This is what global cooling really looks like – new tree ring study shows 2000 years of cooling – previous studies underestimated temperatures of Roman and Medieval Warm Periods http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/this-is...ooling-really-looks-like/

Not for the Jujunto model 2012 wearers who wish so hard to remain in blissfulness [Willfully blind]



Looks like spring has 4 million gone AWOL, the summer season has 5 of 9.2 million km square of snow cover missing... that what supplies steady melt water during the main growth season.

The Exxon guy will have you believe "We'll adapt... there's an engineering solution". Ask the farmers about their dustbowl adaptation. We'll adapt... right back into those caves.

IBM is doing about 140,000 results a day and yet their average results per day is 15,250. So what happened? Did they recently discover the need for a huge increase in the number of computers. I do not think IBM is growing that fast and in fact I would believe that the number of computers would be decreasing. So how come their recent daily results is about 10 times their average? A reasonable explanation is that they are using a supercomputer to generate them. How come our results have to be verified before one see them in their stats? How do they verify them in the first place? I believe they send the work units out to at least two volunteers and than they compare those to make sure they are the same. IBM does not control my computers so they must make sure the results I send them are correct. They don't even know if the work is going to be returned by me. I have had computer and hard drive failures that caused me to be unable to return the work. I am just saying that if IBM used a supercomputer that they controlled they would not have to verify the results and thus they would at least be twice as efficient in producing them. With the power of supercomputers going up and the cost going down there must be a time in the near future when it will be more cost effective for IBM to generate all of the results.

Or in 3Q of 2011 we started having the World Community Grid software client pre-installed on many of the workstations issued to IBM employees.

Previously internal IBM participation was primarily driven by recruiting. We continue to do the same recruiting but we are succeeding in getting the software installed on significantly more devices via the pre-install.

This has resulted in the IBM member growing by about 500 active devices per week since 3Q 2011.

Cheers Kevin that's good to know

Rick (see my earlier response)

The most efficient way of number crunching is on a modern Graphics Card

(see my sig)

My single 560Ti has matched in 4 months, at GPUGrid, the numbers crunched that it has taken me ~42 years on processors running at between 1.8Ghz and 4Ghz. By the way the 560ti is one of the most efficient graphics cards. It has to be... I pay for my electricity at UK rates

Once the testing is complete, here at WCG, there will be a step change in the numbers and power efficiency of the World Community Grid.

Rick IBM are working on both fronts http://www.green500.org/lists/2012/06/top/list.php

Rick I take it you would prefer that the 896,346 CFSW, GFAM, DSFL, C4CW, CEP2, DDDT2, HCMD2, HFCC, HCC, HPF2 and FAAH work units returned just yesterday didn't happen at all ?

Without our contribution and IBM's investment in hardware and Kevin et al (whose dedication to this endeavour is awesome) where would we be?

We certainly wouldn't be any wiser than we were back in November 2004 on a great number of fronts. That we are tells me distributed computing is effective.

Dave

p.s. on the IBM must have a SuperComputer to verify our results ... If you and another cruncher return the same result when running the same work unit then it's most likely correct (note no supercomputer involved.) For differing reasons across different projects greater than 2 results matching is required - higher level of error checking required with life sciences for instance. Other projects require no validation as other methods of verifying a correct result - checksums for instance - are sufficient