Why don't we nuke Rita?

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

Or maybe instead of bringing 20,000 tons (or whatever it was) of ice into
New Orleans for people, just dump it into the Gulf. Would probably have as
much effect as my Northern California college friends 30 years ago, who made
a trip to the aqueduct so they could pee into the water going to Southern
California.

Tell your friends they were friggin' jerks for doing that, Mike. I
/still/ remember how bad the coffee tasted that day ;-)

Neil
San Diego

Mad Dog wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni says...

today's supercomputers are way, way, way too slow
to run the simulation.

I'll tell that to some of the guys and gals that make their living simulating
hurricanes with supercomputers. I'm sure your opinion will render them invalid.



Dumbass -

Today's supercomputers are too slow to give an accurate representation
of 1 second of airflow over a passenger airliner. The cascading Fourier
transforms are just too numerous.

The hurricane simulations and any other large scale fluids simulations
are just educated guesses. They model those things up, but it's really
low resolution, therefore they end up with probabilities of what may
happen. That's why they can't even predict the local weather with any
degree of certainty.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
Mad Dog wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni says...


today's supercomputers are way, way, way too slow
to run the simulation.

I'll tell that to some of the guys and gals that make their living simulating
hurricanes with supercomputers. I'm sure your opinion will render them invalid.




Dumbass -

Today's supercomputers are too slow to give an accurate representation
of 1 second of airflow over a passenger airliner. The cascading Fourier
transforms are just too numerous.

Alexandre,
Speed isn't the issue. Just run the simulation for longer. Precision
of modelling and the lack of modelling of all interactive factors are
the concerns since you lose accuracy on each cascade.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
Mad Dog wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni says...

today's supercomputers are way, way, way too slow
to run the simulation.

I'll tell that to some of the guys and gals that make their living simulating
hurricanes with supercomputers. I'm sure your opinion will render them invalid.



Dumbass -

Today's supercomputers are too slow to give an accurate representation
of 1 second of airflow over a passenger airliner. The cascading Fourier
transforms are just too numerous.

The hurricane simulations and any other large scale fluids simulations
are just educated guesses. They model those things up, but it's really
low resolution, therefore they end up with probabilities of what may
happen. That's why they can't even predict the local weather with any
degree of certainty.

dumbass,

i have to disagree here, but i'm biased.

models of varying resolutions exist and the simulations are more than
educated guesses. very accurate local forecasts are possible, but
accuracy also depends on how well you can integrate observations into a
model, which is a big problem.

you're right that the number of transforms would grow rapidly with
resolution, but the newer techniques don't involve fourier transforms,
partly for that reason.

Stu Fleming wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
Mad Dog wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni says...


today's supercomputers are way, way, way too slow
to run the simulation.

I'll tell that to some of the guys and gals that make their living simulating
hurricanes with supercomputers. I'm sure your opinion will render them invalid.




Dumbass -

Today's supercomputers are too slow to give an accurate representation
of 1 second of airflow over a passenger airliner. The cascading Fourier
transforms are just too numerous.

Alexandre,
Speed isn't the issue. Just run the simulation for longer.



Dumbass -

Speed IS the issue. They can run an accurate simulation for one second
of flow over a commercial airframe, but it would take 8 years.

That's far too long, from a design standpoint. It's why we're still
stuck with very expensive wind tunnels - it's the only way to get
timely feedback on design changes.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Do you understand that hurricanes run in cycles? Perhaps they ARE
getting stronger because of Global Warming or perhaps the natural
variations in these cycles are to blame.

It isn't clear whether Global Warming is real or simply juist another
phase of the earth/sun variability. Remember that the Sun's output
really is increasing over time but this is a minute amount.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...th/varsun.html

"It is my belief that global climate cooling is possible in the future,
or has already begun, due to solar variability."

We are but a speck in the timeline of nature. Amazing how egotistical
us humans can be to assume that nature has anything to fear from us.
Hint: Katrina just bitch-slapped us, just to prove a point.

Tom Kunich wrote:
Do you understand that hurricanes run in cycles?

dumbass,

it's amusing that you state the above as a matter of fact. there is no
concensus about the vague statement that "hurricanes run in cycles".

Or drop Bush inside Rita; imagine the wind velocity then!

wrote:
We are but a speck in the timeline of nature. Amazing how egotistical
us humans can be to assume that nature has anything to fear from us.
Hint: Katrina just bitch-slapped us, just to prove a point.



Dumbass -

In the long run it doesn't.

In the short run, we can inflict a lot of change. The land from the
East Coast to the Mississippi River used to be one large unbroken
forest. Asia has a permanent brown cloud over it from industrial
pollution. The number of species going extinct due to humans removing
natural habitat is very high.

1 billion years from now it won't matter, but it does matter in the
short term what we do and only with regard to how suitable nature is
for living beings. If we alter it too much it's not a crime against
nature, it's a crime against ourselves. Nature will always go on.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.