By: Ireland (boh.delete@this.outlook.ie), February 2, 2017 12:18 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Ireland (boh.delete@this.outlook.ie) on February 2, 2017 11:12 am wrote:
> etudiant (etudiant.delete@this.msn.com) on February 2, 2017 8:39 am wrote:
> >
> > The flooding problems in the UK reflect decades of neglect of a well established drainage system,
> > driven by budget pressures and possibly by the desire of farmers to maximize crop surface.
> > Fixing the problem requires ditch and drainage maintenance, not supercomputers.
> > Incidentally, there is no evidence that forecasting would be greatly improved by a 10x faster
> > computer. The models are still too deficient to be cured by simply using a tighter grid.
>
The other point that I will add though, that it isn't one 'model' that one is trying to improve now, in order to tackle this. It's actually two 'models', or even several (because there's that budgeting aspect to it too, to control the investment in the physical flooding infrastructure - to organize the sequence of that work - to work inside existing fiscal budgeting cycles).
The two models are:
______The one that they've tried to create, in order to simulate the impacts of the weather event.
______And the other model you mentioned - the one aimed at the weather forecasting.
Where the computation actually gets used up, is in joining the predictive capabilities of one of the models, to the other one. It's a hybrid-ized system of the two. That's where the tighter grid can help, because it's in getting two divergent research simulations to communicate, is where we can find a supercomputing type of load emerging. Over and out.
> etudiant (etudiant.delete@this.msn.com) on February 2, 2017 8:39 am wrote:
> >
> > The flooding problems in the UK reflect decades of neglect of a well established drainage system,
> > driven by budget pressures and possibly by the desire of farmers to maximize crop surface.
> > Fixing the problem requires ditch and drainage maintenance, not supercomputers.
> > Incidentally, there is no evidence that forecasting would be greatly improved by a 10x faster
> > computer. The models are still too deficient to be cured by simply using a tighter grid.
>
The other point that I will add though, that it isn't one 'model' that one is trying to improve now, in order to tackle this. It's actually two 'models', or even several (because there's that budgeting aspect to it too, to control the investment in the physical flooding infrastructure - to organize the sequence of that work - to work inside existing fiscal budgeting cycles).
The two models are:
______The one that they've tried to create, in order to simulate the impacts of the weather event.
______And the other model you mentioned - the one aimed at the weather forecasting.
Where the computation actually gets used up, is in joining the predictive capabilities of one of the models, to the other one. It's a hybrid-ized system of the two. That's where the tighter grid can help, because it's in getting two divergent research simulations to communicate, is where we can find a supercomputing type of load emerging. Over and out.