More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Abraham3]

How ironic, because the proof is in the pudding...at least as far as "Mathew" and you are concerned.
And btw I did say that the programmers who wrote the software for these models do use the exponential function for T, because they do know their math !

But you claimed that when they run them, the temperatures fly through the roof and their solution is to replace these polynomials with linear averages. How do you know this?

Then again these guys are not "climatologists".... which in fact don`t know much about calculus.

I'm not certain who you're talking about. My degree is in ocean engineering. I took three semesters of calculus, two of differential equations, one of mathematical physics and one of advanced matrix methods. I aced them all, but that was in 1982-84.

I'm pretty sure that everyone you might call a climatologist, has passed calculus and differential equations. As a matter of fact, I would bet money that the average intelligence and education level of anyone doing active climate research is above you and me and everyone else on this board by a significant margin. Don't be thinking like FCT and SwimCoach, that they're all dummies and that you're smarter and the missing ingredient in all their calculations just HAPPENS to be whatever topic it is you know best.

 

[gnarlylove]

Don't you find that discussing things with people with whom you are in complete agreement a tremendous bore? I prefer the challenge of the argument, the exercise of logic and rational thought. And, of course, the biting insult.

By agree with me I only meant that so far the people with whom I disagree on here are entirely unwilling to participate in discussion. They'd prefer to erect stawman arguments and misconstrue the gist of the matter. That's no fun, that's tedious.

However, with a person willing to adjust their beliefs according to reality, I like that and am all for good argumentation. Afterall, I've a degree in Philosophy.

 

[polarbear]

How ironic, because the proof is in the pudding...at least as far as "Mathew" and you are concerned.
And btw I did say that the programmers who wrote the software for these models do use the exponential function for T, because they do know their math !

But you claimed that when they run them, the temperatures fly through the roof and their solution is to replace these polynomials with linear averages. How do you know this?

Then again these guys are not "climatologists".... which in fact don`t know much about calculus.

I'm not certain who you're talking about. My degree is in ocean engineering. I took three semesters of calculus, two of differential equations, one of mathematical physics and one of advanced matrix methods. I aced them all, but that was in 1982-84.

I'm pretty sure that everyone you might call a climatologist, has passed calculus and differential equations. As a matter of fact, I would bet money that the average intelligence and education level of anyone doing active climate research is above you and me and everyone else on this board by a significant margin. Don't be thinking like FCT and SwimCoach, that they're all dummies and that you're smarter and the missing ingredient in all their calculations just HAPPENS to be whatever topic it is you know best.

Now I know for sure that you are nothing more than the usual run of the mill internet forum bullshitter, making bullshit claims.

I have a BS in Ocean Engineering. I started in offshore oil but moved to the Navy (I'm an ex-bubblehead) where I've put in a fair amount of time. I collect, process and analyze sensor data.

Anybody who "aced" calculus and "analyses date" for a living would look at the source code of these computer models...
I did, but not you !
MODTRAN Help
You can open it with wordpad
So what do you think this subroutine is doing?

dtemp = dtemp + dabs(dx(i))
30 continue
if( n .lt. 6 ) go to 60
40 mp1 = m + 1
do 50 i = mp1,n,6
dtemp = dtemp + dabs(dx(i)) + dabs(dx(i + 1)) + dabs(dx(i + 2))
* + dabs(dx(i + 3)) + dabs(dx(i + 4)) + dabs(dx(i + 5))
50 continue
60 dasum = dtemp
return
end

It`s doing exactly what I tried to explain to you and the other "expert" Mathew :

...You AGW idiots dumb down math with your stupid "averages" as if exponential and differential equations don`t even exist.

So if n were a temperature and increments i= by 0.1, then, to get this stupid "average" you have sum it up till n= 10 and then divide it by the 100 elements it took to get to n=10 then the "average" comes out at 505/100= 5.05....which is already more than 9% lower than what you got for the same range and the same linear function.

Don`t you understand exponential functions?
If you do, then use it to see how ridiculous the temperature would be in 2100 if you do it properly with an increase of 0.16 per decade.

My guess is that the people who write the programs for these computer models that shoot way over the top do plug in the proper exponential functions...but all they get from the AGW dick-heads as "source" data are these dumbed down linear milk maid math "averages"...

So, that answers your question "how would I know"...
But now that raises the question: how come you did not know that?

And I never said that these equations are replaced with linear equations in any of these computer models...

But you claimed that when they run them, the temperatures fly through the roof and their solution is to replace these polynomials with linear averages. How do you know this?

You f-ing liar ..I said the exact opposite:

Fact is that anybody who writes programs does have to know math and the guys that do write these simulation programs also know that it is not a linear function...and use the equation q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac
...and just as soon as they do every model out put shoots way over the top.

I also said that it`s assholes like the skepticalscience.org crowd that includes you and "Mathew" who claim that it`s a linear function.
Since you are not what you claim to be and can`t read C code then I`ll point you to website that explains it in simpler terms:
Global Warming

In this article I will develop a simple* model for understanding the complex phenomenon of global warming
The model is used to describe an important recent development in climate science, the cosmic ray climate driver hypothesis. This theoretical mechanism has been cited by many global warming skeptics as an alternate explanation for warming besides greenhouse gases. This article shows that although the theory is useful for explaining early 20th century warming, it does not explain recent warming.
1.Energy absorption rate = πR^2 S (1-A)
2.Radiated energy flux = ε σ T^4
3.Energy radiation rate = 4 πR^2 ε σ T^4
4.ε σ T^4 = ¼ S (1-A) = I = 240 watts/m^2
For a solar constant of 1370 watts/m2and albedo of 0.3, the right hand side of equation 4 works out to 240 watts/m2. I will call this the quantity the incoming solar radiation or insolation (I) It refers to the average amount of solar energy absorbed per square meter of surface. The actual average surface temperature of the Earth is about 15º C (288 K). If this value is inserted into equation 4 and the result solved for ε, one obtains:
5.ε = I / (σ T^4) = 240 / (5.67 x 10^-8 · 288^4) = 0.615

And this one:
Climate Modeling 101: Constructing a Computer Model

Watch this video to learn about the basics of climate modeling.

You "aced calculus"...really?

I took three semesters of calculus,...I aced them all

You know no more about it and/or computer programming than this guy:

 

[Abraham3]

And I never said that these equations are replaced with linear equations in any of these computer models...

You f-ing liar ..I said the exact opposite:

Hmm.. you said:

Fact is that anybody who writes programs does have to know math and the guys that do write these simulation programs also know that it is not a linear function...and use the equation q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac
...and just as soon as they do every model out put shoots way over the top.
So how do "climatologists" fix that?
Simple, they say just what you just said " warming is linear " and pencil in a straight line that suits their "averaging science"

 

[HenryBHough]

Cool that the Chinese icebreaker wot saved the Global Warming Hobbyists from their so well deserved fate is now, itself, stuck in the ice (that doesn't exist on their home planet).

 

[Abraham3]

dtemp = dtemp + dabs(dx(i))
30 continue
if( n .lt. 6 ) go to 60
40 mp1 = m + 1
do 50 i = mp1,n,6
dtemp = dtemp + dabs(dx(i)) + dabs(dx(i + 1)) + dabs(dx(i + 2))
* + dabs(dx(i + 3)) + dabs(dx(i + 4)) + dabs(dx(i + 5))
50 continue
60 dasum = dtemp
return
end

You can open it with wordpad
So what do you think this subroutine is doing?

It is summing the absolute value of six values of an array. It is not taking an average (an arithmetic mean) and could not be used as a portion of code to take an average due to the loss of sign. It is likely involved in calculating variance.

BTW, C does not use line numbers. This code is FORTRAN, a language I learned in 1969 on an IBM 360 mainframe.

 

[skookerasbil]

dtemp = dtemp + dabs(dx(i))
30 continue
if( n .lt. 6 ) go to 60
40 mp1 = m + 1
do 50 i = mp1,n,6
dtemp = dtemp + dabs(dx(i)) + dabs(dx(i + 1)) + dabs(dx(i + 2))
* + dabs(dx(i + 3)) + dabs(dx(i + 4)) + dabs(dx(i + 5))
50 continue
60 dasum = dtemp
return
end

You can open it with wordpad
So what do you think this subroutine is doing?

It is summing the absolute value of six values of an array. It is not taking an average (an arithmetic mean) and could not be used as a portion of code to take an average due to the loss of sign. It is likely involved in calculating variance.

BTW, C does not use line numbers. This code is FORTRAN, a language I learned in 1969 on an IBM 360 mainframe.

wrong thread s0n!!

 

[Abraham3]

Right thread. Scroll up to Polar Bear's last post.

 

[skookerasbil]

Right thread. Scroll up to Polar Bear's last post.

mumbo jumbo.......all the science is having zero impact on the real world, as this thread has displayed with epic levels of astute via dozens of links.

But the easy fallback is always THIS >>>

The Obama EIA report on energy production decades from now. Follow the arrow from OOOOOOOPS s0n.






It adds up to one thing = skeptic winning!!


Oh......and to be clear......I put zero effort into trying to convert the nuts.........but this thread will always be near the top of the page as long as you are a board member on here. My role in this forum is to educate some of the almost 26,000 people who have wandered in here over the past 4 months while this thread has grown and grown. They will know that score and the level of fraud that is associated with the AGW ruse. Indeed......Im like a laser guided missile in this place blowing every climate nutter effort to shit with facts and links to back them up = k00k losing.

 

[polarbear]

And I never said that these equations are replaced with linear equations in any of these computer models...

You f-ing liar ..I said the exact opposite:

Hmm.. you said:

Fact is that anybody who writes programs does have to know math and the guys that do write these simulation programs also know that it is not a linear function...and use the equation q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac
...and just as soon as they do every model out put shoots way over the top.
So how do "climatologists" fix that?
Simple, they say just what you just said " warming is linear " and pencil in a straight line that suits their "averaging science"

Let me get this straight,....according to you these computer programs have been written by "climatologists"..????...like him

WTF is the matter with you, don`t you understand English?

I said it`s the "climatologists" that use milk-maid "math" and produce these stupid graphs were T is directly proportional to ppm CO2..

I also said the models do use the right math,..."right" in the sense that they use the proper functions for radiative heat transfer ...and that these programs are written by people who do know their math...
I doubt very much that the software engineers who do write the programs would have any interest in climate "science".
Anyway, they also cheat, but not as blatantly as the hockey stick "scientists"
Here is where they do it...is from the same program I linked already...you are just too dumb to spot it:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html

C DATA
C $(SMALL(N),N=1,2)/O"00564000000000000000",O"00000000000000000000"/,
C $(LARGE(N),N=1,2)/O"37757777777777777777",O"37157777777777777774"/,
C $(RIGHT(N),N=1,2)/O"15624000000000000000",O"00000000000000000000"/,
C $(DIVER(N),N=1,2)/O"15634000000000000000",O"00000000000000000000"/,
C $(LOG10(N),N=1,2)/O"17164642023241175717",O"16367571421742254654"/,
C $ SC/987/


C I N T E R N A L V A R I A B L E S

C AMB(IQ/2,IQ/2) First matrix factor in reduced eigenvalue problem
C of Eqs. SS(12),

If you were what you pretend to be then you should know about this problem
You should read that some time, instead of your "skepticalscience.or" crap:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=283448

On a nonlinear eigenvalue problem arising from climate modeling

Now if all these models still yield results that turn out to be way too high, that should tell you something !
No? it does not ?
I guess not !

So quit parading `round here as if you knew something about math, physics and engineering:

Originally Posted by Abraham3
My degree is in ocean engineering. I took three semesters of calculus, two of differential equations, one of mathematical physics and one of advanced matrix methods. I aced them all,....

...I prefer the challenge of the argument, the exercise of logic and rational thought. And, of course, the biting insult.

 

[mamooth]

Now if all these models yield results that turn out way too high, that should tell you something !

But since the models have such a history of being really damn good, that's strong evidence of how good they are.

It's not true that you can't argue with success. Look at denialists. You just can't sensibly argue with success.

 

[polarbear]

Now if all these models yield results that turn out way too high, that should tell you something !

But since the models have such a history of being really damn good, that's strong evidence of how good they are.

It's not true that you can't argue with success. Look at denialists. You just can't sensibly argue with success.

Now that was funny!
When was the last time you checked?
Let me google that for you

"failed computer models" yields 38,700,000 results.
There are all sorts of computer models that could fail, but the entire list with the exception of a few consists entirely of climate models.

 

[gnarlylove]

"When it’s winter on Earth, it’s also summer on Earth ... somewhere else. Thus, allow us to counter anecdotal evidence about cold weather with more anecdotal evidence: It’s blazing hot in Australia, with temperatures in some regions set to possibly soar above 120 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming days."

Climate change deniers cite snowstorm: Debunking Donald Trump et al.

 

[Abraham3]

So quit parading `round here as if you knew something about math, physics and engineering:

You said what I quoted you as saying and that code, which was not C, was not taking an arithmetic mean.

That's more than enough for me.

ps: you could reply faster if you didn't always stick in pictures. Why do you do that?

 

[skookerasbil]

Yooooooooohooooooooo!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

More laughing.........

Tomorrow nights Wild Card game in Green Bay = coldest game in NFL history!!!


This Sunday?s NFL Game in Green Bay: Coldest Ever? | Climate Depot




Skeptic domination.

 

[gnarlylove]

More laughing.........

Tomorrow nights Wild Card game in Green Bay = coldest game in NFL history!!!


This Sunday?s NFL Game in Green Bay: Coldest Ever? | Climate Depot




Skeptic domination.

It's funny you identify with the term "skeptic" more than "the majority." The majority believes global warming is a myth. Why identify with the looser aka "the skeptics." Is it because it has an underground hip meaning and so adds fuel to your "fight?"

 

[skookerasbil]

LAUGH.......MY........BALLS..........OFF



Numero Uno story on DRUDGE right now >>>>




HISTORIC FREEZE: WINDCHILLS 70 BELOW ZERO?

 

[Abraham3]

And I never said that these equations are replaced with linear equations in any of these computer models...

You f-ing liar ..I said the exact opposite:

Hmm.. you said:

Fact is that anybody who writes programs does have to know math and the guys that do write these simulation programs also know that it is not a linear function...and use the equation q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac
...and just as soon as they do every model out put shoots way over the top.
So how do "climatologists" fix that?
Simple, they say just what you just said " warming is linear " and pencil in a straight line that suits their "averaging science"

Let me get this straight,....according to you these computer programs have been written by "climatologists"..????

First, there's no such thing as a climatology degree. There are people trained in a number of fields that conduct climatology studies, but to criticize "climatologists" as if they were some well-defined group - something you deniers do quite consistently - is just ignorant

Second, that quote is YOUR STATEMENT, not mine.

WTF is the matter with you, don`t you understand English?

I said it`s the "climatologists" that use milk-maid "math" and produce these stupid graphs were T is directly proportional to ppm CO2..

I also said the models do use the right math,..."right" in the sense that they use the proper functions for radiative heat transfer ...and that these programs are written by people who do know their math...

I suspect there are VERY few GCMs written by individuals. They are written by teams likely headed by climate scientists with software types to code the algorithms they provide. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the math skills found in the PhD scientists are superior to that of the B.S. Comp Sci hacks coding it for them.

I doubt very much that the software engineers who do write the programs would have any interest in climate "science".

You have no reason to say that and I believe it likely incorrect. Besides, what's the relevance?

Anyway, they also cheat, but not as blatantly as the hockey stick "scientists"

Here is where they do it...is from the same program I linked already...you are just too dumb to spot it:

MODTRAN is in the public domain and is over 25 years old. Are you going to tell me that YOU have spotted "cheats" in the code that none of the THOUSANDS of scientists and coders who've looked at it have spotted?

Sheesh, and you think I've got an ego.

If you were what you pretend to be then you should know about this problem

Why, does it have something to do with naval sensor systems? I haven't retired yet. I still have a job.

You should read that some time, instead of your "skepticalscience.or" crap

I spend very little time on Skeptical Science. For one thing, the site isn't that big. I go there when I need some source material. Their material is quite good. Compared to places that you deniers regularly quote here, its the fucking word of god.

Now if all these models still yield results that turn out to be way too high, that should tell you something !
No? it does not ?
I guess not !

First, I disagree with "way too high". They missed the hiatus, but their performance prior to that was quite good. And every attempt I have EVER seen to work a model that does not assume AGW or just a CO2 climate sensitivity of about 3C FAILS MISERABLY. Many of them have been absolute jokes.

So quit parading `round here as if you knew something about math, physics and engineering:

I know what I know, as do you. Well, except when you suggested that piece of code was C and that it was taking an average. And when you claimed that you had not said they would resort to linear averaging. And when you got on MY case for YOUR statement about climatologists coding. And when you say AGW is false. And when you say the world's climate scientists are all cheaters or are in some grand conspiracy. Then you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you.

 

[skookerasbil]

More shockingly, the amounts spent by US business for green, standards is appalling:


Compliance with green regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included.

Since Liberals Demand Accountability: Can Global Warming ?Experts? be Disappeared?