Search Results: "Alastair McKinstry"

16 October 2011

Alastair McKinstry: Testing DIASPORA*

As you may have noticed, I'm testing DIASPORA* as a blogging platform. Its been working reasonably well recently for me, with friends and family; even though the "Main" platform joindiaspora.com is not giving general invites, the code works and a bunch of distributed 'pods' have been set up. You can make entries public, and I've tested a public address for this: http://diaspora.sceal.ie/u/amckinstry which looks ok, a bit plain for the moment, but I'll work on that later. The problem has been the atom feed is garbage. (It's putting the content into both the Subject line (as unadulterated MarkDown, no less), and into the content). So, I've put the old blog back up for the moment. While I debug some Ruby on Rails, not a language i'm too familiar with ... Note: only logged in DIASPORA users can leave notes on the Diaspora site, but go to the login page and registrations are open. At least until spammers notice... Tags , , ,

Alastair McKinstry: DIASPORA* as a blog I'm testing out DIASPORA* , the open-source social network, as a blogging platform. Apologies to those who see bad output on Planet Debian - I'm working on the issues as you read. It is possible to add comments to a post : it just requires a Diaspora account (on the post page, log in and create an account. This is on my home "pod", running on an old server at home, so don't be suprised at the speed). Failing that, my Debian email is available, mckinstry at debian.org.

DIASPORA* as a blog I'm testing out DIASPORA* , the open-source social network, as a blogging platform. Apologies to those who see bad output on Planet Debian - I'm working on the issues as you read. It is possible to add comments to a post : it just requires a Diaspora account (on the post page, log in and create an account. This is on my home "pod", running on an old server at home, so don't be suprised at the speed). Failing that, my Debian email is available, mckinstry at debian.org.

Alastair McKinstry: Dear Lazyweb, I'm building a #debian package, CDAT. The latest version 6.0.alpha uses CMAKE to build, rather than configure. The trouble is that CMake doesn't build. It doesn't even fail. $ mkdir build $ cd build $ cmake .. ()-- Configuring done -- Generating done -- Build files have been written to: /home/amckinstry/deb-packages /cdat/cdat-6.0.alpha/build $ make $ The problem is, 'make' does nothing. A Makefile is generated by CMake, which calls cmake which calls make again on ./CMakeFiles/Makefile2 ... which does nothing useful. Apparently the CMake is supposed to put useful stuff in there, but doesn't. What puts stuff into Makefile2, and where should I pick up the bugs trail? (It would appear I also have issues with DIASPORA*'s Markdown over RSS to fix ...)

Dear Lazyweb, I'm building a #debian package, CDAT. The latest version 6.0.alpha uses CMAKE to build, rather than configure. The trouble is that CMake doesn't build. It doesn't even fail. $ mkdir build $ cd build $ cmake .. ()-- Configuring done -- Generating done -- Build files have been written to: /home/amckinstry/deb-packages /cdat/cdat-6.0.alpha/build $ make $ The problem is, 'make' does nothing. A Makefile is generated by CMake, which calls cmake which calls make again on ./CMakeFiles/Makefile2 ... which does nothing useful. Apparently the CMake is supposed to put useful stuff in there, but doesn't. What puts stuff into Makefile2, and where should I pick up the bugs trail? (It would appear I also have issues with DIASPORA*'s Markdown over RSS to fix ...)

Alastair McKinstry: #### Debugging CMake issues #### Dear Lazyweb, I'm building a #debian package, [CDAT](http://bugs.debian.org/584637). The latest version 6.0.alpha uses CMAKE to build, rather than configure. The trouble is that CMake doesn't build. It doesn't even fail. $ mkdir build $ cd build $ cmake .. <lots of output, ending in ...> ()-- Configuring done -- Generating done -- Build files have been written to: /home/amckinstry/deb-packages /cdat/cdat-6.0.alpha/build $ make $ The problem is, 'make' does nothing. A Makefile is generated by CMake, which calls cmake which calls make again on ./CMakeFiles/Makefile2 ... which does nothing useful. Apparently the CMake is *supposed* to put useful stuff in there, but doesn't. *What* puts stuff into Makefile2, and where should I pick up the bugs trail?

#### Debugging CMake issues #### Dear Lazyweb, I'm building a #debian package, [CDAT](http://bugs.debian.org/584637). The latest version 6.0.alpha uses CMAKE to build, rather than configure. The trouble is that CMake doesn't build. It doesn't even fail. $ mkdir build $ cd build $ cmake .. <lots of output, ending in ...> ()-- Configuring done -- Generating done -- Build files have been written to: /home/amckinstry/deb-packages /cdat/cdat-6.0.alpha/build $ make $ The problem is, 'make' does nothing. A Makefile is generated by CMake, which calls cmake which calls make again on ./CMakeFiles/Makefile2 ... which does nothing useful. Apparently the CMake is *supposed* to put useful stuff in there, but doesn't. *What* puts stuff into Makefile2, and where should I pick up the bugs trail?

15 October 2011

Alastair McKinstry: #### Are Earths still Rare ? #### #exoplanets, #phd Greg Lauglin has an interesting blog entry up at [oklo.org](http://oklo.org/2011/09/10/concordance/), basically describing a paper they've posted to [arxiv.org](http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5842). They've been tying together the results from the HARPS team (probably the most prolific exoplanet discoverty team on Earth, with the results from Kepler, the NASA exoplanet discovery mission. Now the two instruments work differently: HARPS by radial velocity, while Kepler is a transit mission. They give different results, and presuming they're accurate, Wolfgang & Laughlin basically come up with the explanation: there are two different populations of "Super-Earths" : dense "Super-Mercuries" and "Sub-Neptunes". Gaidos et al. also come up with a similar result [by different methods](http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5686) ( [via](http://oklo.org/2011/09/10/concordance/#comment-34543) ). So how does this affect the number of Earth-like planets? "Super-Mercuries" are very dense, suggesting that they may lack the volatile elements needed for life ( water ... ) while "sub-Neptunes" would have too much hydrogen: accumulating a relatively dense H2 atmosphere that would make a liquid water ocean unlikely. Meanwhile on another continent not far away, Hal Levison proposes [a new theory](http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/10/peashooter_theory_aims_to_expa.html) for planet formation, based on planet embyos being shot through the stellar disk during the early period of planet formation. Hal has a good reputation in the field, even if this theory sounds off-the-wall, its worth investigating. I find this work interesting as it may help answer the question, *are there any ocean planets?*, which my PhD thesis relies on. We have candidates like [Gliese 1214b](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/GJ_1214_b) for which the problem at the moment is telling whether or not they are really Neptunes-with-little-gas, or more water planets. This work seems to imply small sub-Neptunes are unlikely. Hmm.

#### Are Earths still Rare ? #### #exoplanets, #phd Greg Lauglin has an interesting blog entry up at [oklo.org](http://oklo.org/2011/09/10/concordance/), basically describing a paper they've posted to [arxiv.org](http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5842). They've been tying together the results from the HARPS team (probably the most prolific exoplanet discoverty team on Earth, with the results from Kepler, the NASA exoplanet discovery mission. Now the two instruments work differently: HARPS by radial velocity, while Kepler is a transit mission. They give different results, and presuming they're accurate, Wolfgang & Laughlin basically come up with the explanation: there are two different populations of "Super-Earths" : dense "Super-Mercuries" and "Sub-Neptunes". Gaidos et al. also come up with a similar result [by different methods](http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5686) ( [via](http://oklo.org/2011/09/10/concordance/#comment-34543) ). So how does this affect the number of Earth-like planets? "Super-Mercuries" are very dense, suggesting that they may lack the volatile elements needed for life ( water ... ) while "sub-Neptunes" would have too much hydrogen: accumulating a relatively dense H2 atmosphere that would make a liquid water ocean unlikely. Meanwhile on another continent not far away, Hal Levison proposes [a new theory](http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/10/peashooter_theory_aims_to_expa.html) for planet formation, based on planet embyos being shot through the stellar disk during the early period of planet formation. Hal has a good reputation in the field, even if this theory sounds off-the-wall, its worth investigating. I find this work interesting as it may help answer the question, *are there any ocean planets?*, which my PhD thesis relies on. We have candidates like [Gliese 1214b](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/GJ_1214_b) for which the problem at the moment is telling whether or not they are really Neptunes-with-little-gas, or more water planets. This work seems to imply small sub-Neptunes are unlikely. Hmm.

14 October 2011

Alastair McKinstry: Irony, part 2. #physics, #irony https://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/ It turns out that the 'superluminal' neutrinos effect spotted by the OPERA experiment in CERN/ Gran Sasso was probably due to an error in neglecting to account for relativistic effects in the GPS satellite movement. Far from debunking relativity, it proves it.

Irony, part 2. #physics, #irony https://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/ It turns out that the 'superluminal' neutrinos effect spotted by the OPERA experiment in CERN/ Gran Sasso was probably due to an error in neglecting to account for relativistic effects in the GPS satellite movement. Far from debunking relativity, it proves it.

Alastair McKinstry: Friday Irony overload. We've too much work(*) but are hiring 4 new staff. So he's organizing a meeting of "Activity leaders" to plan what to do. Only we're all too busy to make it ... (*) At the quarterly "Scheduling meeting", after all cancelable work was cancelled, and other work postponed, I was left with just under 4.5 months of work this quarter ...

Friday Irony overload. We've too much work(*) but are hiring 4 new staff. So he's organizing a meeting of "Activity leaders" to plan what to do. Only we're all too busy to make it ... (*) At the quarterly "Scheduling meeting", after all cancelable work was cancelled, and other work postponed, I was left with just under 4.5 months of work this quarter ...

Alastair McKinstry: [F. Montmessin et al., 2011: A layer of ozone detected in the nightside upper atmosphere of Venus](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2011.08.010). Hmm. We were hoping to use ozone as a biomarker: detecting ozone to tell us that there was a nice breathable oxygen atmosphere below the clouds on #exoplanets. Scratch that idea?

[F. Montmessin et al., 2011: A layer of ozone detected in the nightside upper atmosphere of Venus](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2011.08.010). Hmm. We were hoping to use ozone as a biomarker: detecting ozone to tell us that there was a nice breathable oxygen atmosphere below the clouds on #exoplanets. Scratch that idea?

13 October 2011

Alastair McKinstry: #### [WATER FRACTIONS IN EXTRASOLAR PLANETESIMALS](http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.1774v1.pdf) #### Jura & Xu, Arxiv.org. #exoplanets, #water, #phd > Abstract: With the goal of using externally-polluted white dwarfs to investigate the water fractions of extrasolar planetesimals, we assemble from the literature a sample that we estimate to be more than 60% complete of DB white dwarfs warmer than 13,000 K, more luminous than 3 10 3 L and within 80 pc of the Sun. When considering all the stars together, we find the summed mass accretion rate of heavy atoms exceeds that of hydrogen by over a factor of 1000. If so, this sub-population of extrasolar asteroids treated as an ensemble has little water and is at least a factor of 20 drier than CI chondrites, the most primitive meteorites. In contrast, while an apparent excess of oxygen in a single DB can be interpreted as evidence that the accreted material originated in a water-rich parent body, we show that at least in some cases, there can be sufficient uncertainties in the time history of the accretion rate that such an argument may be ambiguous. Regardless of the difficulty associated with interpreting the results from an individual object, our analysis of the population of polluted DBs provides indirect observational support for the theoretical view that a snow line is important in disks where rocky planetesimals form. Ok, so we now have a way of estimating how wet planetary systems *were*, at the time they fell into the white dwarf star. Not very representative of the time they before the planet got roasted to a crisp by the stars Red Giant stage, however. Recovering the hydrogenation state of serpentinized minerals might be possible and useful.

#### [WATER FRACTIONS IN EXTRASOLAR PLANETESIMALS](http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.1774v1.pdf) #### Jura & Xu, Arxiv.org. #exoplanets, #water, #phd > Abstract: With the goal of using externally-polluted white dwarfs to investigate the water fractions of extrasolar planetesimals, we assemble from the literature a sample that we estimate to be more than 60% complete of DB white dwarfs warmer than 13,000 K, more luminous than 3 10 3 L and within 80 pc of the Sun. When considering all the stars together, we find the summed mass accretion rate of heavy atoms exceeds that of hydrogen by over a factor of 1000. If so, this sub-population of extrasolar asteroids treated as an ensemble has little water and is at least a factor of 20 drier than CI chondrites, the most primitive meteorites. In contrast, while an apparent excess of oxygen in a single DB can be interpreted as evidence that the accreted material originated in a water-rich parent body, we show that at least in some cases, there can be sufficient uncertainties in the time history of the accretion rate that such an argument may be ambiguous. Regardless of the difficulty associated with interpreting the results from an individual object, our analysis of the population of polluted DBs provides indirect observational support for the theoretical view that a snow line is important in disks where rocky planetesimals form. Ok, so we now have a way of estimating how wet planetary systems *were*, at the time they fell into the white dwarf star. Not very representative of the time they before the planet got roasted to a crisp by the stars Red Giant stage, however. Recovering the hydrogenation state of serpentinized minerals might be possible and useful.

19 June 2011

Alastair McKinstry: So are we headed for a permanent El Ni o <80><93>?

Maps and Coastlines in Debian #tags enso,climate,paleooceanography #postdate 2011-06-19 18:00 #ignore yes Thanks to Brian Lawrence for a pointer to an interesting review by George Philander: Where are you from? Why are you here? An African perspective on global warming. in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. Scroxton et al. at Oxford, in the latest edition of Paleooceanography published < href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010PA002097.shtm"> Persistent El Ni o Southern Oscillation variation during the Pliocene Epoch Scroxton et al. study fossil foraminera, plankton remains from the mid-Pliacezian warm period (3.26 - 3.03 million years ago). By studying isotope ratios in the carbonate skeletons of these plankton, they can reconstruct the surface water temperatures in the Eastern Pacific, where the El Nino is today. They discover conditions similar to today, with El Nino-like events.

Alastair McKinstry: So are we headed for a permanent El Ni nino?

Maps and Coastlines in Debian #tags enso,climate,paleooceanography #postdate 2011-06-19 18:00 #ignore yes Thanks to Brian Lawrence for a pointer to an interesting review by George Philander: Where are you from? Why are you here? An African perspective on global warming. in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. Scroxton et al. at Oxford PALEOCEANOGRAPHY http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010PA002097.shtml Persistent El Ni o Southern Oscillation variation during the Pliocene Epoch mid-Piacenzian Warm Period (mPWP) (3.26 3.03 Ma)

21 April 2011

Alastair McKinstry: How much wind energy can we use?

So how much wind energy can we realistically use? A paper (Earth System Dynamics, DOI: 10.5194/esd-2-1-2011) by Miller,Gans and Kleidon (MGK10) has generated a lot of controversy courtesy of a New Scientist review (See Climate Progress for a good rebuttal). They argue that the effective limit we can safely extract without (bad) climatic consequences is around 18--68 TW (we currently use 0.2 TW of wind power). This paper is a follow-on to Kleidons work on the thermodynamics of the climate, where he points out that the free energy is the important measure of what energy can be generated by renewables. The free energy of the atmosphere is on the scale of hundreds of TW, he argues, much less than the heat energy of ~10^5 TW that comes from the sun. He argues that not enough attention is paid to the free energy budget, and argues that from MEP theory that free energy flows through different geophysical processes are more important than people currently think: such energy and momentum flows then lead to faster depletion of gradients than people currently use in their models. Frequently we use "diffusive-like" approximations to stuff we can't explicitly handle,such as convection and eddies below the resolution of our computer models. That the free energy budget, and small-scale processes need more detailed study (such as the transfer of momentum and energy from wind to water), I agree. But paradoxically, MGK10's estimates based on diffusive processes are what gets it into trouble. The critiques (e.g. Jacobsen and Archer) seem to concentrate on the estimates for diffusive and other energy losses (eg. wake fields) and climatic consequences are very loose, and out by factors of 50-100. They also ignore the fact that using wind as a substitute for more destructive energy sources produces a net gain, climate-wise. Based on these numbers, the real limits on wind power are more limited by where we can realistically place turbines, and the use and availability of rare earth metals in turbine magnets (MW sized turbines use over a ton of neodynium each in magnets!) One of the focuses of research at ICHEC and Met Eireann is wind for wind power: this becomes increasingly important for Ireland as we have more energy production by wind. I've been recently involved in a European project Weather Intelligence for Renewable Energies on investigating weather and climate forecasting needs of wind energy. In our weather models, we are getting to finer and finer resolutions (down to 2-5 km operationally, but working on 1 km in research), but as yet do not take account of wind energy changes. Modelling the wake turbulence, etc. and other effects of turbines is a 'fluid dynamics' problem done by the wind turbine manufacturers, mostly, in order to lay out turbines in a farm efficiently; this is done on the timescale of metres and seconds, while on the other end of the spectrum work is done in climate research on the changes in potential winds to see if wind energy will change in a few decades. But little is done on 'weather' scales of kilometres, minutes and hours: it turns out there are wind patterns that we don't predict in our models (vortices, etc.; especially for offshore turbines) that affect wind energy production, but would be very useful for wind farm and electrical grid operators to know about. So we should think about adapting our weather models for these. Either way, it looks like more detailed work on the interactions between atmospheric dynamics and wind farms would be a good thing. Incidentally, whatever about the alarmist nature of the article, kudos to New Scientist for their linking to papers: they quoted the names of the journals (Earth System Dynamics,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society), but where the article was not yet published (or behind a paywall), linked to the Arxiv.org version. More could do this. Tags , , , , ,

8 December 2010

Alastair McKinstry: Politican Retraining Fund?

One of the problems we have in Ireland is that the Da l is unrepresentative: in particular it lacks scientists and engineers, or any representation from the high-tech Smart Economy we are supposedly trying to create. This is largely down to the challenges of a political career, especially in as clientelist a system as ours (that also needs to be fixed). Basically the Da l is stuffed with teachers, lawyers, publicans and the like: those who can postpone a career, run for office knowing that they can safely move back into their old job. Teachers in particular find their posts held open for them until they return. Scientists and Engineers, on the other hand, would effectively be committing career suicide: 5 years out of the industry and your day-to-day knowledge is stale. You are effectively unemployable. So Mike O'Keeffe from Ircona suggests that we create a retraining fund; basically make the promise to engineers and the like running for office that 'your job is open for you when you return'. The fund would go to their employer to help retrain them back into work for several years after they return. This fund would be set up by the high-tech industries in Ireland, who could do with people who actually understand those industries (ICT, biotech, etc.), and even just science in the Da l. How about it? [Note: this is not to say this is the only, or even most important, fix needed to Irish politics; but it should be straightforward compared to reforming the constitution.] Tags , ,

9 October 2010

Alastair McKinstry: Tidally locked Benchmarks

Fresh up on arxiv.org is a paper by Kevin Heng, Kristen Menou and Peter Phillipps: Atmospheric circulation of tidally-locked exoplanets: a suite of benchmark tests for dynamical solvers. Kristen Menou was at exoclimes 2010 where one of the background topics was how to compare and validate our various models in exoplanetary climates. Earth-based climate modellers have test cases such as Held-Suarez which are used to compare the models, but to date no equivalents are used for exoplanetary models. This work fills that gap for Tidally-locked atmospheres (similar to Zarmina for example, and some 'Hot Jupiters'. I'm particularly interested in the tidally-locked Earth case; it's relevant for my own PhD work. Incidentally, for a good summary of the different ways we test climate models, see Steve Easterbrook's recent blog entry; he's been doing a tour of major modelling centres, learning how they do things. Worth a look. Tags , ,

3 October 2010

Alastair McKinstry: Zarmina!

So the exoplanet Gliese-581-g has a name: Zarmina!. Steve Vogt, who led the discovery team, named it after his wife. Good move. About time we named these things. Although personally I think GL 581 d, its neighbour, has a better chance of being habitable. Everyone is assuming Zarmina is tidally-locked: that is, it has one side facing the star at all times. This would mean that while one side of the star is scorching hot, the other freezing cold, all you have to do is go to the "Terminator", the part of the planet in continuous dusk (or dawn) to find a nice climate. Not necessarily so: it can be in orbital resonance like Mercury, which rotates in a 3:2 ratio. A better idea is to look below any oceans, if it has them, for life. Either way, this Gliese 581 is the direction to point a TPF at. Tags ,

13 September 2010

Alastair McKinstry: So what should we call these things ?

The Exoclimes conference ended on an interesting perennial problem: what should we call these things we work on? The climate folks pointed out what the astronomers have grown used to: the telephone numbers we use as planet names. The two most studied Hot Jupiters, for example, are HD209458b and HD189733b. Come on, we could do better than that. In fact the naming worries started earlier when Frank Selsis asked people to avoid calling the planets he works on "super-Earths" (or should that be Super-Earths?). Dimitar Sasselov had accidentally kicked up a kerfuffle in the media a few weeks back by calling them "Earth-like" planets, when he meant "Earth-sized" planets. Selsis pointed out non-scientists will interpret "super-Earth" to mean "like Earth, only Better!", when we mean its just a bigger ball of rock and ice than Earth. But what to call them? Well, at least one planet already has a name, sort of: HD 209458b is frequently called 'Osiris'. And there is a published list of possible planet names. But Osiris the Egyptian god is more famous than Osiris the planet, confusing google. And people are going to assume things based on the planet names: are we really going to name a planet Vulcan? One suggestion was that if we found a system with seven planets we could call them after the Seven Dwarfs, but this was ruled out: don't mention the war (but dwarfs could also mean brown dwarfs!) At the end of the conference, there was show of hands: who agreed with naming planets? of about 100 present, all in favour, none against. The delegate to the IAU commision on the matter, which had voted against, duly noted. Perhaps we will name them then. Tags , ,

12 September 2010

Alastair McKinstry: Exoclimes: the diversity of planetary scientists

I'm just back from ExoClimes 2010: Exploring the Diversity of Planetary Atmospheres. An excellent conference: the PDFs of the talks and posters are now online, and they are putting the videos of the talks up soon. But in particular the organizers deserves thanks for bringing exoplanetary scientists and observers together with climate modelers doing Earth (and Mars, Titan, Venus, ...) models.
Model complexity graph Peter Cox on model complexity
The last talk on Friday was by Peter Cox on Climate change and exoplanet sciences that was far better than expected for the "graveyard shift". One theme of the conference was the need for a 'heirarchy' of models, from simple energy-balance models to full circulation (GCM) models: using progressively more complex models to understand more bits of whats going on. Exoplanet workers mostly use simpler models, progressing now to GCMs, while Earth modellers are moving beyond GCMs to "Earth system" models including biology, etc. Peter pointed out the two styles of work: the exoplanet modelers are short of data, and risk being too speculative. We know little of what the planets are like, and concentrate on implementing physics in the models to see what they might be like. Earth modelers on the other hand are if anything swamped with data: the tendency here is to make the model fit the data, by adjusting parameters until it does so. The danger of this approach is that the model will then not work away from current present-Earth conditions. Tim Lenton pointed out some work that was done with the Met Office model, where they took the radiative transfer part of the model and tested it for other planets, and paleo-Earth conditions. The model blew up : it wasn't capable of x2 or x4 current CO2 levels. (This has since been corrected). Over dinner there were interesting discussions on the different styles within the communities. While the underlying GCMs used come from the Earth sciences, its quite common within the exoplanetary community for a researcher to work on all parts of the model: dynamics one day, radiative transfer the next. In Earth climate work people have become more specialized and someone is a 'radiative transfer' person, and won't touch other parts of the code (even if they can follow them in the huge codes we have today!). On the other hand, there is a greater tradition of model inter-comparison in Earth sciences, where we compare the model outputs to each other for some known test cases ( Held & Suarez, the CMIP5 project, etc.) Apart from some initial work by Emily Rauscher, little has been done on this in exoplanetary models; it was agreed more of this would be a good idea. Radiative transfer (the interaction of 'sunlight' with the atmosphere, where it gets absorbed, scattered and re-radiated) in particular seems to be an area that could benefit from this. In this middle ground Francois Forget showed the work on the LMDZ model and applying GCMs to terrestrial planets. They've successfully applied this model to Mars, Titan, and partially to Venus (a much tougher problem, due to its heavy clouds giving a long radiative timescale). There are problems with correctly explaining super-rotation though. This is where the atmosphere rotates faster than the planet: on Venus for example the planet rotates every 243 days, while the clouds rotate around the planet every 4 days. Sebastian Lebonnois described the possible mechanisms for Venus and Titan; Johnathan Mitchell so did some interesting work on this recently. Different regimes are involved for different rotation rates of the planet. Ralph Lorenz pointed out the lack of "real paleo-Earth" climate work at the moment. While geology has inspired a lot of work on the atmospheric composition, what with the different gas mixtures (meaning earth-model radiative transfer codes don't work) and the faster dynamics meaning super-rotation could apply (Earth's day was about 8 hours long in the Archean era), we don't have a model of the climate yet. It looks like we should treat Earth as an exoplanet. Tags , , ,

3 September 2010

Alastair McKinstry: Building a statically-linked program

I'm currently working on a Fortran program at work: a post-processing tool that takes climate data, in NetCDF format, and outputs in CMOR2 format (a NetCDF variant with climate conventions). So, it links against netcdf and cmor. Now in HPC and climate in particular, codes are typically linked statically: partially for robustness, but mostly for speed (more on which later). So, I'd like to link this statically, as I have tens of terabytes of data to process. Now, mostly I've been linking using pkg-config:
  gfortran -o nemo-rewriter nemo-rewriter.f90  pkg-config --libs --cflags nemo cmor 
pkg-config assembles the libraries. For dynamic libraries, the netcdf and cmor libraries are themselves linked to dependencies. But in the static case, all dependencies need to be on the link line, which is more complex. Never mind, it should be possible with:
  gfortran -static -o nemo-rewriter nemo-rewriter.f90  pkg-config --static --libs --cflags nemo cmor 
This should work by assembling all the required static libraries, via pkg-config dependencies. Unfortunately not every package has a .pc file, and so this fails: As of version 4.1 NetCDF allows a URL instead of a file to read, and hence depends on curl to retrieve the file. Curl has no pkg-config .pc file describing its libraries, and it fails. Never mind, lets assemble the static libraries by hand. Debian provides static versions of libraries in the -dev packages. Can I assemble a statically-linked program ? For this I need: Now here it gets interesting. To handle secure communications and authentication, curl has some complex dependencies. It has two versions. Pick the gnutls one for example: I may have missed some out, having stopped because there is no static implementation of Kerberos on Debian. But still, the idea that a simple little fortran proggie will statically link in four database libraries is silly. It appears to be no longer possible to simply statically link a program in Debian, and definitely not via pkg-config, because so many dependencies do not yet have configuration files. Tags , , ,

23 August 2010

Alastair McKinstry: Did the global climate change in the 1970's?

Wetter winters since 1978 in Ireland An EOF analysis of annual Irish rainfall (first principal component). We see increased rainfall, with a shift point around 1978.
Did the global climate change in 1975? Tamino has a nice blog entry on statistical analysis of temperature changes, showing a kink in the upward curve at 1975. This has been seen in a number of places, but no clear atttribution to a climate-state-change has been physically identified: perhaps its due to cleaner air, with aerosols removed in the 1970's. Recently, a colleague Dr. Shiyu Wang at ICHEC did some work on a more local problem: has the climate changed recently in Ireland ? Over the last three years we've seen record-breaking rainfall during the winter: in November 2009, many parts of Ireland saw twice the usual rainfall, in some places threefold increases. After three miserable winters, people were asking: is this the new norm? So Shiyu did some analysis for the Environmental Protection Agency, and the short answer is: it appears to be just a statistical fluctuation, for the moment. More would be needed to confirm a trend (you can see a poster presented on this here). But as part of this, he demonstrated that we did shift to wetter weather from about 1978 onwards. How can clearer skies over Europe cause this? another piece of the global warming attribution puzzle? Tags , , ,

5 May 2010

Alastair McKinstry: EGU 2010 - Monday afternoon

The EGU conference is packed, and this blog isn't anything remotely like real-time, but some interesting talks came up on Monday evening : Simon Katterhorn gave a neat presentarion on icy moon tectonics, specifically on Europa and Enceladus. He showed the cycloid tracks on Europa, and how these are probably generated by tidally-driven ice tectonics. The presence of these of different ages shows the existence of a global ocean underneath, and the decoupled ice shell on top. More on this can be seen in Greenbergs book on Europa; but he also showed further follow-on work on Enceladus. Enceladus is small enough that people thought it had cooled and could not support an ocean, explaining the geysers and plumes by "small reservoirs". He shows instead that the 'tiger stripes' at the south pole are also tidally-created stresses, and moreover older generations of stripes, at an angle to the current ones, are also present: the plumes occur at the intersections. This shows free rotation of the ice shell and almost certainly an ocean. As to how to heat it: tidal heating is the primary candidate. I'm looking forward to Tidal heating and orbital evolution of Enceladus on Thursday. Tags , , ,

Next.

Previous.