ATTN Deniers: computer models - should we trust them?

[SpidermanTuba]

The difference of a computer simulation of the entire world and a "car crash" is the weight difference between a grain of sand and Mt. St. Helen's.

I didn't know that computer models were measured in units of weight, that's a new one to me.

Climate models don't simulate the entire world. They simulate the world's climate.

 

[Big Fitz]

Is stupidity a hobby of yours?

Water Vapor : 4% of atmosphere with high insulation values

CO2 : 0.6% of atmosphere with low insulation values.

Spudtuber, you've really gotta see someone about your OCD related illness.

Why don't you ingest an ounce of arsenic for fun. It won't hurt you, that's less than 1/10th of 1 percent of a human's body weight.

Why don't you bore a hole in yourself and let the sap run out.

It's nice to see you're a high functioning... whatever you are.

Climategate Email Searchable Database

There you go, search to see in your high priest's own words how they committed serial fraud for personal gain. Now go, sod off and learn about the liars you worship.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That's great. The links above don't go to his site. The top one goes to MIT.

They're all on Mann's propaganda site as source material...They're all in the same scaremonger circle jerk.

I may have been born at night, but not last night.

How do you type with your head in the sand?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

There you go, search to see in your high priest's own words how they committed serial fraud for personal gain.

I have. Didn't find any. Maybe you can help me out.

 

[Big Fitz]

That's great. The links above don't go to his site. The top one goes to MIT.

They're all on Mann's propaganda site as source material...They're all in the same scaremonger circle jerk.

I may have been born at night, but not last night.

Peer reviewed and chock fulla truthiness.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That's great. The links above don't go to his site. The top one goes to MIT.

They're all on Mann's propaganda site as source material...They're all in the same scaremonger circle jerk.

I may have been born at night, but not last night.

Peer reviewed and chock fulla truthiness.

Fitz - you asked for code to some of computer models so that you could verify them.'

As we have said for a while in other computer models: Let's see the raw data and code so it can be replicated. Mann/Hansen/Jones have done everything possible to hide the truth in fact they don't have the raw data, and the code is severely flawed. If the data and code are clean and the results are repeatable, it is trust-able. The conclusions will be left till after the results are verified.

I provided you with links to the code for several models. Why aren't you busy verifying them?

 

[Oddball]

I swear, the gullible warming cargo cultists are worse than tax protesters.

Irwin Schiff could be thrown in prison for life and there'll still be suckers who'll try his "untaxing" methods.

 

[nraforlife]

Acomputer model, even a good one can be manipulated to produce any desired predetermined result. GIGO

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Acomputer model, even a good one can be manipulated to produce any desired predetermined result. GIGO

Then why hasn't anyone been able to produce a computer model that produces results which contradict those of the GCM's listed?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is stupidity a hobby of yours?

"The increase in CO2 does not directly heat the air."

Um, OK, so there's Global Warming but its not from additional CO2 heating the air, right?

Do you understand the term "directly" ? If you seriously are this ignorant with regards to what AGW even says, what are you doing here?

"Cryptic we are, yessss" says Master Yoda

So what does the CO2 do, cause more sunlight? Force more water vapor into the air?

After you blow up on "Directly" are you going to underscore the word "heat"

 

[Big Fitz]

They're all on Mann's propaganda site as source material...They're all in the same scaremonger circle jerk.

I may have been born at night, but not last night.

Peer reviewed and chock fulla truthiness.

Fitz - you asked for code to some of computer models so that you could verify them.'

As we have said for a while in other computer models: Let's see the raw data and code so it can be replicated. Mann/Hansen/Jones have done everything possible to hide the truth in fact they don't have the raw data, and the code is severely flawed. If the data and code are clean and the results are repeatable, it is trust-able. The conclusions will be left till after the results are verified.

I provided you with links to the code for several models. Why aren't you busy verifying them?

I have other things to do with my time. Why aren't you out on the street with your sandwich board screaming "The end of the world is coming!"

 

[rdean]

The difference of a computer simulation of the entire world and a "car crash" is the weight difference between a grain of sand and Mt. St. Helen's.

I didn't know that computer models were measured in units of weight, that's a new one to me.

Climate models don't simulate the entire world. They simulate the world's climate.

Which covers the entire world. Ha ha ha ha.

Then you add in geothermal heat and debris from volcanoes, reflected and absorbed heat in the oceans, chemicals in the atmosphere, reflectivity of ice, and on and on and on......

 

[SpidermanTuba]

"The increase in CO2 does not directly heat the air."

Um, OK, so there's Global Warming but its not from additional CO2 heating the air, right?

Do you understand the term "directly" ? If you seriously are this ignorant with regards to what AGW even says, what are you doing here?

"Cryptic we are, yessss" says Master Yoda

So what does the CO2 do, cause more sunlight? Force more water vapor into the air?

After you blow up on "Directly" are you going to underscore the word "heat"

The CO2 absorbs the infrared radiation from the Earth's surface. That you don't know this is a testament to you massive stupidity and ignorance.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Peer reviewed and chock fulla truthiness.

Fitz - you asked for code to some of computer models so that you could verify them.'

As we have said for a while in other computer models: Let's see the raw data and code so it can be replicated. Mann/Hansen/Jones have done everything possible to hide the truth in fact they don't have the raw data, and the code is severely flawed. If the data and code are clean and the results are repeatable, it is trust-able. The conclusions will be left till after the results are verified.

I provided you with links to the code for several models. Why aren't you busy verifying them?

I have other things to do with my time. Why aren't you out on the street with your sandwich board screaming "The end of the world is coming!"

My bad. I thought you actually wanted to verify the computer models. Turns out you just want to say they are wrong because you feel like they must be wrong and leave it at that.

Since you don't have the time to actually do the research needed to determine whether or not AGW theory is justified on the evidence - how did you come to your conclusions? Coin flip? Blog pages? Politicians?

 

[code1211]

Acomputer model, even a good one can be manipulated to produce any desired predetermined result. GIGO

Then why hasn't anyone been able to produce a computer model that produces results which contradict those of the GCM's listed?

I would think that almost certainly, some computer models have been produced which do show a dramatic cooling.

Why would these ever see the light of day?

Dr. Hansen produced computer models which missed the mark by hundreds of percents and he is hailed as a leading expert in the craft of modeling.

Are you saying that no data inputted, no matter how bad or how innaccurate has EVER produced a Global Climate Model that predicted cooling. Go ahead and prove the negative.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The difference of a computer simulation of the entire world and a "car crash" is the weight difference between a grain of sand and Mt. St. Helen's.

I didn't know that computer models were measured in units of weight, that's a new one to me.

Climate models don't simulate the entire world. They simulate the world's climate.

Which covers the entire world. Ha ha ha ha.

No it doesn't. I don't think you know what climate is.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I would think that almost certainly, some computer models have been produced which do show a dramatic cooling.

Please tell me what particular feelings you base this conclusion on, because I know its not based on actual existence of such a model, so it must just be because you feel such a model should exist.

"I know for CERTAIN this MUST exist, although i have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that it does, except my own intuitive feeling that it exists!"

Are you saying that no data inputted, no matter how bad or how innaccurate has EVER produced a Global Climate Model that predicted cooling.

If there is one please show it to me.

 

[The T]

The difference of a computer simulation of the entire world and a "car crash" is the weight difference between a grain of sand and Mt. St. Helen's.

I didn't know that computer models were measured in units of weight, that's a new one to me.

Climate models don't simulate the entire world. They simulate the world's climate.

Which covers the entire world. Ha ha ha ha.

Then you add in geothermal heat and debris from volcanoes, reflected and absorbed heat in the oceans, chemicals in the atmosphere, reflectivity of ice, and on and on and on......

Where does the HEAT go? Is it perpetual? Does it dissipate?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I didn't know that computer models were measured in units of weight, that's a new one to me.

Climate models don't simulate the entire world. They simulate the world's climate.

Which covers the entire world. Ha ha ha ha.

Then you add in geothermal heat and debris from volcanoes, reflected and absorbed heat in the oceans, chemicals in the atmosphere, reflectivity of ice, and on and on and on......

Where does the HEAT go? Is it perpetual? Does it dissipate?

Heat escapes through the Earth's atmosphere as electromagnetic radiation -primarily in the IR band.

 

[rdean]

Fitz - you asked for code to some of computer models so that you could verify them.'



I provided you with links to the code for several models. Why aren't you busy verifying them?

I have other things to do with my time. Why aren't you out on the street with your sandwich board screaming "The end of the world is coming!"

My bad. I thought you actually wanted to verify the computer models. Turns out you just want to say they are wrong because you feel like they must be wrong and leave it at that.

I wonder if the right knows computer models are based on "physics"?

Simple flow through three orifice. Wonder how much computer power it took?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aWKwRo7aOg]YouTube - Tunnel SIMPLE flow (Navier--Stokes)[/ame]