NOAA comes clean ...

[jc456]

In daytime hours, look up. That blue thing above you is “sky.” See that bright yellow thing up there? (Stop looking. You could be blinded!) It’s called the “Sun.”

Trusted scientists have assured us that this “Sun” thing is the prime mover for almost all of our global heat and climate change and overall weather patterns.

Mamma always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun

 

[ReinyDays]

I missed it? NOAA has admitted that all of their climate modeling fails, without exception? Really? Some of have been saying that for years...

No ... this new temperature data is from these models ... treating the atmosphere as a fluid ... I'd be interested in how else this can be modeled ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

No ... this new temperature data is from these models ... treating the atmosphere as a fluid ... I'd be interested in how else this can be modeled ...

That has been one of the major problems with modeling for as long as I can remember. Fluid dynamics is the correct model to use.

 

[ReinyDays]

You probably shouldn't start threads in this forum.

Do you know what the definition of temperature is? ...

 

[Crick]

No ... this new temperature data is from these models ... treating the atmosphere as a fluid ... I'd be interested in how else this can be modeled ...

Interesting comment from someone who thinks he knows enough to condemn all GCMs as faulty.

 

[ReinyDays]

That has been one of the major problems with modeling for as long as I can remember. Fluid dynamics is the correct model to use.

The models are fine ... just need better hardware to run the simulations ... we've reached exoscale and Moore's Law is still in effect ... but as I understand the system, it is the dynamic models they're using here ...

I think the radiative climate models are fine as well ... but we MUST keep in mind the several assumptions being made ... and that if any one assumption fails, then the whole of the modeling fails ... and I also think the IPCC's assumption of no increase in cloud cover is foolishly wrong ... but required or they'd have no reason to exist ...

Higher temperature --> higher humidity --> more clouds --> more rain ... as they say in the trade: || ..

 

[ReinyDays]

Interesting comment from someone who thinks he knows enough to condemn all GCMs as faulty.

Do you know what the definition of temperature is? ...

 

[Crick]

That has been one of the major problems with modeling for as long as I can remember. Fluid dynamics is the correct model to use.

So, Billy Boy, as an atmospheric physicist, you must have been involved in the creation and maintenance of many GCMs. Why, it must be the central theme of your professional life. Why don't you explain to Reiny what are your modeling options.

 

[Crick]

Do you know what the definition of temperature is? ...

Do I know what YOU think the definition of temperature might be? No. Have I aced two semesters of thermodynamics, one of heat transfer and three of physics with calculus? Yes. So I think I have a functional definition swimming around upstairs somewhere. You?

 

[jc456]

The models are fine ... just need better hardware to run the simulations ... we've reached exoscale and Moore's Law is still in effect ... but as I understand the system, it is the dynamic models they're using here ...

I think the radiative climate models are fine as well ... but we MUST keep in mind the several assumptions being made ... and that if any one assumption fails, then the whole of the modeling fails ... and I also think the IPCC's assumption of no increase in cloud cover is foolishly wrong ... but required or they'd have no reason to exist ...

Higher temperature --> higher humidity --> more clouds --> more rain ... as they say in the trade: || ..

none of it tested together ever.

 

[ReinyDays]

Do I know what YOU think the definition of temperature might be? No. Have I aced two semesters of thermodynamics, one of heat transfer and three of physics with calculus? Yes. So I think I have a functional definition swimming around upstairs somewhere. You?

So you don't know the the definition ... it's the average amount of kinetic energy is, say, a mole of something ... if we want to change temperature, we have to change the kinetic energy ...

And there's laws that govern the movement of energy ... CAGW violates these laws ... as has been demonstrated again and again ...

 

[Crick]

So you don't know the the definition ... it's the average amount of kinetic energy is, say, a mole of something ... if we want to change temperature, we have to change the kinetic energy ...

And there's laws that govern the movement of energy ... CAGW violates these laws ... as has been demonstrated again and again ...

As was always very likely, you've once again demonstrated you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

 

[daveman]

As was always very likely, you've once again demonstrated you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Prove him wrong. NOTE: Just saying he's wrong is not proof.

 

[Crick]

Prove him wrong. NOTE: Just saying he's wrong is not proof.

His claim, that AGW violates the laws of thermodynamics, is the extraordinary claim. AGW is accepted by the vast majority of scientists who obviously do not believe it violates fundamental thermodynamics. Therefore it is HIS responsibility to provide evidence.

And, for the umpteenth time, there are no proofs in the natural sciences: Only evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

As was always very likely, you've once again demonstrated you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

You have no clue how we determine the energy stored in the atmosphere, do you. Without this knowledge you cannot make a model function let alone make predictions with it. The partial pressures of one grid sqaure in a model determines the effect it has on surrounding cells. Without knowing the energy within, you get what we have today. Models that fail with 100% certainty.

RD is correct, you are clueless.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, Billy Boy, as an atmospheric physicist, you must have been involved in the creation and maintenance of many GCMs. Why, it must be the central theme of your professional life. Why don't you explain to Reiny what are your modeling options.

WOW.. You have no clue how or why these things work or do not work... Stop before you hurt yourself.

 

[jc456]

As was always very likely, you've once again demonstrated you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

so provide your definition. That's how this works.

 

[ReinyDays]

His claim, that AGW violates the laws of thermodynamics ...

LIAR ... I said CAGW ... nitwit ...

It is these catastrophic claims that violate the laws of nature ... hypercanes are physically impossible ... why do you advocate for this prediction? ... you say you understand thermodynamics, how can you possibly buy it to "exponential" temperature change? ... the opposite of everything else in the universe ...

 

[Crick]

LIAR ... I said CAGW ... nitwit ...

It is these catastrophic claims that violate the laws of nature ... hypercanes are physically impossible ... why do you advocate for this prediction? ... you say you understand thermodynamics, how can you possibly buy it to "exponential" temperature change? ... the opposite of everything else in the universe ...

I'm pretty certain that anyone that had passed thermodynamics would not have used the term "laws of nature".

So, what are you saying here? That exponential temperature change is the opposite of everything else in the universe? All I get from this is that you don't understand the term "exponential" and that's on top of being the sort of blithering idiot that would use the phrase "everything else in the universe" as if it actually meant something.

And that's on top of the being the sort of blithering idiot that would think they know thermodynamics better than ten thousand PhDs.

 

[jc456]

I'm pretty certain that anyone that had passed thermodynamics would not have used the term "laws of nature".

So, what are you saying here? That exponential temperature change is the opposite of everything else in the universe? All I get from this is that you don't understand the term "exponential" and that's on top of being the sort of blithering idiot that would use the phrase "everything else in the universe" as if it actually meant something.

so nothing to show how it's catastrophic. hmmmmmmm go figure.