual rigor of Holocaust Denial, Creationism, and Geocentrism. Sheesh!
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Doomsday is already here
Thanks in advance,
Kilgore Trout
I assume this will accurately model the impact of CGI wolves on the world's population?
If this is of interest to you, you might want to check out www.climateprediction.net, the BOINC based screen saver project that's like SETI, runs on your system in it's spare time.
When a simulation run finally runs out of gas / data / whatever, does it return a 42?
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
Linux is not a desktop OS, and has 1/1000th the marketshare of OS X. NASA would be stupid to waste their time on a Linux port.
Can I set up a climate that makes Greenland hospitable, run it forward 700 years, and find that the Hudson River freezes hard enough to haul cannons across?
If, given historical conditions, it can't predict the more recent past, then it's nothing but a propaganda tool. It's pretty simple to set up a model that doesn't work (ie its predictions don't match known conditions and outcomes) but either confirms or denies global warming. It's so simple I'll prove it:
f(x)=68 (Look! this model predicts that the average global temperature is about 68 degrees and is not increasing!)
f(x)=68+.02x (Look! This model predicts an average rise in global temperature of about 2 degrees per century!)
Firstly the masking effect of pollution on the suns rays is not new. It was a big concern in the 1970s when some in the press believed science was predicting a new ice age.
The important part is this sentence:
" Take away fossil fuel by-products like sulfur dioxide without tackling greenhouse gas emissions"
But if the source of both is fossil fuels then taking away one will tend to reduce the other.
To get students more interested in using this, imagine giving it a "Sim" or "Civ" feeling. You'd get students staying up until 3 AM playing with it who would learn far more than a more traditional technical simulation.
Ignoring the possibility that you may be confusing weather and climate, you may want to check out the NCAR CAM3 Community Atmosphere Model, which provides input to IPCC. To say that GCMs ignore cloud effects (which are significantly variable -- for example, increasing tropospheric cloud heights results in a positive feedback for warming scenarios) is the result of ignorance or a political agenda -- or too much Michael Crichton, which is the same thing.
Comparing "temperature data" from earlier in the century to modern temperature data is far more complex than you let on, because how it is measured has changed so much.
I'd also love to know what Arctic temperature data you're referring to. The recently published Arctic Climate Impact Assessment doesn't agree with you. A choice quote:
"Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades. Widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures present additional evidence of strong arctic warming."
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/
Also, there seem to be very few glaciers in the world that are currently growing (increasing in mass). However there are some that are advancing (extending the position of their terminus). Increase is directly affected by annual average temperature. Advance is indirectly affected if at all. A glacier can advance at the same time it is decreasing in mass.
NASA also has free Satellite Image software too. Including some awesome 1 meter resolution scans of the United States.
Here: http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/
If you want to see a dramatic display of just how much we've changed our environment over the last 200 years, just look at this chart.
The beginning and end points of the "trends" are completely arbitrary, clearly chosen to suit whatever conclusion is being drawn. And it certainly doesn't answer the question--how reliable is the data?
Posting a link from JunkScience.com isn't winning points either...a Cato Inst. lawyer debunking a team of Ph.D. climatologists...just one more brick in the house of anti-intellectual socialism parts of this country seem to be building.
"You're not any more important than I am! My opinions on any given subject are just as valid as yours! Regardless of training or expertise!"
The data sourrce is listed on the top of the graph, or did ou not notice it?
Arbitrary start and stop points are the hallmark of the global warming movement.
Or did you not try it?
We know what the climate for the Earth was over the last few hundred years.
Can you model it with this program, using only historical data? That is, can you successfully model the climate on, say, 23 October 1859, using only data from before that date?
Can you model TODAY'S climate, using only data collected up to yesterday?
If you can't do this, what might this suggest about the program's actual ability to predict climate in the future?
For extra credit: Can you run the model backwards? Knowing today's climate, can you tell what yesterday's climate must have been?
(Note for the Judges: No climate-modelling package has EVER successfully done either of these things. So far, no one has produced a climate model that can be run forward with known data to arrive at a known condition, and no one has ever managed to run one backwards.)
Eternal vigilance is necessary.
LONDON (Reuters) - Tobacco companies tried to cast doubt on the link between smoking and cancer by funding projects that challenged the findings of a landmark study, scientists said on Friday.
The study concerned the link between tobacco and cancer-causing changes in a gene called p53. In 1996, researchers showed that a chemical in cigarette smoke caused mutations in the gene that were the same as those found in lung cancer tumors.
Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco said the tobacco industry tried to counter the findings for a long time after the study was published,
"The tobacco companies claim they are now working with the public health community 'to support a single, consistent public health message on the role played by cigarette smoking in the development of the disease in smokers,"' said Dr Stanton Glantz.
"But their multifaceted response to p53 research as recently as 2001 suggests that they have not changed their practice."
The Tobacco Manufacturers Association said it was not able to comment on the report.
Damage to p53 leads to uncontrolled cell division. Mutations in the gene are found in more than half of all cancers and 60 percent of lung cancers.
In a report published online by The Lancet medical journal, Glantz and his colleagues examined 43 previously confidential tobacco industry documents about p53 and tobacco smoke.
They said they found evidence that the tobacco industry planned and carried out research programs after the 1996 study to counter the scientific link between smoking and cancer.
"We have identified two instances where research arguing against the connection between tobacco smoke and patterned p53 mutations was undertaken and published by individuals with links to the tobacco companies," Glantz said in the report.
Cancer Research UK, a leading charity, said the study demonstrates that the scientific community must be continually vigilant against the tobacco industry's attempts to influence and distort scientific research.
"Research into p53 is crucial to our understanding how cancer develops and could help us find ways to prevent and treat the disease," Jean King, the charity's director of Tobacco Control, said in a statement.
"Cancer Research UK strongly encourages universities to shun funding from the tobacco industry," she added.
Okay, so, what's your point. I gave you a reference to cigarettes as being commonly referred to as "Cancer sticks" in the nineteenth century. You site a study used by a tobacco company to try to not pay a multi-billion dollar settlement that the states have since squandered on things like executive parking lots and new traffic lights.
Don't try to hold up a legal pleading attempting to create a plausible doubt against 150 years of common knowledge.
My uncle died of lung cancer when I was 10. I watched him whither and die while still smoking cigarettes up until the day before he died. Guess what, I know cigarettes are bad for you. So does everyone else. That's my point. No one grabs a pack of smokes and says, "Boy, I'll feel healthier after one of these!"
But, the real crime is that the cigarette companies are making 20-25 cents a pack on them, while we, the American People, are taking about $1.40 a pack in blood money [read taxes] from each and every pack. You and people like you scream about the dangers of tobacco. Well fine, BAN IT! So long as you still take money from the sale and production of tobacco, I will continue to say, "screw you," to every anti-cigarette zealot that comes along.
FYI. I do not smoke. That would be stupid. Apparently, such personal responsibility is beyond you.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
A good model of a chaotic system is pathalogically sensitive to its starting state and some of its parameters. Each iteration is based on the results of the previous one. The iterations must be fine enough and the model complex enough to address all the important movements of heat in air and water in the world. After a dozen or a hundred iterations, you start seeing the extreme sensitivity to the initial conditions.
If you model weather, you can only get useful results for a couple of days out. Everything after that is basically an extrapolation of what is know to be occuring at the time.
Another reason climate change is hard to predict is that there are a number of buffering effects that interact with each other... you know... the warmer it is, the more water evaporate, making more clouds that reflect more sunlight and cause cooling. Or, the more CO2 in the air, the more plants, including ocean algae, and the faster plants grow, which uses up more CO2.
I believe the climate is changing. I believe that it has always been changing. Getting a bit warmer is a lot better than getting a bit cooler.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
Please provide the evidence of that peer reviewed scientific concensus in 1970 was that we had global cooling and we should dump soot on the ice caps as this is news to me. Please notice the word concensus. I would be most interested in seeing this.
Since the real controversy around global warming is injected at the political and corporate level, peer review serves as our best defence. Peer reviewed science remains as one of the most corruption free sources of information.
This is the best source of information we have on climate. The rational thing to do is act on the best information available.
Now if we had peer review in the intelligence community, perhaps there would have been no need for invasions of foreign lands on truly faulty information. Unfortunately there is no peer oversite and political pressures weigh heavily.