nightmare

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bbe213bc-937e-4b83-885c-8d8ac769602c@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 8:55:29 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d04939e5-874f-45f5-b8d9-77a8f899cd6e@googlegroups.com:


There is never any guarantee at any kitchen anywhere that
soap gets
used at all by any food service personage.

You are starting to catch on.


You are still posting retarded, stupid remarks. This is one.

And it shows that you will *never* catch on.

I agree with you on this.

You're a fucking retard and this is yet another set up for yet
another retarded crack.

It was a stupid remark to say you were
catching on to anything.

Nice try. Now you are as bad or worse than the traitortard.

The remark was stupid, BOY, not just the content of the remark. I
know it is hard for a twit like you to get it, so me thinking that
you might one day catch on was a mistake, for sure.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:daad3487-7766-449f-9739-55df598ef1d4@googlegroups.com:

I wonder what a shrink would label your disorder. You literally
know nothing of the situation and yet you insist what I am saying
is crap.

You literally read a post and then spouted a pure crap tale.

No such argument over who controls an intersection traffic controller
exists.

And no, "timing traffic lights for goodly speed limit driving folks"
IS NOT being done, you fucking idiot!

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:daad3487-7766-449f-9739-55df598ef1d4@googlegroups.com:

The city owns and maintains the traffic lights on it's roads.
However, the main drag through the city is a state road. The
state reimburses the city for maintaining the traffic control
devices on the state road.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

If that is true then CONTROL of said lights is not ANYTHING they would
argue over.

Is THAT simple enough for you, you dippy fuck?

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4aab4fed-07ed-4bb5-b561-996443e8d596@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 9:03:46 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:387c2e86-bb51- 4c4d-a6dd-305257bbc45a@googlegroups.com:

I guess I'll just ignore the rest.

You are an immature, whimpy fucktard. HOAD, boy.

Yes, you do know how to take the high road. I'm always impressed
with your level of maturity. No, I don't think a bot could
actually emulate you very well. It would be a difficult task of
making a bot sound so immature but still believable... no, I guess
a bot doesn't need to sound any more believable than you do.

Yeah, you making a one liner post to simply state that you are
going to ignore someone is orders of magnitude more "high road".

You are a true idiot.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 11:50:00 AM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

But Spice is based on models carefully tested and characterized
against real devices, with millions of hours of experience. The
climate stuff hinges on a pile of twiddle-factors and rules-of-thumb.

Spice fails tests against real devices, if you know where to look,
and 'climate stuff' hinges on a thing I saw in a math
lecture once, 'the fundamental theorem of weather'...

At least that's what I saw when I downloaded the FORTRAN for one of
them some years ago. (Spaghetti code. The tortured manifesto of a
confused mind crying for help. And no comments.)

Spice was Fortran in version 2F5, and not terribly readable.
I had to edit and recompile some of it (to use models made with lowercase lettering)
but that might have been 40 years ago.

I'm dubious that the C rewrites are better commented or more readable
(refer to the Obfuscated C contest for a bit of perspective).

 

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
newse55ne5fvgokmf21e2vqpm537vudo97dkk@4ax.com:

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 21:09:11 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

bitrex wrote:
On 9/5/19 6:49 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
bitrex wrote:
On 9/4/19 2:53 PM, John Larkin wrote:

It's been proved that there's no such thing as an "ultimate
secure computer" there's no way to ensure that your compiler
isn't compromised
in some way, too. Or that your compiler's compiler wasn't
compromised, or that the compiler that you use to compile
the tool you use to check to see if your compiler is
compromised, wasn't compromised.

Or that the hardware that you use to compile the software
that you use to design the hardware for the ultimate secure
computer didn't itself inject a vulnerability into the
design software that then compromises your new hardware.

And so forth...

I believe that absolute hardware protection is possible. But
people don't even use the protection mechanisms that are
provided. The structure of c sure doesn't help.

No, that's why C++ is a great idea even for small embedded
applications. You can write insecure code as easily as you can
in C. But it's easier to write secure code with it as it makes
it easier to write code that enforces some set of common-sense
generally agreed upon restrictions.

e.g. you may never directly write to a raw storage array of
fixed size without bounds-checking, or allow some quantity
measured in positive integers to ever have something that's
not a positive integer assigned to it. And it can enforce
stuff like that with no runtime resource overhead.

There are other languages that do the same out of the box, but
the runtime overhead tends to be higher making them
inappropriate for embedded work.
   Do not forget, with some languages and some machines, one
can have PLUS zero, MINUS zero, and an UNSIGNED zero.
   ..and still conform to IEEE technical machine representation
standards.



Does anyone still use those machines for anything?
Why yes; the Pentium X86..

The ceramic package 486 chips make excellent X-acto knife
sharpeners.

Being so frugal that you resharpen exacto blades that others buy in
100 blade boxes is a tell. And you waste time sharpening them too so
even more cash out the window.

Get a real scalpel type utility knife and real scalpel blades made
from real high grade steels. It is worth the extra cash. And they
are far more precise.

Oh and a diamond grit $2.00 nail file does a better job.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d37afb41-bd4c-48e8-b89a-706591970f36@googlegroups.com:

Weather is asking specifics and is very chaotic and subject to
the butterfly effect

It sure made you nuttier than a fruitcake, butterfly.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 10:11:43 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 4:50:00 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

That's conflating simulation and dissimulation.

One generally accurately agrees with empirical observation, the
other doesn't.

Spice simulates circuits that one can build and test, so empirical observation is easy.

Climate modelling tries to match the existing climate in general - the butterfly effect means that it can't match a specific situation for longer than ten days - so it's a different ball game. Despite the whinging of the denialist propaganda machine, it is still worth doing.

I know you know this, but for others, that is the difference between climate an weather. Weather is asking specifics and is very chaotic and subject to the butterfly effect (not that butterfly will cause a storm, but that the storms won't be on the same day or location). Climate is about the trends, not specifics and is not chaotic, not subject to the butterfly effect.

If anyone actually learns about chaos theory, it has great predictive ability for trends including the concept of strange attractors.

One's based on accurate models of known physical
processes, the other isn't.

Wrong. Climate simulation is based on accurate models of known physical processes. The difficulty is that the systems being modelled are chaotic so you can't have accurate predictions for periods longer than about ten days.

The climate system is thermodynamically constrained so if you run enough long term models you can get a pretty accurate idea of what the climate is going to look like in the long term, which is worth doing. The denialist lobby has a large financial interest in ignoring these results, and James Arthur and John Larkin seem happy to forget this.
snip
It might be possibly unreasonable if both simulations were equally
founded on accurate models of known physical processes, and had
equal histories of closely predicting empirical observations.

But Spice is based on models carefully tested and characterized
against real devices, with millions of hours of experience. The
climate stuff hinges on a pile of twiddle-factors and rules-of-thumb.

That misrepresents climate modelling. James Arthur has got money from the Koch brothers, whose fortune depends on the fossil carbon fuel industry being able to keep on selling fossil carbon as fuel.

It's also not true for many models of semiconductors. There are always shortcuts taken because most semiconductors are not linear, so simulating them with high accuracy is tricky without tons of processing time. Most models sacrifice accuracy in one way or another, the question is which way is important to you?

At least that's what I saw when I downloaded the FORTRAN for one of
them some years ago. (Spaghetti code. The tortured manifesto of a
confused mind crying for help. And no comments.)

Actually code from a graduate students' programming sandbox - part of the Climategate files which he's been misrepresenting as a research grade climate simulations ever since. I've called him on it before, but he keeps on lying about it.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

--

Rick C.

-+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 9:59:39 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4d180dcd-697c-47d8-ba66-a341af81f02a@googlegroups.com:

Lol! You are the one calling people "child" or "boy" or your
other childish terms.

If the foo shits...

Calling a childish twerp childish is not childish, boy.

Don't act childishly and you will not warrant the moniker. Real
simple, putz.

I literally laughed out loud at that one. You are just too funny.

Thanks,

--

Rick C.

-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d37afb41-bd4c-48e8-b89a-706591970f36@googlegroups.com:

Most models sacrifice accuracy in one way or another, the
question is which way is important to you?

Bullshit. Weather modelling like what the news guys put up for us
is done on supercomputers and there are no shortcuts being made.

A model does not "sacrifice accuracy". It is a model... A GUESS.
There is exactly ZERO "accuracy". They are 100% predictive.

Doh!

What happens is that incomplete data gets used. Like wind flows
not being put in. Usually it comes down to the choice made for the
centroid of the model start point. The US model that first showed it
going across the state of Florida likely had a centroid way over by
where it was at the time, prior to it crossing near PR. And the
English model likely had a centroid start point over closer to
Florida which included the wind rushes coming across the state. I
saw those flows.

I saw wind flows that abutted the storm and predicted that it would
hold up and not make landfall and then creep up the coast. Just like
the UK model showed.

I predicted it from looking at the current path it had across PR's
tip and the winds pushing out eastward across Florida. Like a day
and a half before it did exactly what I said.

The post is here. I called it dead on, and even said it would sit
there before moving on up.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d37afb41-bd4c-48e8-b89a-706591970f36@googlegroups.com:

If anyone actually learns about chaos theory, it has great
predictive ability for trends including the concept of strange
attractors.

Like you... attracted to telling yourself that you actually know
anything and the rest of us are all in the dark.

"You're like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that
isn't there!" -Jaime Escalante

Whereas folks actually capable, not subject to your holy-er than
thou attitude say...

"I was swimming with dolphins whispering imaginary numbers and
searching for the fourth dimension" -Tito

So presumptuous, you are.

 

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
news:c2ab6b9c-79ea-4a42-9a05-bb0b906bb5ab@googlegroups.com:

I've been using the same X-acto blade my friend Ray gave me, for
forty years. It's still virgin, still surgically sharp.

Thanks Intel!

Cheers,
James

Then you are lying and your version of "using it" is the fact that
it resides in your tool box, unused.

A fucking 2 foot tall model of the great pyramid would keep it
sharper.

Kershaw makes knives that are shave sharp from the factory and use
a steel which is the best blade steel there is. Made in the good old
USA.

Sandvik 14C28N steel.

Exacto ain't got nothin' on real knives.

You're right, I don't cut as many traces as I used to with it.

But I use it, still cut traces, then sharpen it on the 80486 when
needed.

I don't wreck things. Some people seem to, but my things always
last. And this has sentimental value, since I miss my pal Ray.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 10:22:16 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 11:50:00 AM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

But Spice is based on models carefully tested and characterized
against real devices, with millions of hours of experience. The
climate stuff hinges on a pile of twiddle-factors and rules-of-thumb.

Spice fails tests against real devices, if you know where to look,
and 'climate stuff' hinges on a thing I saw in a math
lecture once, 'the fundamental theorem of weather'...

SPICE is pretty good, but we all know it's occasionally fabulously wrong
despite all thee years of intensive testing, use, and constant
verification against physical reality.

At least that's what I saw when I downloaded the FORTRAN for one of
them some years ago. (Spaghetti code. The tortured manifesto of a
confused mind crying for help. And no comments.)

Spice was Fortran in version 2F5, and not terribly readable.
I had to edit and recompile some of it (to use models made with lowercase lettering)
but that might have been 40 years ago.

It was one of the global climate models that I downloaded in FORTRAN.
It was truly sub-par: awful coding, awful logic, non-existent
documentation. Unprofessional.

I'm not sure how to convey my horror other than that feeling one gets,
for example, reading a chaotic schematic, or an incoherent note
scratched out in Magic Marker by some unsteady hand. The electronic
equivalent of speaking in tongues.

Style aside, they made a large number of assumptions & used
rules of thumb where accurate models didn't exist for various natural
processes. That's reasonable--a best guess or approximation. But
that's no longer an accurate model of known physical processes.

It's been twenty years since I looked. Some models, for example, had
naive assumptions about clouds. A 10% error modeling clouds overwhelms
the CO2 signal. Several models assumed static ice sheets, static
vegetation, etc.

I'm dubious that the C rewrites are better commented or more readable
(refer to the Obfuscated C contest for a bit of perspective).

I'll take 'C' over FORTRAN, but 'C's a mess too.

Cheers,
James Arthur (coding from the middle of a C-monster's belly)

 

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 3:21:30 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:49:56 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:28:57 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/09/2019 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 17:14:45 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Although there is some excellent software about and best practice is
improving gradually (though IMHO too slowly) there is far too much of a
ship it and be damned macho business culture in shrink wrap software.

Win10 updates that bricked certain brands of portable for example.

running some spice sims, breadboarding something to try an idea, swapping parts to see what happens.

I find it very odd that he trusts Spice simulation predictions when at
the same time he rails incessantly against climate change simulations.

That's conflating simulation and dissimulation.

One generally accurately agrees with empirical observation, the
other doesn't. One's based on accurate models of known physical
processes, the other isn't.

However much group-think rightly points out that all simulations are
equal, we mustn't forget that some simulations are more equal than
others.

Some sims are parts-per-million accurate. Some are absolute nonsense.
One trick lies in knowing which is which.

The climate models differ from balloon observations by a factor of
about three.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/wheres-the-hot-spot.php

A factor of three error, all by itself, demonstrates that the
processes are neither well understood, nor accurately modeled.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 10:11:43 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 4:50:00 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:28:57 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/09/2019 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 17:14:45 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Although there is some excellent software about and best practice is
improving gradually (though IMHO too slowly) there is far too much of a
ship it and be damned macho business culture in shrink wrap software.

Win10 updates that bricked certain brands of portable for example.

running some spice sims, breadboarding something to try an idea, swapping parts to see what happens.

I find it very odd that he trusts Spice simulation predictions when at
the same time he rails incessantly against climate change simulations.

That's conflating simulation and dissimulation.

One generally accurately agrees with empirical observation, the
other doesn't.

Spice simulates circuits that one can build and test, so empirical observation is easy.

Climate modelling tries to match the existing climate in general - the butterfly effect means that it can't match a specific situation for longer than ten days - so it's a different ball game. Despite the whinging of the denialist propaganda machine, it is still worth doing.

One's based on accurate models of known physical
processes, the other isn't.

Wrong. Climate simulation is based on accurate models of known physical processes. The difficulty is that the systems being modelled are chaotic so you can't have accurate predictions for periods longer than about ten days.

The climate system is thermodynamically constrained so if you run enough long term models you can get a pretty accurate idea of what the climate is going to look like in the long term, which is worth doing. The denialist lobby has a large financial interest in ignoring these results, and James Arthur and John Larkin seem happy to forget this.

However much group-think rightly points out that all simulations are
equal, we mustn't forget that some simulations are more equal than
others.

I mostly - certainly not always - am guided by simulations of stable
linear systems where I can trust the component models and the sim
software. I don't trust future-state simulations of unstable or
chaotic systems, especially if I don't understand the component
behavior, the forcings, or the initial states.

Apart from the initial bias most of the interesting behaviour in Spice
comes from its solution of non-linear component models.

Simulation mostly helps me to think.

And of course, being in business to sell stuff, my simulations are
rapidly, often concurrently, verified by experiment, which also guides
future expectations of simulations.

Is that unreasonable?

No, but it is unreasonable to decry one sort of simulation because what
it predicts is inconvenient when you also rely on another simulation.

It might be possibly unreasonable if both simulations were equally
founded on accurate models of known physical processes, and had
equal histories of closely predicting empirical observations.

But Spice is based on models carefully tested and characterized
against real devices, with millions of hours of experience. The
climate stuff hinges on a pile of twiddle-factors and rules-of-thumb.

That misrepresents climate modelling. James Arthur has got money from the Koch brothers, whose fortune depends on the fossil carbon fuel industry being able to keep on selling fossil carbon as fuel.

At least that's what I saw when I downloaded the FORTRAN for one of
them some years ago. (Spaghetti code. The tortured manifesto of a
confused mind crying for help. And no comments.)

Actually code from a graduate students' programming sandbox - part of the Climategate files which he's been misrepresenting as a research grade climate simulations ever since. I've called him on it before, but he keeps on lying about it.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

snip

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You got every fact wrong. You misstate which source code I examined,
even though I just explicitly spelled it out for you. You've invented
a lunatic's fantasy about the Koch brothers, and you're wrong about the
technical details of the arguments. That demonstrates lack of basic
diligence.

You yourself re-iterate my points, then contradict yourself when you
insist:

"Climate simulation is based on accurate models of known physical
processes. The difficulty is that the systems being modelled are
chaotic so you can't have accurate predictions for periods longer
than about ten days."

We agree that climate models aren't readily verified against empirical
observation; that's part of what makes them so weak.

I'd appreciate it if you checked your facts before defaming me.

James Arthur

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 8:50:48 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 3:21:30 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:49:56 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:28:57 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/09/2019 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 17:14:45 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Although there is some excellent software about and best practice is
improving gradually (though IMHO too slowly) there is far too much of a
ship it and be damned macho business culture in shrink wrap software.

Win10 updates that bricked certain brands of portable for example.

running some spice sims, breadboarding something to try an idea, swapping parts to see what happens.

I find it very odd that he trusts Spice simulation predictions when at
the same time he rails incessantly against climate change simulations.

That's conflating simulation and dissimulation.

One generally accurately agrees with empirical observation, the
other doesn't. One's based on accurate models of known physical
processes, the other isn't.

However much group-think rightly points out that all simulations are
equal, we mustn't forget that some simulations are more equal than
others.

Some sims are parts-per-million accurate. Some are absolute nonsense.
One trick lies in knowing which is which.

The climate models differ from balloon observations by a factor of
about three.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/wheres-the-hot-spot.php

A factor of three error, all by itself, demonstrates that the
processes are neither well understood, nor accurately modeled.

Cheers,
James Arthur

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/power-line/

--

Rick C.

+--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 10:45:54 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 10:22:16 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 11:50:00 AM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

But Spice is based on models carefully tested and characterized
against real devices, with millions of hours of experience. The
climate stuff hinges on a pile of twiddle-factors and rules-of-thumb.

Spice fails tests against real devices, if you know where to look,
and 'climate stuff' hinges on a thing I saw in a math
lecture once, 'the fundamental theorem of weather'...

SPICE is pretty good, but we all know it's occasionally fabulously wrong
despite all thee years of intensive testing, use, and constant
verification against physical reality.

At least that's what I saw when I downloaded the FORTRAN for one of
them some years ago. (Spaghetti code. The tortured manifesto of a
confused mind crying for help. And no comments.)

Spice was Fortran in version 2F5, and not terribly readable.
I had to edit and recompile some of it (to use models made with lowercase lettering) but that might have been 40 years ago.

It was one of the global climate models that I downloaded in FORTRAN.
It was truly sub-par: awful coding, awful logic, non-existent
documentation. Unprofessional.

I'm not sure how to convey my horror other than that feeling one gets,
for example, reading a chaotic schematic, or an incoherent note
scratched out in Magic Marker by some unsteady hand. The electronic
equivalent of speaking in tongues.

Style aside, they made a large number of assumptions & used
rules of thumb where accurate models didn't exist for various natural
processes. That's reasonable--a best guess or approximation. But
that's no longer an accurate model of known physical processes.

It's been twenty years since I looked. Some models, for example, had
naive assumptions about clouds. A 10% error modeling clouds overwhelms
the CO2 signal.

But cloud cover seems to be remarkably stable. 50% of the atmosphere is always rising and cooling and condensing out water droplets, and the other 50% is sinking and warming and evaporating any suspended droplets of water.

> Several models assumed static ice sheets, static vegetation, etc.

All models are over-simplicifations. It's what model building is about.

He's referring to a graduate students coding sandbox that was part of the Climategate files.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

It was only ten years ago, and he's treating apprentice-training work as if it was representative of the kind of work being done for publication.

It's all totally dishonest denialist propaganda.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:12:53 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 10:11:43 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 4:50:00 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:28:57 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/09/2019 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 17:14:45 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

But Spice is based on models carefully tested and characterized
against real devices, with millions of hours of experience. The
climate stuff hinges on a pile of twiddle-factors and rules-of-thumb.

That misrepresents climate modelling. James Arthur has got money from the Koch brothers, whose fortune depends on the fossil carbon fuel industry being able to keep on selling fossil carbon as fuel.

At least that's what I saw when I downloaded the FORTRAN for one of
them some years ago. (Spaghetti code. The tortured manifesto of a
confused mind crying for help. And no comments.)

Actually code from a graduate students' programming sandbox - part of the Climategate files which he's been misrepresenting as a research grade climate simulations ever since. I've called him on it before, but he keeps on lying about it.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

You got every fact wrong. You misstate which source code I examined,
even though I just explicitly spelled it out for you.

You didn't."At least that's what I saw when I downloaded the FORTRAN for one of
them some years ago" doesn't specify where you downloaded the code from, and the Climategate files did include exactly such a sandbox.

> You've invented a lunatic's fantasy about the Koch brothers,

You've admitted to being investigated by the US tax office as part of an initiative instigated by the Obama administration into the astro-turfing exercise by the Koch brothers which created the Tea Party faction in the Republican Party. The Koch brothers had covered their tracks well enough that nobody got prosecuted, but the only lunatic aspect of the story was the Koch brothers destroying the Republican Party (and letting in Trump) in their effort to reshape it.

> and you're wrong about the technical details of the arguments. That demonstrates lack of basic diligence.

Twaddle.

You yourself re-iterate my points, then contradict yourself when you
insist:

"Climate simulation is based on accurate models of known physical
processes. The difficulty is that the systems being modelled are
chaotic so you can't have accurate predictions for periods longer
than about ten days."

We agree that climate models aren't readily verified against empirical
observation; that's part of what makes them so weak.

As John von Neumann pointed out, very early on, even primitive climate models replicate features like the Hadley cells.

Climate models replicate the broad-brush behavior of the actual climate - it's controlled by thermodynamics - so even if you don't know exactly when the rain fell, the average amount of rain that falls is still predictable.

The enthusiasm for equating weather with climate is a standard denialist trope, and you've been peddling it for years.

> I'd appreciate it if you checked your facts before defaming me.

You wouldn't. You'd still end up looking like a gullible twit or a liar for hire.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 5:50:48 PM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

The climate models differ from balloon observations by a factor of
about three.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/wheres-the-hot-spot.php

Cristy is a crank. His conclusions are contrivances, not based on best data and
knowledge. The 'spot' is a rarefied bit of atmosphere, insigificant in the
energy balance of a planet.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 5:45:54 PM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 10:22:16 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 11:50:00 AM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

But Spice is based on models carefully tested and ... The
climate stuff hinges on a pile of twiddle-factors and rules-of-thumb.

At least that's what I saw when I downloaded the FORTRAN for one of
them some years ago. (Spaghetti code. The tortured manifesto of a
confused mind crying for help. And no comments.)

Spice was Fortran in version 2F5, and not terribly readable.
I had to edit and recompile some of it (to use models made with lowercase lettering)
but that might have been 40 years ago.

It was one of the global climate models that I downloaded in FORTRAN.

Style aside, they made a large number of assumptions & used
rules of thumb where accurate models didn't exist for various natural
processes. That's reasonable--a best guess or approximation. But
that's no longer an accurate model of known physical processes.

You don't start modeling climate and weather with a set of known
physical processes, you start by observing climate and weather.
Eventually, it will presumably boil down to known physics/chemistry/math
(parts are there already) but there's no imperative to wait for such to occur.

Mathematicians don't approve of the sloppy non-theorems that physicists
use, and physicists mightn't approve of the rules of thumb for climate
models, but implementing an improvement is the only input that will be accepted: one
simply cannot 'disapprove' the effective work of others.