P.S. I am not sure how many neurons/CPU SpiNNaker is emulating, or exactly what activation functions it emulates, but the activation functions are not normally considered to be that complex, hence being able to get more than one neuron/CPU. However, any one of those neurons could have connections to any other neuron. Normally with parallel programming you aim to pack a subdomain of the problem onto a CPU, so as to minimise communication, to make it efficient. How SpiNNaker solves the rather more general problem I don't know. Also, AFAIK, these are not the sort of cores you normally find in a supercomputer designed for computational fluid dynamics, weather prediction, chemistry, etc., given the titles of papers I see coming out from the team on ResearchGate (not that I've read them all, but I do 'follow' the research on ResearchGate).
You don't need to have a 1:1 mapping of neurons to CPU cores. A CPU core is capable of emulating multiple neurons, in fact thousands of them, as the activation rules of neurons are not individually particularly complex. Simplisticly, the complexity is in being able to efficiently map connections between neurons, the effect of neurotransmitters and other support structures on the functioning, different types of brain area, and being able to make it function efficiently as a whole. There are plenty of papers available on SpiNNaker to read.
We're talking about $19.5 million for Spinnaker, headed by Steve Furber (of ARM fame), not AI in total. I know one of the team there, and they are doing really great work.
Data science and machine learning overlap, but there are elements of data science that are concerned with plain old statistics, rather than machine learning.
I believe the GP is talking about more recent measurements, over the last 40 years, including satelites. They show a much faster warming rate in the polar regions than the equator.
The fact that the ocean is acting like a bigger thermal mass as expected, logically should not, in of itself increase average temperatures.
There are some suggestions, as noted, that a warmer ocean can transfer heat back, and may have done so. More research is required, though. I'd agree with you, though, that the first or major effect will be a reduction of the ability for the ocean to be a sink if it continues to warm.
Sometimes the preponderance of evidence is sufficiently compelling to make it prudent to take action.
Put it another way, medical diagnosis isn't 100% accurate, but if the doctor suspects an infection, you'd still hope they would prescribe antibiotics. You would be unlikely to hold out for 100% on the diagnosis.
One could ask the same about "runaway warming"........
No one seriously expects runaway warming on Earth, but some are concerned that feedbacks may lead to considerably higher temperatures than what looks to be a 2C rise. That would be a return to conditions of the time of the dinosaurs, which whilst it wouldn't destroy life on earth, would make it very difficult for humans. Hopefully we would not see such a rise (6C) and it isn't considered to be a likely scenario.
But there are almost no global warming alarmists. It's largely a strawman. Those who are concerned about global warming do look at climate change on other planets, but there is no trend in that would suggest that the main issue on Earth is anything other than anthropogenic.
Climate change was the original term from the 1950s when the area first started to attract funding, and has been the main term in the literature throughout.
They have quantified the contribution from the undersea volcanons, and it's a pretty small part of the overall energy required to account for the melting It was underestimated, but we're talking about a 2% rather than a 1% contribution, or figures similar to that. In any case, undersea eruptions have an effect in terms of stopping sea ice blocking calving of glaciers, but won't increase the rate at which the glaciers melt otherwise, as they are inland as it's a land mass.
Probably true, in the sense of heat transfer, if ocean currents remain much as now, but that's not a given. Issues of a warmer ocean and a CO2 sink are troubling, though.
This basically tells you all you need to know about climate "science". The "scientific consensus" did not notice until now that one of the main things influencing climate, the oceans, absorbs _60%_ more energy. So in essence all the previous climate models will need to be thrown out because they can't possibly be anywhere near correct at predicting the future. The world's politicians, however, are already ready and willing to commit trillions of dollars of somebody else's money on the predictions made by the old models.
The models indicated that there was hidden heat energy somewhere, which is why they went looking for it. If anything it vindicates the overall nature of the models in terms of the atmospheric element, but that there needs to be more work, perhaps, in GCMs for the ocean-atmosphere bounday, but that was already recognised.
The only thing known is that the ocean is acting to absorb a lot more heat than they thought before, so presumably it will for some time to come as well.
The models had indicated that there had to be some missing heat, and since it wasn't in the atmosphere it was suspected it was in the oceans. The issue was that without sufficient monitoring of the deep ocean (which is expensive) it couldn't be confirmed.
The concerns that scientists have are two fold, though. First, that a warmer ocean is a less good sink for CO2, so CO2 in the atmosphere may rise more quickly that anticipated, causing faster warming. The second is that it is not known what will happen if ocean currents change and there is an exchange of the heat back from the ocean. The historical record suggests this does indeed happen (MWP being one such possible period, although the MWP was cooler than today), and palentological also. ENSO is also a potential method of temperature exchange.
Your countdown was not needed since the people denying science were right there in the article.
They are claiming we should be worried despite admitting we had no idea the ocean could absorb heat a lot faster than we thought which seems like it helps mitigate the danger greatly, all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans.
How is that denying science? Taking on board new evidence is how science is done.
Slashdot Mirror
The Grand Tour, maybe?
P.S. I am not sure how many neurons/CPU SpiNNaker is emulating, or exactly what activation functions it emulates, but the activation functions are not normally considered to be that complex, hence being able to get more than one neuron/CPU. However, any one of those neurons could have connections to any other neuron. Normally with parallel programming you aim to pack a subdomain of the problem onto a CPU, so as to minimise communication, to make it efficient. How SpiNNaker solves the rather more general problem I don't know. Also, AFAIK, these are not the sort of cores you normally find in a supercomputer designed for computational fluid dynamics, weather prediction, chemistry, etc., given the titles of papers I see coming out from the team on ResearchGate (not that I've read them all, but I do 'follow' the research on ResearchGate).
You don't need to have a 1:1 mapping of neurons to CPU cores. A CPU core is capable of emulating multiple neurons, in fact thousands of them, as the activation rules of neurons are not individually particularly complex. Simplisticly, the complexity is in being able to efficiently map connections between neurons, the effect of neurotransmitters and other support structures on the functioning, different types of brain area, and being able to make it function efficiently as a whole. There are plenty of papers available on SpiNNaker to read.
We're talking about $19.5 million for Spinnaker, headed by Steve Furber (of ARM fame), not AI in total. I know one of the team there, and they are doing really great work.
I am trying to get back into the area after a gap, and it is proving to be tough, even with 20 years of prior experience.
Data science and machine learning overlap, but there are elements of data science that are concerned with plain old statistics, rather than machine learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
the far lefts fight against nukes.
Both of the people in the far left in the USA? I doubt it has much effect.
Actually, he wasn't far off (the correct figure is 37.1%). https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...
I believe the GP is talking about more recent measurements, over the last 40 years, including satelites. They show a much faster warming rate in the polar regions than the equator.
BEST took the urban stations out in its studies. The warming trend is stronger without them.
And is now warmer than the medieval warm period.
No, he's arguing for velocity of money, which isn't a fallacy.
The fact that the ocean is acting like a bigger thermal mass as expected, logically should not, in of itself increase average temperatures.
There are some suggestions, as noted, that a warmer ocean can transfer heat back, and may have done so. More research is required, though. I'd agree with you, though, that the first or major effect will be a reduction of the ability for the ocean to be a sink if it continues to warm.
Sometimes the preponderance of evidence is sufficiently compelling to make it prudent to take action.
Put it another way, medical diagnosis isn't 100% accurate, but if the doctor suspects an infection, you'd still hope they would prescribe antibiotics. You would be unlikely to hold out for 100% on the diagnosis.
One could ask the same about "runaway warming"........
No one seriously expects runaway warming on Earth, but some are concerned that feedbacks may lead to considerably higher temperatures than what looks to be a 2C rise. That would be a return to conditions of the time of the dinosaurs, which whilst it wouldn't destroy life on earth, would make it very difficult for humans. Hopefully we would not see such a rise (6C) and it isn't considered to be a likely scenario.
But there are almost no global warming alarmists. It's largely a strawman. Those who are concerned about global warming do look at climate change on other planets, but there is no trend in that would suggest that the main issue on Earth is anything other than anthropogenic.
Climate change was the original term from the 1950s when the area first started to attract funding, and has been the main term in the literature throughout.
They have quantified the contribution from the undersea volcanons, and it's a pretty small part of the overall energy required to account for the melting It was underestimated, but we're talking about a 2% rather than a 1% contribution, or figures similar to that. In any case, undersea eruptions have an effect in terms of stopping sea ice blocking calving of glaciers, but won't increase the rate at which the glaciers melt otherwise, as they are inland as it's a land mass.
Probably true, in the sense of heat transfer, if ocean currents remain much as now, but that's not a given. Issues of a warmer ocean and a CO2 sink are troubling, though.
This basically tells you all you need to know about climate "science". The "scientific consensus" did not notice until now that one of the main things influencing climate, the oceans, absorbs _60%_ more energy. So in essence all the previous climate models will need to be thrown out because they can't possibly be anywhere near correct at predicting the future. The world's politicians, however, are already ready and willing to commit trillions of dollars of somebody else's money on the predictions made by the old models.
The models indicated that there was hidden heat energy somewhere, which is why they went looking for it. If anything it vindicates the overall nature of the models in terms of the atmospheric element, but that there needs to be more work, perhaps, in GCMs for the ocean-atmosphere bounday, but that was already recognised.
and could eventually boil the oceans when our shields fail completely.
That didn't happen during previous magnetic pole reversals, of which there have been many. Why might it happen this time?
The only thing known is that the ocean is acting to absorb a lot more heat than they thought before, so presumably it will for some time to come as well.
The models had indicated that there had to be some missing heat, and since it wasn't in the atmosphere it was suspected it was in the oceans. The issue was that without sufficient monitoring of the deep ocean (which is expensive) it couldn't be confirmed.
The concerns that scientists have are two fold, though. First, that a warmer ocean is a less good sink for CO2, so CO2 in the atmosphere may rise more quickly that anticipated, causing faster warming. The second is that it is not known what will happen if ocean currents change and there is an exchange of the heat back from the ocean. The historical record suggests this does indeed happen (MWP being one such possible period, although the MWP was cooler than today), and palentological also. ENSO is also a potential method of temperature exchange.
Your countdown was not needed since the people denying science were right there in the article.
They are claiming we should be worried despite admitting we had no idea the ocean could absorb heat a lot faster than we thought which seems like it helps mitigate the danger greatly, all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans.
How is that denying science? Taking on board new evidence is how science is done.
There was the Olympic and Britannic, and one of them ended being sunk in WW1 by a torpedo. So the one with the long career was the other one.