So, climateprediction.net runs a distributed computing climate model (similar to SETI@Home). Basically, they send out climate model runs to users and then the models run on your computer's spare processing power (e.g., during screen saver use). NCSU has a team that currently consists of only 6 people, but the best University teams have around 10 times that. I figured with such a huge student body and alumni network we could definitely find 100 members.

If you want to join, first you need to download BOINC (http://boinc.berkeley.edu/). Then when it asks to pick a project pick climateprediction (we also have a SETI team, though). Climateprediction will then have you register and pick a team. Just search for NCSU as a keyword and we should show up. Then you are all set.

Thanks a lot. Let me know if you have any questions.

8/23/2009 10:08:22 AM

good luck getting users (seriously)...you will, however, be competing with the folding@home membership: message_topic.aspx?topic=118820

[Edited on August 23, 2009 at 10:33 AM. Reason : .]

8/23/2009 10:33:18 AM

Yeah, there also is a SETI@Home team, that has four of the same 6 members as the climateprediction team. You can join multiple projects, and split computing resources between them, though.

I think we should be able to generate some interest. We have 250 current students in the Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences Department that potentially are directly interested in this research. We also have over 1000 students in the Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering Department who are potentially interested in cost effective mitigation of climate change, which requires accurate large-scale climate models. Not to mention tens of thousands of other students and alumni who may be interested in climate change. I don't know if we will get 100, but we can definitely do better than 6.

8/23/2009 10:42:42 AM

the climate isn't changing. that is liberal propaganda being shoved down your throat.

8/23/2009 10:46:15 AM

Do you need to be in a particular time zone for your computer to be worthwhile to them?

8/23/2009 10:57:24 AM

Smath, I don't know if you are being serious or not, but the climate is definitely changing. The ten warmest years on record all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008 (.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/) and that report was from NASA under the Bush administration. We also know that CO2 traps solar radiation in close to the Earth. That is basic science from laboratory experiments. We also know that humans activities have been emitting a good deal of CO2 for last couple of centuries. CO2 concentrations have risen by about 80 ppm (25%) since 1960, and by about 110 ppm (40%) since the dawn of the industrial revolution. I don't really understand where there is room for conspiracy. Sure, there are uncertainties, but that's what this modeling effort is trying to better understand. This is evidenced-based science, not politics or propaganda.

8/23/2009 10:57:34 AM

wolfpackgrrr, no it's actually a global effort based out of Oxford (I think). The model runs they send you all have a "report deadline", but all of mine have been in the summer of 2010, so it's not really an issue.

8/23/2009 10:59:24 AM

^^there isn't even agreement among scientists. I've heard global cooling, then global warming, and now some people are starting to talk about global cooling again. It's all a bunch of bunk that people are latching on to just to fund their labs and pockets. There is not a large enough data set to really tell one way or another... any graph of the past climate that you can produce shows spikes, valleys, etc that span hundreds or thousands of years. Do you really think that latching onto that famous CO2 graph that was started in what, the late 50's, early 60's, is statistically significant? Do you not realize that geologic time spans billions of years?

8/23/2009 11:10:43 AM

I joined. It's similar to one of my projects in high school, where I was collecting and compiling hundreds of pages of data to examine climate change. Makes me miss meteorology!!

And hey, if climate *isn't* changing, then this model can help show how it isn't. Smath you should join to prove your point.


[Edited on August 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM. Reason : ^]

8/23/2009 11:12:11 AM

Quote :

"I've heard global cooling, then global warming, and now some people are starting to talk about global cooling again."

most respectable advocates use "global climate destabilization" because it properly covers changes as a result of anthropomorphic activities...some places are cooling, some are warming and the overall trend is an undocumented (both in recorded time and geographic history) change in weather patterns

i think it's silly and ignorant to assume that human beings have no affect on global climate, but it certainly makes some people feel better about themselves

oh, look, a SB thread!

8/23/2009 11:21:11 AM

We can't predict what the whether is going to do accurately more than 3 days in the future, what makes us think we can figure out what the climate is going to do 100 yrs from now.

8/23/2009 11:22:47 AM

Quote :

"We can't predict what the whether is going to do accurately more than 3 days in the future, what makes us think we can figure out what the climate is going to do 100 yrs from now."

also ignorance...we can (and do) predict weather PATTERNS and TRENDS more than 3 days in the future...you are only partly correct in that we can't predict specific and detailed occurrences more than 3 days in advance

besides, that's the whole point of research...at some point, we weren't able to do even 1 day, let alone 3

8/23/2009 11:25:07 AM

http://www.gotwavs.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=WAVS&type=Movies&movie=Good_Morning_Vietnam"e=roosevelt.txt&file=roosevelt.wav

8/23/2009 11:54:28 AM

quagmire bringing some reasonable perspective itt

8/23/2009 12:29:54 PM

Quote :

"i think it's silly and ignorant to assume that human beings have no affect on global climate, but it certainly makes some people feel better about themselves "

I think it's pompous and arraogant to assume that human beings have any significant effect on global climate, but it certainly makes some people feel better about themselves.

8/23/2009 12:40:27 PM

Quote :

"We can't predict what the whether is going to do accurately more than 3 days in the future, what makes us think we can figure out what the climate is going to do 100 yrs from now."

Hoffmaster, we can't predict what a roulette wheel is going to do on a single spin either, but we can predict what the results of 10,000 spins should look like. That's the relationship between weather and climate. Weather is more difficult to predict because it is based on more random fluctuations that are difficult to predict even with perfect information. Climate is based on the aggregate average of that weather over the entire globe over a long period of time. It is actually makes it easier to predict.

On the global cooling idea, there never was a scientific consensus on global cooling. There was some debate about it in the 70's with a single newsweek cover article, but most scientists still predicted global warming. Also, we've done a great deal to clean up SO2 and PM emissions which is what the global cooling predictions were based on.

8/23/2009 12:50:46 PM

this would only be similar to a roulette wheel if we did not understand how statistics or the roulette wheel worked. we may be experiencing global cooling right now, but we won't know until decades from now when media and politicians aren't trying to push global warming anymore.

8/23/2009 12:58:01 PM

eleusis, we (humans) currently emit about 50 billion metric tons of CO2-e every year. CO2 concentrations have risen over 40% since pre-industrial times leading to the highest CO2 concentrations the earth has seen in over 650,000 years. The last time CO2 concentrations were this high on earth, the poles were completely ice-free.

Quite frankly, it is naive to think that the actions of 6.7 billion people cannot significantly affect the earth and it's habitability. The global consensus on the CFC's and the ozone layer proves otherwise.

8/23/2009 1:01:37 PM

eleusis, firstly there is no global cooling going on:

Quote :

"The ten warmest years on record all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008 (.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/) and that report was from NASA under the Bush administration."

Secondly, we do generally understand how the climate works. There is uncertainty, but a lot of it is in the other direction. A lot of climate models specifically do not consider positive feedback loops (e.g. melting permafrost or ice loss) that will make global warming worse. And there has been a lot of research in the last decade showing that in fact things will be worse then the consensus. There has been very little if any new research indicating that things will be better than predicted.

8/23/2009 1:06:05 PM

eleusis, you are dead wrong when you say it is the media and the politicians that are pushing this. They are the ones doing the most to prevent action on climate change. It is the scientists who are pushing action on this.

Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/)

Quote :

"Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal."

National Academies of Science (http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/)

Quote :

"In a joint statement, the science academies of the G8 countries, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa, called on their leaders to "seize all opportunities" to address global climate change that "is happening even faster than previously estimated." The signers, which include U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Ralph J. Cicerone, urged nations at the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks to adopt goals aimed at reducing global emissions by 50 percent by 2050."

I could find dozens of scientific organizations making similar statements, and I challenge you to find one prestigious scientific organization that disagrees with the consensus on climate change.

Also this isn't a flash in the pan. Scientists have been making predictions regarding global warming from greenhouse gases since the 50's (http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=/education/edu_index.jsp&edu=literacy)

Quote :

"During the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957-1958, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a pioneering science education publication, Planet Earth: Mystery with 100,000 Clues. The brochure pointed out that Earth's natural greenhouse effect was being altered as "our industrial civilization has been pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a great rate." The brochure went on to warn that if this continued, the result "would have a marked warming effect on Earth's climate" that could "cause significant melting of the great ice caps and raise sea levels in time.""

In all seriousness, please take off your tinfoil hat and quit with the conspiracy theories.

8/23/2009 1:26:56 PM

SilverTab, read the posting guidelines.

Quote :

"Do not consecutively reply to a topic - If you are within the alloted timespan for editing a message that no one has replied to and you think of something to add, EDIT the message. DO NOT REPLY AGAIN. Constant abuse of this will not be tolerated."

8/23/2009 1:39:26 PM

ibts

and ^

8/23/2009 1:42:25 PM

Silvertab, take your propaganda to Soap Box. the rebuttals to your rhetoric have been posted over and over and over again, so go there and read up before you start regurgitating shit.

Also, there is global cooling going on. We have been getting progressively colder every year since 1998, even though our CO2 emissions have steadily increased. We won't know until decades from now what the actual causes of all this are. Keep that in mind before you decide to claim why someone is "dead wrong" three separate times when they make that statement.

8/23/2009 1:46:05 PM

Sorry, about the multiple posts. I didn't think to edit the post.

eleusis, this is a flat out lie:

Quote :

"We have been getting progressively colder every year since 1998, even though our CO2 emissions have steadily increased. "

Read the NASA quote again:

Quote :

""The ten warmest years on record all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008 (.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/)"

The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997, including 2005 the hottest year ever. And actually 2007 tied 1998 as the warmest year on record (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/earth_temp.html. You clearly have no interest in doing any actual research on the subject, and will instead buy whatever is fed to you by other conspiracy nuts.

[EDIT]
It is you who should take your little conspiracy theory rants to the soap box. This is a thread about the NCSU ClimatePrediction team, which I am a member of and have an interest in. You do not wish to participate, that is fine, but I won't leave denier rants unchallenged in this thread.

[Edited on August 23, 2009 at 2:02 PM. Reason : Addition w/out double post.]

8/23/2009 1:54:59 PM

Quote :

"flat out lie"

Quote :

"According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (see figure), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began, but since 2003 there has been slight cooling. But according to the dataset of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (see figure), 2005 was the warmest since records began, with 1998 and 2007 tied in second place. Tracking the heat Why the difference? The main reason is that there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic Ocean, the place on Earth that has been warming fastest. The Hadley record simply excludes this area, whereas the NASA version assumes its surface temperature is the same as that of the nearest land-based stations. "

So, which is more accurate? Excluding area's you don't have data for, or assuming that area X is the same as its neighbor? I don't know, I'm not a statistician. However, to call the Hadley data a flat out lie is misleading me to.

8/23/2009 2:09:59 PM

Quote :

"I think it's pompous and arraogant to assume that human beings have any significant effect on global climate"

haha, you're not very bright, are you? it has absolutely zilch to do with arrogance and everything to do with the fact that we, as a race, have been changing the natural functions of this planet for millenia (i realize that you could argue that our changes are as natural as those caused by any other creature, but that's a philosophical debate, not a scientific one)

Quote :

"we (humans) currently emit about 50 billion metric tons of CO2-e every year."

if you take this single fact, the choice to pretend that it has absolutely NO impact on global functions whatsoever is not just naive, it's blatant stupidity...i'm not even saying that you have to agree that it's changing our planet, but i refuse to listen to anyone who thinks that our actions are completely and utterly without consequence because they're so far beneath me, intellectually, that i may as well argue with a rock (i'd accomplish more, i think)

8/23/2009 2:13:44 PM

Quote :

"including 2005 the hottest year ever. And actually 2007 tied 1998 as the warmest year on record "

what the fuck? in one sentence, you manage to claim that 2005, 2007, and 1998 are all the warmest year on record. you can challenge my statements all you want, but your rebuttals make you sound like a retard.

[Edited on August 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ^you must have missed the "significant" in my statement. all the doomsday prophecies are failing.]

8/23/2009 2:14:57 PM

wheelman, I stand by the flat out lie statement. None of the researchers at Hadley would claim the earth has been cooling since 1998. They would just claim that 1998 was the hottest year on record. It's if your training for a race, and you received your fastest time in July, but have still been training for the last month and a half. You wouldn't say you've been getting slower, you'd say you haven't broken the record yet, which is what Hadley and NASA both say will happen in the next few years.

eleusis, that was my mistake it should read "including 2005 the hottest year ever. And actually 2007 tied 1998 as the second warmest year on record ". I will edit shortly. The point still stands that scientists aren't claiming a global cooling trend since 1998.

From the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact1.html)

Quote :

"Temperatures provide the clearest evidence that the climate is changing and globally the average temperature has risen by more than 0.7 °C over the last 100 years. The natural greenhouse gas effect keeps Earth much warmer than it would otherwise be, without it Earth would be extremely cold. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapour behave like a blanket around Earth. These gases allow the Sun's rays to reach Earth's surface but impede the heat they create from escaping back into space. Any increases in the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean that more heat is trapped and global temperatures increase - an effect known as 'global warming'. There is indisputable evidence from observations that the Earth is warming. Concentrations of CO2, created largely by the burning of fossil fuels, are now much higher, and increasing at a much faster rate, than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years."

Their fact page is actually a great resource for debunking denier conspiracy theories.

[Edited on August 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM. Reason : Addition.]

[2nd Edit]

Wait, are you seriously claiming CFC's wouldn't have had a "significant" affect on the ozone layer? Are you an absolute loon? In the last two decades it took a huge international effort to reduce CFC's, and the largest ozone hole recorded was still in 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol). I seriously didn't know there were ozone depletion deniers.

[Edited on August 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM. Reason : Ozone depletion denier addition.]

8/23/2009 2:29:24 PM

You guys can argue about this topic until the cows come home. There are places that are warmer and there are places that are colder. If the ice caps fully melt, this will decrease the salinity of the world's oceans and change climates around the globe. There are both warming and cooling areas in the world.

The point is, no, we don't have thousands or even hundreds of years of data to get a good idea of global climate trends. Global warming could very well lead to global cooling. We may or may not have a huge affect on this through our use of CFCs and CO2. But instead of bickering on the internet, which solves nothing and both sides can constantly quote various science information, we could help in the bettering of weather & climate prediction -- if not to prove one side wrong, then at least to better understand how our atmosphere works.

This is not the Soap Box. I love reading arguments, it stimulates everyones' minds, but SilverTab was just asking for some support of your computers. <3 to all.

8/23/2009 2:46:15 PM

^AND THEN DENNIS QUAID WILL HAVE TO SAVE US ALL.


give me a break

8/23/2009 4:09:56 PM

^^what assurance do I have that my computing resources won't be used to cook bad data using faulty formulas and models until it spits out a bullshit response that encourages more political intervention to a made up problem?

8/23/2009 4:39:14 PM

krneo1, thanks for the levelheaded response.

8/23/2009 5:32:25 PM

8/23/2009 5:45:17 PM

joined

8/23/2009 6:32:37 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=mF_anaVcCXg
Good stuff.
SilverTab, this looks pretty cool. I will certainly give it some serious contemplation.

8/23/2009 6:33:45 PM

i joined

8/23/2009 6:57:31 PM

wheelman mentioned the UK Met Office Hadley Centre earlier, which is a pretty prestigious institute studying climate change, and it's actually their model that runs on your computer. They give you a few model years to run from 1980-2080, and then they run in 15 minute increments. You can also look at the results as they are calculated, including temperature, precipitation, and even cloud cover. It's a very in-depth model.

8/23/2009 7:06:48 PM

for Smath74:

8/23/2009 7:37:08 PM

Why waste CPU cycles on a model that has little chance of predicting future climate? They still haven't fixed the myriad cloud feedback issues outlined in Bony et al. (2006). Believe me when I say that the availability of computer power isn't the limiting factor in climate prediction research.

[Edited on August 23, 2009 at 9:33 PM. Reason : typing FTL]

8/23/2009 9:12:23 PM

^ that sounds intelligent. i'm willing to believe it


also, i never noticed how much of a crazy eleusis is

8/23/2009 9:30:41 PM

what exactly makes me crazy? is not buying into all the bullshit about climate what makes a person crazy?

8/23/2009 9:41:43 PM

yes.

8/23/2009 10:11:07 PM

I think all the resources and money spent chasing down global warming could be spent on something more relevant. I think pushing recycling and reducing waste is a more worthwhile endeavor.

8/23/2009 10:15:40 PM

you do realize that there are actual computer resources at this school that are used for problems like this:

http://hpc.ncsu.edu

8/23/2009 11:33:40 PM

hey look, SilverTab's delusional.

surprise surprise.

8/24/2009 12:16:31 AM

Quote :

"I think all the resources and money spent chasing down global warming could be spent on something more relevant. I think pushing recycling and reducing waste is a more worthwhile endeavor. "

Excellent video on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

8/24/2009 9:03:24 AM

SilverTab, as a new user...please read over the site info: site.aspx

Double and triple posting are frowned upon. if you want to add to a post then an edit feature allows you to do so within a 30 minute time span.

its a good idea to read over the posting guide lines at site_postguide.aspx

Quote :

"Do not consecutively reply to a topic - If you are within the allotted time span for editing a message that no one has replied to and you think of something to add, EDIT the message. DO NOT REPLY AGAIN. Constant abuse of this will not be tolerated. "

furthermore...like quagmire02 stated:

Quote :

" Quote : it has absolutely zilch to do with arrogance and everything to do with the fact that we, as a race, have been changing the natural functions of this planet for millenia "

Quote :

" if you take this single fact, the choice to pretend that it has absolutely NO impact on global functions whatsoever is not just naive, it's blatant stupidity...i'm not even saying that you have to agree that it's changing our planet, but i refuse to listen to anyone who thinks that our actions are completely and utterly without consequence because they're so far beneath me, intellectually, that i may as well argue with a rock (i'd accomplish more, i think) "

i wholeheartedly agree with this and feel sad for those fitting this description

8/24/2009 9:49:22 AM

the earth supposedly heated up 0.7ºC in 1900's, and it has failed to get any hotter since. instead, it's gradually gotten cooler. the doomsayers are predicting that we should just wait to see a monstrously hot year happen in the next 2-3 years, but that prediction doesn't have any scientific basis to back it up. It's fearmongering, plain and simple.

It's one thing to deny our actions have any consequences, but it's another issue altogether to claim that our consequences are always significant in the grand scheme of things. Trying to claim that the sky is falling because the volume of CO2 we produce boggles your mind is just as stupid as claiming that our actions are completely without consequence. As was said earlier in this thread, there are much more significant problems such as our need for improved recycling that can be addressed now, but that issue doesn't stand to make as much money for the big players as pushing green energy does.

8/24/2009 11:05:39 AM

to add to this debate in the "grand scheme of things" ... as you say regarding the consequences of our actions...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/tech/main5253200.shtml

Quote :

" Mercury in Fish Widespread, Study Shows No fish can escape mercury pollution. That's the take-home message from a federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday that tested fish from nearly 300 streams across the country. The toxic substance was found in every fish sampled, a finding that underscores how widespread mercury pollution has become. "

do you know where the majority of this mercury comes from? emissions from power plants

8/24/2009 11:29:37 AM

Quote :

"So, climateprediction.net runs a distributed computing climate model (similar to SETI@Home). Basically, they send out climate model runs to users and then the models run on your computer's spare processing power (e.g., during screen saver use). NCSU has a team that currently consists of only 6 people, but the best University teams have around 10 times that. I figured with such a huge student body and alumni network we could definitely find 100 members. If you want to join, first you need to download BOINC (http://boinc.berkeley.edu/). Then when it asks to pick a project pick climateprediction (we also have a SETI team, though). Climateprediction will then have you register and pick a team. Just search for NCSU as a keyword and we should show up. Then you are all set. Thanks a lot. Let me know if you have any questions."

My roommate worked for NC State during his undergrad for the IT department in CHASS. Most of the wacko CHASS profs had SETI installed on their work computers. They were constantly complaining how slow their computers were going. The IT department would uninstall SETI and the profs would reinstall it because they thought they were helping. In actuality they weren't helping anything and the people from SETI were stealing credit card information, computer info statistics, and browsing habits.

Enjoy!

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 11:43 AM. Reason : -]

8/24/2009 11:43:03 AM