Ireland (boh.delete@this.outlook.ie) on February 2, 2017 11:18 am wrote:
> 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.
>

Definitely a bot, there is no coherent thought here.
Pretty impressive for a bot though, well formed sentences and good grammar, generally vaguely connected to the thread at hand. Hopefully the creators will take a bow eventually.