No climate models model a rotating spherical Earth - WRONG

[mamooth]

Given that scientists moved to round earth models in the 1970s, they would no doubt be quite surprised to learn how they're still supposedly using flat earth models.

From "The Discovery of Global Warming"

General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere
---
Meanwhile the community of modelers continued to devise more realistic parameters for various physical processes, and to sharpen their mathematical techniques. A major innovation that spread during the 1970s took a new approach to the basic architecture of models. Some groups, instead of dividing the planet's surface into a grid of thousands of square cells, took to dividing it into a tier of segments — hemispheres, quadrants, eighths, sixteenths, etc. ("spherical harmonics"). After doing a calculation on this abstracted system, they could combine and transform the numbers back into a geographical map. This "spectral transform" technique simplified many of the computations, but it was feasible only with the much faster new computers. For decades afterward, physicists who specialized in other fields of fluid dynamics were startled when they saw a climate model that did not divide up the atmosphere into millions of boxes, but used the refined abstraction of spherical harmonics. The method worked only because the Earth's atmosphere has an unusual property for a fluid system — it is in fact quite nearly spherical.
---

 

[skookerasbil]

The computer models are gay........

October 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM

The models are wrong


Today one mainstream newspaper finally caught up with the global warming skeptic community and recognized that a recent release of data from the United Kingdom’s Met Office shows that since 1996 the temperature of the climate has stalled. For the past sixteen years there has been no global warming, at all.

Three takeaways from this story.

•This period of no-warming has now been as long as the previous period of warming. In other words, the stall in warming is getting long enough now to be statistically significant.
•The Met Office revealed its biases by how it unveiled this fact. Previously, when their data suggested the climate was warming, they heralded that fact loudly with bold predictions of catastrophes to come. But when their data suggested their predictions were wrong and the climate wasn’t warming, they released the data with as little fanfare as possible.
•Finally, and most important, this data demonstrates clearly that all the computer models used by climate scientists to predict the future climate are patently wrong. They don’t understand what is happening, even if some of them refuse to admit it.

The last point is the most important. The early IPCC reports in the 1990s went into great detail about the many uncertainties that exist in the field. They didn’t know what the influence of pollution would be on future climate. They didn’t know what the influence of clouds would be on future climate. They didn’t know what the influence of the atmosphere’s water vapor would be on future climate. They didn’t know what the influence of variations of the Sun’s brightness would be on future climate.

And they didn’t know what the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be on future climate. Compared to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is probably the atmosphere’s most significant global warming component, carbon dioxide is merely a trace gas. Making this trace gas important enough to cause global warming remains a difficult and overly complex theory, and a theory that has not yet been proven.

Those early IPCC reports were very honest about these uncertainties. Later IPCC reports however have dismissed these uncertainties, even though subsequent research has done practically nothing to eliminate them. Instead, the last two IPCC reports have trumpeted the climate models as if these models were the same as actual data. The models, based on theory, said that the increase in carbon dioxide was going to cause the climate to warm, and that was that. Turn off those heaters. Shut down those coal factories. Stop making cars. Learn to freeze in the winter and sweat in the summer. We can’t have technology any more because it is going to kill us!

The fact is that these models were garbage. They are useful for trying to understand how the atmosphere functioned, but as predictors they were less than worthless. None of them have ever been able to predict anything, and to rely on them to make policies that will squelch human freedom and creativity is beyond foolish.

Skeptics have been pointing out this obvious fact now for the better part of two decades. We now have proof that they were right.


The models are wrong | Behind The Black

 

[gslack]

Given that scientists moved to round earth models in the 1970s, they would no doubt be quite surprised to learn how they're still supposedly using flat earth models.

From "The Discovery of Global Warming"

General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere
---
Meanwhile the community of modelers continued to devise more realistic parameters for various physical processes, and to sharpen their mathematical techniques. A major innovation that spread during the 1970s took a new approach to the basic architecture of models. Some groups, instead of dividing the planet's surface into a grid of thousands of square cells, took to dividing it into a tier of segments — hemispheres, quadrants, eighths, sixteenths, etc. ("spherical harmonics"). After doing a calculation on this abstracted system, they could combine and transform the numbers back into a geographical map. This "spectral transform" technique simplified many of the computations, but it was feasible only with the much faster new computers. For decades afterward, physicists who specialized in other fields of fluid dynamics were startled when they saw a climate model that did not divide up the atmosphere into millions of boxes, but used the refined abstraction of spherical harmonics. The method worked only because the Earth's atmosphere has an unusual property for a fluid system — it is in fact quite nearly spherical.
---

Again, we already explained the problem to poopie pants numerous times. Waiting a few days and trying to pretend we didn't isn't going to cut it.

And nice use of oldsocks standby link... Ya know you guys really should workout something so you don't use the same obscure links.

Spencer Weart (the sites author)rung a bell with me, couldn't figure out why a guy with his credentials would obviously be so anti-science and proclaim a theory fact like that, and then it hit me. He writes books, lots of them, and most of them try and push nuclear power on the world. His books try and downplay fears over nuclear power and minimize the tragedies like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The Rise of Nuclear Fear by Spencer R Weart ? review | Books | The Guardian

Nuclear Fear: A History of Images - Spencer R. WEART, Spencer R Weart - Google Books

Shunning Nuclear Power Will Lead to a Warmer World by Spencer R. Weart: Yale Environment 360

And that's why you shouldn't regurgitate oldsocks links..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The computer models are gay........

October 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM

The models are wrong


Today one mainstream newspaper finally caught up with the global warming skeptic community and recognized that a recent release of data from the United Kingdom’s Met Office shows that since 1996 the temperature of the climate has stalled. For the past sixteen years there has been no global warming, at all.

Three takeaways from this story.

•This period of no-warming has now been as long as the previous period of warming. In other words, the stall in warming is getting long enough now to be statistically significant.
•The Met Office revealed its biases by how it unveiled this fact. Previously, when their data suggested the climate was warming, they heralded that fact loudly with bold predictions of catastrophes to come. But when their data suggested their predictions were wrong and the climate wasn’t warming, they released the data with as little fanfare as possible.
•Finally, and most important, this data demonstrates clearly that all the computer models used by climate scientists to predict the future climate are patently wrong. They don’t understand what is happening, even if some of them refuse to admit it.

The last point is the most important. The early IPCC reports in the 1990s went into great detail about the many uncertainties that exist in the field. They didn’t know what the influence of pollution would be on future climate. They didn’t know what the influence of clouds would be on future climate. They didn’t know what the influence of the atmosphere’s water vapor would be on future climate. They didn’t know what the influence of variations of the Sun’s brightness would be on future climate.

And they didn’t know what the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be on future climate. Compared to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is probably the atmosphere’s most significant global warming component, carbon dioxide is merely a trace gas. Making this trace gas important enough to cause global warming remains a difficult and overly complex theory, and a theory that has not yet been proven.

Those early IPCC reports were very honest about these uncertainties. Later IPCC reports however have dismissed these uncertainties, even though subsequent research has done practically nothing to eliminate them. Instead, the last two IPCC reports have trumpeted the climate models as if these models were the same as actual data. The models, based on theory, said that the increase in carbon dioxide was going to cause the climate to warm, and that was that. Turn off those heaters. Shut down those coal factories. Stop making cars. Learn to freeze in the winter and sweat in the summer. We can’t have technology any more because it is going to kill us!

The fact is that these models were garbage. They are useful for trying to understand how the atmosphere functioned, but as predictors they were less than worthless. None of them have ever been able to predict anything, and to rely on them to make policies that will squelch human freedom and creativity is beyond foolish.

Skeptics have been pointing out this obvious fact now for the better part of two decades. We now have proof that they were right.


The models are wrong | Behind The Black

Well crap if that blog says they are wrong they must be wrong. It says so on the blog

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And nice use of oldsocks standby link... Ya know you guys really should workout something so you don't use the same obscure links.

The American Institute of Physics is an "obscure link", therefore anything that is said on it is false.

 

[gslack]

And nice use of oldsocks standby link... Ya know you guys really should workout something so you don't use the same obscure links.

The American Institute of Physics is an "obscure link", therefore anything that is said on it is false.

No poopie pants, here is his link..

General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

The Discovery of Global Warming

General Circulation Models of Climate

The climate system is too complex for the human brain to grasp with simple insight. No scientist managed to devise a page of equations that explained the global atmosphere's operations.

Notice what they tell you right off in that? yeah they wanted to get the pesky truth out of the way before they started the BS...

It's a online copy of the head guys book. Its a little shameless self promotion...

Here is the AIP..

The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources

Dedicated to the advancement of physics, AIP serves a federation of physical science societies, and provides leadership through its own programs and publications.

See the difference? of course. It's like when one of you tards tried to pass something off from Berkeley Institute for the Environment as being from "University of California Berkeley", it's not the same thing they state as much. The AIP published his crap, and he being the head guy posts his crap on their site..

And yes they are obscure because only a few academics use the site, and even those academics take it with a grain of salt because the guy behind it is a tireless self-promoter and would love nothing more than to place a nuclear plant everywhere.

Didn't read the examples I posted did ya... yeah I knew that when you edited my post again.. Your childish tactics are going to get you in trouble here eventually socko..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And nice use of oldsocks standby link... Ya know you guys really should workout something so you don't use the same obscure links.

The American Institute of Physics is an "obscure link", therefore anything that is said on it is false.

No poopie pants, here is his link..

General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

The Discovery of Global Warming

General Circulation Models of Climate

The climate system is too complex for the human brain to grasp with simple insight. No scientist managed to devise a page of equations that explained the global atmosphere's operations.

Notice what they tell you right off in that? yeah they wanted to get the pesky truth out of the way before they started the BS...

It's a online copy of the head guys book. Its a little shameless self promotion...

Here is the AIP..

The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources

Dedicated to the advancement of physics, AIP serves a federation of physical science societies, and provides leadership through its own programs and publications.

See the difference?

Idiot, the first link is to a page on the AIP's website. That's why the domain name is "www.aip.org" My fuck you are illiterate.

 

[Saigon]

Skooks:

This is the background of your source, from your link:

"When I was college (around 1974) I stayed up late one night to watch the movie Citizen Kane. When the movie was over I was left breathless with wonder at its clarity of vision. Hungry to see more movies like this, I scanned the television dial and stumbled upon the opening shots of the classic and equally great MGM film, Grand Hotel.

For the next twenty years I dedicated myself to making movies, hoping to create films as entertaining and as meaningful.

Instead, I ended up making a large number of very bad low budget horror films in the New York City area. Sometimes I was the key grip. Sometimes I was the production manager. In later years I wrote screenplays and helped produce several films."

Can you explain WHY you think Mr Zimmerman is a better source than the American Institute of Physics?


For all the Sceptics here - SSDD, Gslack, Westwall and Skooks - you guys really need to accept that posting material from the blogs of science fiction writers does not amount to bulding a case. It's simply childish.

 

[SSDD]

[
That isn't how the model describe by Hansen et al. (1983) models the incoming radiation. If you look at the top of the second column of text on the page marked 619, you'll see they describe how the reflection and transmission of light depends on zenith angle and optical depth.

I'm curious, did you actually bother to research any of the actual computer models, or did you just go with what the blog told you to think? Because you clearly didn't look at the Hansen et al. (1983) model.

The Hansen model got everything it ever modeled wrong and didn't represent anything like a realistic earth. The claim is that there is t enough computing power today to model a realistic earth and you are claiming that Hansen did it I 83. What did he do it on, an Atari or a Commodore 64?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

[
That isn't how the model describe by Hansen et al. (1983) models the incoming radiation. If you look at the top of the second column of text on the page marked 619, you'll see they describe how the reflection and transmission of light depends on zenith angle and optical depth.

I'm curious, did you actually bother to research any of the actual computer models, or did you just go with what the blog told you to think? Because you clearly didn't look at the Hansen et al. (1983) model.

The Hansen model got everything it ever modeled wrong and didn't represent anything like a realistic earth.

How is the Hansen Earth model not realistic?

The claim is that there is t enough computing power today to model a realistic earth and you are claiming that Hansen did it I 83. What did he do it on, an Atari or a Commodore 64?

The '83 paper clearly states what machines the software was run on. You should consult it if you want the answer.

 

[mamooth]

Again, we already explained the problem to poopie pants numerous times. Waiting a few days and trying to pretend we didn't isn't going to cut it.

Pouting about being called on your BS qualifies more as "crying" than "explaining".

His books try and downplay fears over nuclear power and minimize the tragedies like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Showing his intelligence, and giving him more credibilty.

Let's look at Fukishima.

Number of deaths would be ... zero.

Expected deaths from cancer would be ... too few to show up in the statistics.

Amount of land rendered uninhabitable ... very little. There are places the government bans people from, but that's due to nuclear panic, not from rational policy. Agriculture is unsafe in some areas, due to the bioaccumulation of radioactive caesium and strontium, but there are no areas outside of the reactor complex where radiation counts are unsafe for humans.

To put it another way, if the world saw a Fukishima-level meltdown every year, it would still do less environmental damage than that done by the coal plants which the nuclear plants replace.

Rational people understand that, such as Spencer Weart, and he uses the same un-PC rationality when discussing global warming science. If your goal was to highlight your hatred of the rational, then well done.

 

[gslack]

The American Institute of Physics is an "obscure link", therefore anything that is said on it is false.

No poopie pants, here is his link..

General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere



Notice what they tell you right off in that? yeah they wanted to get the pesky truth out of the way before they started the BS...

It's a online copy of the head guys book. Its a little shameless self promotion...

Here is the AIP..

The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources

Dedicated to the advancement of physics, AIP serves a federation of physical science societies, and provides leadership through its own programs and publications.

See the difference?

Idiot, the first link is to a page on the AIP's website. That's why the domain name is "www.aip.org" My fuck you are illiterate.

AAAAAAHAHHHHH!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!

The first link was to guys book dude, it shows it clearly. AIP hosts the book, because he happens to be the head of it....

The truth is there and your denial shows your level of honesty and integrity.. Poopie pants.

 

[SSDD]

How is the Hansen Earth model not realistic?

It does not model daytime and night time. It does not model points on the surface that warm constantly from a time soon after dawn until a time after mid day and then cool steadily through the rest of the daylight hours and through the night. Unless you model day and night and the resulting warming and cooling, you are not modelling reality.

And if you model day and night, you find that there is no need for a greenhouse effect to accurately describe the temperature of the earth.

The '83 paper clearly states what machines the software was run on. You should consult it if you want the answer.

Since it never actually modelled anything like reality, it really doesn't matter does it?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No poopie pants, here is his link..

General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere



Notice what they tell you right off in that? yeah they wanted to get the pesky truth out of the way before they started the BS...

It's a online copy of the head guys book. Its a little shameless self promotion...

Here is the AIP..

The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources



See the difference?

Idiot, the first link is to a page on the AIP's website. That's why the domain name is "www.aip.org" My fuck you are illiterate.

AAAAAAHAHHHHH!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!

The first link was to guys book dude, it shows it clearly. AIP hosts the book, because he happens to be the head of it....

The truth is there and your denial shows your level of honesty and integrity.. Poopie pants.

The head of it? What the hell does the head of the AIP know about physics!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How is the Hansen Earth model not realistic?

It does not model daytime and night time.

Yes, it does. If you'd kindly refer - again - to the top of the 2nd column of the page number 619 in Hansen et al (1983), http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1983/1983_Hansen_etal.pdf, you will see them describe how the solar radiation is treated not only by zenith angle but by optical depth. If you refer to the actual FORTRAN code available here, EdGCM - Model II, you can find the places where the code handles night and day in the file named "Pjal0C9.f". Here is the code section that does this:

ENTRY COSZS (ROT1,ROT2,COSZ,COSZA) 3655.
C**** 3656.
C**** THIS ENTRY COMPUTES THE ZENITH ANGLE TWICE, FIRST WEIGHTED BY THE 3657.
C**** DAYTIME HOURS FROM ROT1 TO ROT2 AND SECONDLY WEIGHTED BY THE 3658.
C**** INCIDENT SUN LIGHT FROM ROT1 TO ROT2. COSZT MUST HAVE BEEN 3659.
C**** CALLED JUST PREVIOUSLY. 3660.
C**** 3661.
DROT=ROT2-ROT1 3662.
C**** COMPUTE THE SINES AND COSINES OF THE INITIAL AND FINAL GMT'S 3663.
SR1=SIN(ROT1) 3664.
CR1=COS(ROT1) 3665.
SR2=SIN(ROT2) 3666.
CR2=COS(ROT2) 3667.
C**** COMPUTE THE INITIAL AND FINAL LOCAL TIMES (MEASURED FROM NOON TO 3668.
C**** NOON) AND THEIR SINES AND COSINES 3669.
DO 520 I=1,IM 3670.
LT1(I)=ROT1+RI(I) 3671.
SLT1(I)=SR1*COSI(I)+CR1*SINI(I) 3672.
CLT1=CR1*COSI(I)-SR1*SINI(I) 3673.
S2LT1(I)=2.*SLT1(I)*CLT1 3674.
LT2(I)=ROT2+RI(I) 3675.
SLT2(I)=SR2*COSI(I)+CR2*SINI(I) 3676.
CLT2=CR2*COSI(I)-SR2*SINI(I) 3677.
520 S2LT2(I)=2.*SLT2(I)*CLT2 3678.
C**** 3679.
C**** CALCULATION FOR POLAR GRID BOXES 3680.
C**** 3681.
DO 600 J=1,JM,JM-1 3682.
SJSD=SINJ(J)*SIND 3683.
CJCD=COSJ(J)*COSD 3684.
IF(SJSD+CJCD.LE.ZERO1) GO TO 580 3685.
IF(SJSD-CJCD.GE.0.) GO TO 560 3686.
C**** AVERAGE COSZ FROM DAWN TO DUSK NEAR THE POLES 3687.
CDUSK=-SJSD/CJCD 3688.
DUSK=ACOS(CDUSK) 3689.
SDUSK=SQRT(CJCD*CJCD-SJSD*SJSD)/CJCD 3690.
S2DUSK=2.*SDUSK*CDUSK 3691.
DAWN=-DUSK 3692.
SDAWN=-SDUSK 3693.
S2DAWN=-S2DUSK 3694.
ECOSZ=SJSD*(DUSK-DAWN)+CJCD*(SDUSK-SDAWN) 3695.
ECOSQZ=SJSD*ECOSZ+CJCD*(SJSD*(SDUSK-SDAWN)+ 3696.
* .5*CJCD*(DUSK-DAWN+.5*(S2DUSK-S2DAWN))) 3697.
COSZ(1,J)=ECOSZ/TWOPI 3698.
COSZA(1,J)=ECOSQZ/ECOSZ 3699.
GO TO 600 3700.
C**** CONSTANT DAYLIGHT NEAR THE POLES 3701.
560 ECOSZ=SJSD*TWOPI 3702.
ECOSQZ=SJSD*ECOSZ+.5*CJCD*CJCD*TWOPI 3703.
COSZ(1,J)=ECOSZ/TWOPI 3704.
COSZA(1,J)=ECOSQZ/ECOSZ 3705.
GO TO 600 3706.
C**** CONSTANT NIGHTIME NEAR THE POLES 3707.
580 COSZ(1,J)=0. 3708.
COSZA(1,J)=0. 3709.
600 CONTINUE 3710.
C**** 3711.
C**** LOOP OVER NON-POLAR LATITUDES 3712.
C**** 3713.
DO 900 J=2,JM-1 3714.
SJSD=SINJ(J)*SIND 3715.
CJCD=COSJ(J)*COSD 3716.
IF(SJSD+CJCD.LE.ZERO1) GO TO 860 3717.
IF(SJSD-CJCD.GE.0.) GO TO 820 3718.
C**** COMPUTE DAWN AND DUSK (AT LOCAL TIME) AND THEIR SINES 3719.
CDUSK=-SJSD/CJCD 3720.
DUSK=ACOS(CDUSK) 3721.
SDUSK=SQRT(CJCD*CJCD-SJSD*SJSD)/CJCD 3722.
S2DUSK=2.*SDUSK*CDUSK 3723.
DAWN=-DUSK 3724.
SDAWN=-SDUSK 3725.
S2DAWN=-S2DUSK 3726.
C**** NEITHER CONSTANT DAYTIME NOR CONSTANT NIGHTIME AT THIS LATITUDE, 3727.
C**** LOOP OVER LONGITUDES 3728.
ZERO2=ZERO1/CJCD 3728.5
DO 800 I=1,IM 3729.
C**** FORCE DUSK TO LIE BETWEEN LT1 AND LT1+2*PI 3730.
IF(DUSK.GT.LT1(I)+ZERO2) GO TO 620 3731.
DUSK=DUSK+TWOPI 3732.
DAWN=DAWN+TWOPI 3733.
620 IF(DAWN.LT.LT2(I)-ZERO2) GO TO 640 3734.
C**** CONTINUOUS NIGHTIME FROM INITIAL TO FINAL TIME 3735.
COSZ(I,J)=0. 3736.
COSZA(I,J)=0. 3737.
GO TO 800 3738.
640 IF(DAWN.GE.LT1(I)) GO TO 700 3739.
IF(DUSK.LT.LT2(I)) GO TO 660 3740.
C**** CONTINUOUS DAYLIGHT FROM INITIAL TIME TO FINAL TIME 3741.
ECOSZ=SJSD*DROT+CJCD*(SLT2(I)-SLT1(I)) 3742.
ECOSQZ=SJSD*ECOSZ+CJCD*(SJSD*(SLT2(I)-SLT1(I))+ 3743.
* .5*CJCD*(DROT+.5*(S2LT2(I)-S2LT1(I)))) 3744.
COSZ(I,J)=ECOSZ/DROT 3745.
COSZA(I,J)=ECOSQZ/ECOSZ 3746.
GO TO 800 3747.
660 IF(DAWN+TWOPI.LT.LT2(I)-ZERO2) GO TO 680 3748.
C**** DAYLIGHT AT INITIAL TIME AND NIGHT AT FINAL TIME 3749.
ECOSZ=SJSD*(DUSK-LT1(I))+CJCD*(SDUSK-SLT1(I)) 3750.
ECOSQZ=SJSD*ECOSZ+CJCD*(SJSD*(SDUSK-SLT1(I))+ 3751.
* .5*CJCD*(DUSK-LT1(I)+.5*(S2DUSK-S2LT1(I)))) 3752.
COSZ(I,J)=ECOSZ/DROT 3753.
COSZA(I,J)=ECOSQZ/ECOSZ 3754.
GO TO 800 3755.
C**** DAYLIGHT AT INITIAL AND FINAL TIMES WITH NIGHTIME IN BETWEEN 3756.
680 ECOSZ=SJSD*(DROT-DAWN-TWOPI+DUSK)+ 3757.
* CJCD*(SLT2(I)-SDAWN+SDUSK-SLT1(I)) 3758.
ECOSQZ=SJSD*ECOSZ+CJCD*(SJSD*(SDUSK-SLT1(I)+SLT2(I)-SDAWN)+ 3759.
* .5*CJCD*(DUSK+DROT-DAWN-TWOPI+ 3760.
* .5*(S2DUSK-S2LT1(I)+S2LT2(I)-S2DAWN))) 3761.
COSZ(I,J)=ECOSZ/DROT 3762.
COSZA(I,J)=ECOSQZ/ECOSZ 3763.
GO TO 800 3764.
700 IF(DUSK.LT.LT2(I)) GO TO 720 3765.
C**** NIGHT AT INITIAL TIME AND DAYLIGHT AT FINAL TIME 3766.
ECOSZ=SJSD*(LT2(I)-DAWN)+CJCD*(SLT2(I)-SDAWN) 3767.
ECOSQZ=SJSD*ECOSZ+CJCD*(SJSD*(SLT2(I)-SDAWN)+ 3768.
* .5*CJCD*(LT2(I)-DAWN+.5*(S2LT2(I)-S2DAWN))) 3769.
COSZ(I,J)=ECOSZ/DROT 3770.
COSZA(I,J)=ECOSQZ/ECOSZ 3771.
GO TO 800 3772.
C**** NIGHTIME AT INITIAL AND FINAL TIMES WITH DAYLIGHT IN BETWEEN 3773.
720 ECOSZ=SJSD*(DUSK-DAWN)+CJCD*(SDUSK-SDAWN) 3774.
ECOSQZ=SJSD*ECOSZ+CJCD*(SJSD*(SDUSK-SDAWN)+ 3775.
* .5*CJCD*(DUSK-DAWN+.5*(S2DUSK-S2DAWN))) 3776.
COSZ(I,J)=ECOSZ/DROT 3777.
COSZA(I,J)=ECOSQZ/ECOSZ 3778.
800 CONTINUE 3779.
GO TO 900 3780.
C**** CONSTANT DAYLIGHT AT THIS LATITUDE 3781.
820 DO 840 I=1,IM 3782.
ECOSZ=SJSD*DROT+CJCD*(SLT2(I)-SLT1(I)) 3783.
ECOSQZ=SJSD*ECOSZ+CJCD*(SJSD*(SLT2(I)-SLT1(I))+ 3784.
* .5*CJCD*(DROT+.5*(S2LT2(I)-S2LT1(I)))) 3785.
COSZ(I,J)=ECOSZ/DROT 3786.
840 COSZA(I,J)=ECOSQZ/ECOSZ 3787.
GO TO 900 3788.
C**** CONSTANT NIGHTIME AT THIS LATITUDE 3789.
860 DO 880 I=1,IM 3790.
COSZ(I,J)=0. 3791.
880 COSZA(I,J)=0. 3792.
900 CONTINUE

As a casual reading by even someone who has never seen computer code before will reveal, not only do they treat night and day - they even account for the fact that during certain times of year its night time (or day time) all day at the poles.

And if you model day and night, you find that there is no need for a greenhouse effect to accurately describe the temperature of the earth.

Have you actually tried this, or is this something that someone told you that you're repeating?

 

[gslack]

Idiot, the first link is to a page on the AIP's website. That's why the domain name is "www.aip.org" My fuck you are illiterate.

AAAAAAHAHHHHH!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!

The first link was to guys book dude, it shows it clearly. AIP hosts the book, because he happens to be the head of it....

The truth is there and your denial shows your level of honesty and integrity.. Poopie pants.

The head of it? What the hell does the head of the AIP know about physics!

LOL,here he is, using the link inside the online book...

Author: Spencer Weart

SPENCER R. WEART (), originally trained as a physicist, is a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, Maryland, USA, and he continues to be affiliated with the Center.

He was the head of it until he retired in 2009. And while he was head of it he put his book upon there site. And as the bio states he is still affiliated with the Center..

Now again, you shouldn't regurgitate oldsocks links because they will bite you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

AAAAAAHAHHHHH!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!

The first link was to guys book dude, it shows it clearly. AIP hosts the book, because he happens to be the head of it....

The truth is there and your denial shows your level of honesty and integrity.. Poopie pants.

The head of it? What the hell does the head of the AIP know about physics!

LOL,here he is, using the link inside the online book...

Author: Spencer Weart

SPENCER R. WEART (), originally trained as a physicist, is a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, Maryland, USA, and he continues to be affiliated with the Center.

He was the head of it until he retired in 2009. And while he was head of it he put his book upon there site. And as the bio states he is still affiliated with the Center..

Now again, you shouldn't regurgitate oldsocks links because they will bite you.

Right, he's got nothing to do with the AIP - I got it.

 

[gslack]

The head of it? What the hell does the head of the AIP know about physics!

LOL,here he is, using the link inside the online book...

Author: Spencer Weart

SPENCER R. WEART (), originally trained as a physicist, is a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, Maryland, USA, and he continues to be affiliated with the Center.

He was the head of it until he retired in 2009. And while he was head of it he put his book upon there site. And as the bio states he is still affiliated with the Center..

Now again, you shouldn't regurgitate oldsocks links because they will bite you.

Right, he's got nothing to do with the AIP - I got it.

And there we go, you lying again.. how unexpected...

Got it, you're going to lie and call it untrue anyway.. And you call me a denier??? ROFL.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

LOL,here he is, using the link inside the online book...

Author: Spencer Weart



He was the head of it until he retired in 2009. And while he was head of it he put his book upon there site. And as the bio states he is still affiliated with the Center..

Now again, you shouldn't regurgitate oldsocks links because they will bite you.

Right, he's got nothing to do with the AIP - I got it.

And there we go, you lying again.. how unexpected...

Got it, you're going to lie and call it untrue anyway.. And you call me a denier??? ROFL.

Did you get a chance to look at the FORTRAN code above?

 

[gslack]

Right, he's got nothing to do with the AIP - I got it.

And there we go, you lying again.. how unexpected...

Got it, you're going to lie and call it untrue anyway.. And you call me a denier??? ROFL.

Did you get a chance to look at the FORTRAN code above?

LOL, so you fail and then ask me to help you???? Not very good at this whole rational thought thing are ya?

it's called debate and I don't need to help you. Especially considering your cut and paste code snippet is irrelevant. That's been shown time and again..

But hey keep on with the cool story bro!