Sun Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is false.

[bripat9643]

No you haven't. All you've done is mentally jerked yourself off so you could feel good.

You haven't shot anything full of holes because you haven't said anything of substance, presented any data, or presented any deductive reasoning.

In other words "Nyah nyah nyah!" I've had more intelligent conversations with 2nd graders.

I don't need to present data to prove your claim is horse manure. A smaller number on your paycheck is smaller than a bigger number. That's the result of basic logic. Please disprove it. We're all anxiously waiting to see this stunning argument you claim to have.

So you don't understand the difference between nominal and real dollars? Or you do? Depends on if you like the answer or not? Hard to tell. Okay.

That explains why you find a conversation with a second grader as an intelligent conversation.

------

"Because inflation.cause everyone's paycheck to increase?"

Very good. You are getting warmer. Mull it over for a while (a couple of months, in your case). You might get it.

Your discussion about nominal and real dollars is a diversion. So is your blabbering about inflation. It has nothing to do with the effects of taxation.

You're just weaseling, idgitme.

No one is fooled.

 

[itfitzme]

In other words "Nyah nyah nyah!" I've had more intelligent conversations with 2nd graders.

I don't need to present data to prove your claim is horse manure. A smaller number on your paycheck is smaller than a bigger number. That's the result of basic logic. Please disprove it. We're all anxiously waiting to see this stunning argument you claim to have.

So you don't understand the difference between nominal and real dollars? Or you do? Depends on if you like the answer or not? Hard to tell. Okay.

That explains why you find a conversation with a second grader as an intelligent conversation.

------

"Because inflation.cause everyone's paycheck to increase?"

Very good. You are getting warmer. Mull it over for a while (a couple of months, in your case). You might get it.

Your discussion about nominal and real dollars is a diversion. So is your blabbering about inflation. It has nothing to do with the effects of taxation.

You're just weaseling, idgitme.

No one is fooled.

No it's not. I've given you the data for the money supply, the population, the CPI, and the tax rates. I've given you the equation of exchange.

All you have managed is to chant, "no it isn't".

 

[bripat9643]

So you don't understand the difference between nominal and real dollars? Or you do? Depends on if you like the answer or not? Hard to tell. Okay.

That explains why you find a conversation with a second grader as an intelligent conversation.

------

"Because inflation.cause everyone's paycheck to increase?"

Very good. You are getting warmer. Mull it over for a while (a couple of months, in your case). You might get it.

Your discussion about nominal and real dollars is a diversion. So is your blabbering about inflation. It has nothing to do with the effects of taxation.

You're just weaseling, idgitme.

No one is fooled.

No it's not. I've given you the data for the money supply, the population, the CPI, and the tax rates. I've given you the equation of exchange.

All you have managed is to chant, "no it isn't".

In other words you have provided nothing that supports your claim. I could post the solution to a polynomial equation. Would that support my claim?

Show the relevance of these things to your claim that taxation doesn't reduce your spending power. Otherwise you're just blathering incoherently. You are obviously afraid to post the argument. That's why you keep telling me to go look it up. That's the sure sign of someone who knows he can't prove what he claims.

 

[itfitzme]

Your discussion about nominal and real dollars is a diversion. So is your blabbering about inflation. It has nothing to do with the effects of taxation.

You're just weaseling, idgitme.

No one is fooled.

No it's not. I've given you the data for the money supply, the population, the CPI, and the tax rates. I've given you the equation of exchange.

All you have managed is to chant, "no it isn't".

In other words you have provided nothing that supports your claim. I could post the solution to a polynomial equation. Would that support my claim?

Show the relevance of these things to your claim that taxation doesn't reduce your spending power. Otherwise you're just blathering incoherently. You are obviously afraid to post the argument. That's why you keep telling me to go look it up. That's the sure sign of someone who knows he can't prove what he claims.

Of course I have something to support my claims. Unlike you, I constantly present evidence that supports my claims. I already posted it. That you are ignorant of the evidence is a personal problem.

And, you, on the other hand, never present anything but simple emotional opinions.

 

[itfitzme]

This is what we could hope to achieve.

 

[bripat9643]

No it's not. I've given you the data for the money supply, the population, the CPI, and the tax rates. I've given you the equation of exchange.

All you have managed is to chant, "no it isn't".

In other words you have provided nothing that supports your claim. I could post the solution to a polynomial equation. Would that support my claim?

Show the relevance of these things to your claim that taxation doesn't reduce your spending power. Otherwise you're just blathering incoherently. You are obviously afraid to post the argument. That's why you keep telling me to go look it up. That's the sure sign of someone who knows he can't prove what he claims.

Of course I have something to support my claims. Unlike you, I constantly present evidence that supports my claims. I already posted it. That you are ignorant of the evidence is a personal problem.

And, you, on the other hand, never present anything but simple emotional opinions.

You haven't posted jack shit aside from a bunch of pseudo economic hocus-pocus which has nothing to do with the effect of taxation on your paycheck.

I, on the other hand, have posted the irrefutable fact that more net pay gives you more spending power and a higher standard of living than less net pay, and the result of higher taxes is less net pay.

Now, prove that syllogism wrong.

So far you're batting zero. In fact, you aren't even at bat. You ran away like a scared little puppy with his tail between his legs a long time ago.

 

[itfitzme]

Volcanic data, 1890 to 1999. 2.8 degree latitudes for a total of 64 bands, S to N

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/volcanic_aerosols/ammann2003b_volcanics.txt

 

[itfitzme]

In other words you have provided nothing that supports your claim. I could post the solution to a polynomial equation. Would that support my claim?

Show the relevance of these things to your claim that taxation doesn't reduce your spending power. Otherwise you're just blathering incoherently. You are obviously afraid to post the argument. That's why you keep telling me to go look it up. That's the sure sign of someone who knows he can't prove what he claims.

Of course I have something to support my claims. Unlike you, I constantly present evidence that supports my claims. I already posted it. That you are ignorant of the evidence is a personal problem.

And, you, on the other hand, never present anything but simple emotional opinions.

You haven't posted jack shit aside from a bunch of pseudo economic hocus-pocus which has nothing to do with the effect of taxation on your paycheck.

I, on the other hand, have posted the irrefutable fact that more net pay gives you more spending power and a higher standard of living than less net pay, and the result of higher taxes is less net pay.

Now, prove that syllogism wrong.

So far you're batting zero. In fact, you aren't even at bat. You ran away like a scared little puppy with his tail between his legs a long time ago.

You are still not saying anything useful. You haven't posted any irrefutable facts accept that you believe that your personal home economics is the same as macro economics.

The cause of higher standards of living is number of people employed and the efficiency of labor. Always has been, always will be.

Here are two proxies for efficiency


and here is the history of employment ratio.



And nobody but you is dumb enough to believe that more money in the money supply is going to magically make more stuff or result in a higher standard of living. Increasing the amount of money in paychecks won't make more stuff.

Or how about we just have the Fed double the money supply, then we can all go out and buy the twice as much stuff that somehow magically appeared. We can just all quit working, print money, and we will then have everything we want. Yeah, that's it. Really, how fin stupid can you be to believe that if everyone has more money, somehow, magically, there will be more stuff. I believe that may be the root of your problem, you are lazy and believe you can have food and shelter without having to work for it.

The reality is that no manner of increasing or decreasing taxes makes any long run matter because the amount of stuff that is available to consume is dependent direction on the efficiency of production and the number of people employed. The only time that increasing or decreasing net pay makes any difference is if 1) You are part of a smaller group that gets that, like lowering the tax rate on capital gains, or 2) in the short run if there is under employment.

And, the return on tax changes is minimal and nearly non existent which is why every time that a Republican President has lowered tax rates to stimulate the economy, like Reagan, they have shortly increases spending.

In fact, since Richard Nixon, the only three presidential terms which have seen a limiting to discretionary spending were G Bush I, Clinton, and Obama.



Nixon, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and G Bush II all presided over increases in spending. In fact, Bush II presided over the largest increase in discretionary spending.

Those are facts, a concept that seems to elude you. All you need to do is learn to count. Oh, that's right, you can only count to zero because that is your batting average.

 

[itfitzme]

Anyways, back to the topic at hand, sunspots, CO2, AMO and global mean temperature



That, though, is about as far as a blind multivariate regression is going to get.

Which would be nice to get to

And, it appears that one of the differences is the volcanic data.

The volcanic data that I have looks like this, when just combined to yearly global data.



Which isn't going to cut it. One problem is that it is 64 latitude bands of 2.8 degrees each for each month. Some further refinement is going to be needed to deal with seasonally differentiated data.

 

[Abraham3]

What's the x-axis on the volcanic data?

 

[itfitzme]

What's the x-axis on the volcanic data?

It is a bit unclear as I find no units, just the term "forcing data".

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/volcanic_aerosols/ammann2003b_volcanics.txt

from

Climate Forcing - Obtaining and Contributing Data

 

[itfitzme]

Which would be nice to get to

And, it appears that one of the differences is the volcanic data.

The volcanic data that I have looks like this, when just combined to yearly global data.



Which isn't going to cut it. One problem is that it is 64 latitude bands of 2.8 degrees each for each month. Some further refinement is going to be needed to deal with seasonally differentiated data.

Nasa provides information on forcing (w/m^2)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

The stratospheric aerosols appears relatively consistent with the volcanic forcing data.

Comparing the yearly averaged detailed volcanic data with the stratospheric aerosols in a scatter plot shows them to be nearly the same, to about 90%. They are negative of each other.

All three, shown above, have all the peaks in the right place. The wikipedia model example has a curve to it the other two don't.

 

[itfitzme]

So, here are the two sources together and scaled



They are basically the same, on massaged.

 

[itfitzme]

This is the results from the Nasa Forcing Data

 

[itfitzme]

So, the GCM software is available for download at

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/

"The Goddard Institute for Space Studies General Circulation Model II, described fully by Hansen et al. (1983), is a three-dimensional global climate model that numerically solves the physical conservation equations for energy, mass, momentum and moisture as well as the equation of state.

Model Description
The standard version of this model has a horizontal resolution of 8° latitude by 10° longitude, nine layers in the atmosphere extending to 10 mb, and two ground hydrology layers. The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations."

The actual source is available at

EdGCM - Model II

 

[flacaltenn]

So, the GCM software is available for download at

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/

"The Goddard Institute for Space Studies General Circulation Model II, described fully by Hansen et al. (1983), is a three-dimensional global climate model that numerically solves the physical conservation equations for energy, mass, momentum and moisture as well as the equation of state.

Model Description
The standard version of this model has a horizontal resolution of 8° latitude by 10° longitude, nine layers in the atmosphere extending to 10 mb, and two ground hydrology layers. The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations."

The actual source is available at

EdGCM - Model II

Prior to 1983 huh? Written in Fortran on a punch card deck? You have the VAX computers to run this on? What compiler do you intend to use? Careful there grasshopper, the "forcings_file" was last updated in 2005..

 

[Abraham3]

Are you under the impression that computer science had to wait for the PC? I learned FORTRAN, using card decks, to program an IBM 360 mainframe in 1969.

Cray was founded in 1972.

Are you sure there were no real computers in the 80s? Eh?

 

[itfitzme]

So, the GCM software is available for download at

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/

"The Goddard Institute for Space Studies General Circulation Model II, described fully by Hansen et al. (1983), is a three-dimensional global climate model that numerically solves the physical conservation equations for energy, mass, momentum and moisture as well as the equation of state.

Model Description
The standard version of this model has a horizontal resolution of 8° latitude by 10° longitude, nine layers in the atmosphere extending to 10 mb, and two ground hydrology layers. The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations."

The actual source is available at

EdGCM - Model II

Prior to 1983 huh? Written in Fortran on a punch card deck? You have the VAX computers to run this on? What compiler do you intend to use? Careful there grasshopper, the "forcings_file" was last updated in 2005..

What the F are you talking about?

You are an insane idiot that is completely out of touch with reality in your obsesive compulsive drive to find things to complain about so you can elevate your ego.

 

[itfitzme]

So, the GCM software is available for download at

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/

"The Goddard Institute for Space Studies General Circulation Model II, described fully by Hansen et al. (1983), is a three-dimensional global climate model that numerically solves the physical conservation equations for energy, mass, momentum and moisture as well as the equation of state.

Model Description
The standard version of this model has a horizontal resolution of 8° latitude by 10° longitude, nine layers in the atmosphere extending to 10 mb, and two ground hydrology layers. The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations."

The actual source is available at

EdGCM - Model II

Prior to 1983 huh? Written in Fortran on a punch card deck? You have the VAX computers to run this on? What compiler do you intend to use? Careful there grasshopper, the "forcings_file" was last updated in 2005..

Christ, you're an idiot.

The FortranTools suite, consisting of the g95 Fortran compiler
Absoft supplies quality Fortran 95

Intel® Compilers | Intel® Developer Zone Intel® Fortran Studio XE 2013

Fortran Compiler Suites & Tools for Programmers on Windows! Pro Fortran 2013 v13

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/ModelII/Compile.html

"The compiler used is
Absoft Pro Fortran 9.2 (OS X PPC)
ifort 10.1 (OS X Intel)
Absoft Pro Fortran 8.0 (Windows)
Compilation

The current build system is here: http://dev.edgcm.columbia.edu/browser/GCM/modelII/trunk/ This page of documentation may be out of date. View the Makefile.README in the trunk folder for more instructions that might be more up-to-date.

All development is done on a MacBook (Intel) running OS X 10.5. This is the primary environment for running and testing EdGCM at GISS. PPC builds are done on this same MacBook (with platform target options for PPC). Windows is run in Parallels.

Binary models produced by the instructions below can be placed in the Applications/Model/ folder. On windows it must be named modelII 8x10x9 1.0.7.exe. On OS X it must be named either modelII_intel.exe or modelII_ppc.exe. Future simulations will use one of these. Currently running simulations will use whatever existed there at the time the play button was pressed."