nightmare

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 19:22:12 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

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.

What is Fortran version 2F5 ?

Is it a version of FORTRAN II and the 5th compiler version by some
vendor ?

It is quite hard to write non-spagethi code in Fortran II or IV when
the only block construction was the DO-loop and the rest various kinds
of GOTOs. Fortran-77 and later had IF/ELSE etc.block structures.

Older Fortran versions only allowed comment lines (with the letter C
in the first column), but no comments at the end of program lines.
Since programs in old days were typically punched on cards (1
card/line), adding comment lines, which the computer didn't understand
anyway, would just add to the size and weight of the card deck.

Most likely, the "documentation" would have been the design
documentation in a separate hand or typewriter paper.

Once the card decks were converted to magnetic media, they forgot to
digitize (or were unable to scan) these separate papers.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 6:38:00 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:

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

Christy 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.

John Christy is probably one of the ten out of the 300 top climate scientists who aren't convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming, most likely because he's a born-again Christian. His colleague Roy Spencer would be another.

He's not a "crank" in the sense of getting stuff wrong, but he does look for explanations which fit with his idea of how God has organised the planet to suit us, and stops looking when he finds one.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Joseph Gwinn]

On Sep 7, 2019, Rick C wrote
(in article<79ae87b3-8187-4ab1-8780-8c96d8ba5500@googlegroups.com&gt:

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
s
improving gradually (though IMHO too slowly) there is far too much
of a
ship it and be damned macho business culture in shrink wrap softwa
e.

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 whe
at
the same time he rails incessantly against climate change simulati
ns.

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/

This "fact-check" was a hoot. The last line gave it away: "as well as
rejecting the consensus of science when it comes to climate change". One
assumes that the failing sites mentioned in "We also rate them Mixed for
factual reporting due to the use of poor sources that have failed numerous
fact checks" were held to the same standard, and so on, layer by
layer.

In summary, this is circular: If you question climate change, your are wrong,
ipso facto.

So, if one is looking for a balanced consideration of the claims of climate
science, one should look elsewhere. This has nothing to do with the truth or
falsity of climate <anything>.

Joe Gwinn

 

On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 09:18:56 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
<joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On Sep 7, 2019, Rick C wrote
(in article<79ae87b3-8187-4ab1-8780-8c96d8ba5500@googlegroups.com&gt:

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
s
improving gradually (though IMHO too slowly) there is far too much
of a
ship it and be damned macho business culture in shrink wrap softwa
e.

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 whe
at
the same time he rails incessantly against climate change simulati
ns.

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/

This "fact-check" was a hoot. The last line gave it away: "as well as
rejecting the consensus of science when it comes to climate change". One
assumes that the failing sites mentioned in "We also rate them Mixed for
factual reporting due to the use of poor sources that have failed numerous
fact checks" were held to the same standard, and so on, layer by
layer.

In summary, this is circular: If you question climate change, your are wrong,
ipso facto.

So, if one is looking for a balanced consideration of the claims of climate
science, one should look elsewhere. This has nothing to do with the truth or
falsity of climate <anything>.

Joe Gwinn

mediabiasfactcheck should take a look at itself.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:19:05 PM UTC+10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

On Sep 7, 2019, Rick C wrote
(in article<79ae87b3-8187-4ab1-8780-8c96d8ba5500@googlegroups.com&gt:

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:


This "fact-check" was a hoot. The last line gave it away: "as well as
rejecting the consensus of science when it comes to climate change". One
assumes that the failing sites mentioned in "We also rate them Mixed for
factual reporting due to the use of poor sources that have failed numerous
fact checks" were held to the same standard, and so on, layer by
layer.

James Arthur would think that too. He's not as bad as krw but still evaluates sources on the basis that they ought to agree with his opinions.

In summary, this is circular: If you question climate change, your are wrong,
ipso facto.

If you are to quoting John Christy and Roy Spencer to support your point of view, you are a climate change denialist.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_R._Christy

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

So, if one is looking for a balanced consideration of the claims of climate
science, one should look elsewhere. This has nothing to do with the truth or
falsity of climate <anything>.

They seem to have got it right in this particular instance.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 3:00:42 AM UTC-7, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 19:22:12 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

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.

What is Fortran version 2F5 ?

Berkeley SPICE was originally written in Fortran, but after SPICE version 2F5 it got a rewrite in C
(versions 3 and up were C). For portability, it would have been Fortran 77 in those days.

The BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) SPICE was the source from which commercial packages spawned,
so it couldn't have been TOO bad. Case-sensitivity was removed from proprietary variants,
but not BSD version 2F5, so I encountered some manufacturer-supplied SPICE device models that
just weren't SPICE compatible.

 

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 10:25:26 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

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/

That you cite a website that tells you who to believe, says you're
not thinking for yourself, and are looking for people to believe.

But if you're looking for someone to tell you whom to believe,
how do you know their recommendations are correct? Haven't you
just conceded you're not competent to decide whom to believe?

Either a thing is true or it isn't, no matter who said it. Applying
a general smear ain't science, that's Soviet-style agit-prop.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 10:45:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

I wrote: "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."

I'm not sure how, in the greater context, you could possibly be confused
about my meaning -- I downloaded the entire publicly-available source
code for one of the major global climate models. The whole thing. I
posted the details contemporaneously on s.e.d.

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.

You're spewing anti-factual conspiracy theories. You're obsessed with
stupid, irrational fantasies, and you make new ones up as quickly as
your older ones are dispelled.

You're telling stories, and confusing them for facts.

James Arthur

~~~~
"In short, the same knowledge that underlies the ability to produce
correct judgement is also the knowledge that underlies the ability
to recognize correct judgement. To lack the former is to be
deficient in the latter." --Kruger and Dunning (1999)

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 08:44:13 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:

That you cite a website that tells you who to believe, says you're not
thinking for yourself, and are looking for people to believe.

This recent phenomenon of "fact-checking" websites and their
proliferation fascinates me. Clearly the MSM/establishment are rattled.
This has been forced upon them as their last resort, clearly. Once
organisations like the BBC et al admit anything you read from alternative
sources may be fake, it invites the obvious conclusion: how do we know
YOUR news isn't fake, too? Once that's acknowledged, it's game over for
the mind-controllers.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 10:41:25 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 09:18:56 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On Sep 7, 2019, Rick C wrote
(in article<79ae87b3-8187-4ab1-8780-8c96d8ba5500@googlegroups.com&gt:

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
s
improving gradually (though IMHO too slowly) there is far too much
of a
ship it and be damned macho business culture in shrink wrap softwa
e.

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 whe
at
the same time he rails incessantly against climate change simulati
ns.

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/

This "fact-check" was a hoot. The last line gave it away: "as well as
rejecting the consensus of science when it comes to climate change". One
assumes that the failing sites mentioned in "We also rate them Mixed for
factual reporting due to the use of poor sources that have failed numerous
fact checks" were held to the same standard, and so on, layer by
layer.

In summary, this is circular: If you question climate change, your are wrong,
ipso facto.

So, if one is looking for a balanced consideration of the claims of climate
science, one should look elsewhere. This has nothing to do with the truth or
falsity of climate <anything>.

Joe Gwinn


mediabiasfactcheck should take a look at itself.

So you deny powerlineblog.com has a clear bias? Yes, of course you do.

It's always amusing when someone responds to a poster they have killfiled. JL seems to think what I post isn't worth reading, but when he does he feels it is important enough to reply to. lol Talk about burying your head in the sand.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 10:41:25 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 09:18:56 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On Sep 7, 2019, Rick C wrote
(in article<79ae87b3-8187-4ab1-8780-8c96d8ba5500@googlegroups.com&gt:

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
s
improving gradually (though IMHO too slowly) there is far too much
of a
ship it and be damned macho business culture in shrink wrap softwa
e.

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 whe
at
the same time he rails incessantly against climate change simulati
ns.

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/

This "fact-check" was a hoot. The last line gave it away: "as well as
rejecting the consensus of science when it comes to climate change". One
assumes that the failing sites mentioned in "We also rate them Mixed for
factual reporting due to the use of poor sources that have failed numerous
fact checks" were held to the same standard, and so on, layer by
layer.

In summary, this is circular: If you question climate change, your are wrong,
ipso facto.

So, if one is looking for a balanced consideration of the claims of climate
science, one should look elsewhere. This has nothing to do with the truth or
falsity of climate <anything>.

Joe Gwinn


mediabiasfactcheck should take a look at itself.

Perhaps they should call themselves "Imcluelesspleaseleadme.org."

Cheers,
James

 

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 9:19:05 AM UTC-4, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

On Sep 7, 2019, Rick C wrote
(in article<79ae87b3-8187-4ab1-8780-8c96d8ba5500@googlegroups.com&gt:

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
s
improving gradually (though IMHO too slowly) there is far too much
of a
ship it and be damned macho business culture in shrink wrap softwa
e.

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 whe
at
the same time he rails incessantly against climate change simulati
ns.

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/

This "fact-check" was a hoot. The last line gave it away: "as well as
rejecting the consensus of science when it comes to climate change". One
assumes that the failing sites mentioned in "We also rate them Mixed for
factual reporting due to the use of poor sources that have failed numerous
fact checks" were held to the same standard, and so on, layer by
layer.

In summary, this is circular: If you question climate change, your are wrong,
ipso facto.

So, if one is looking for a balanced consideration of the claims of climate
science, one should look elsewhere. This has nothing to do with the truth or
falsity of climate <anything>.

Joe Gwinn

Here's a simple test: if someone only harps on the costs of a thing or
only the 'benefits', you know you're getting an agenda and not an
objective discussion on the merits.


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 4:22:14 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

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,

If the processes were known, why wouldn't you?

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.

I can certainly read a model's code, see that it's based on a pile
of arbitrary assumptions, and conclude that it's not an accurate
model of known physical processes.

One of NOAA's model-writers told me they'd started off modelling
with a set of energy-balance assumptions that initially had the
earth alternately melting lead or freezing atmosphere, sensitively
depending on the settings, then proceeded to twiddle various
fudge-factors from there until they got something with a
room-temperature equilibrium.

That guessclimateology doesn't produce accurate models of known
physical processes.

You can curve-fit the stock market's past pretty well if you use
an arbitrary polynomial of high enough order. But that doesn't
mean you've created an accurate model of the stock market that
predicts future results, much less 50 years in the future.

It's all arguing over how many angels fit on a head of a pin,
and little to do with physical reality.


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 09:48:57 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Not sure why you fell fact checking is so new. Snopes has been around
for a long time. The sites you seem to be talking about didn't show up
until about the same time the main stream media started publishing fake
news. Don't you think it is important to reveal their lies? Oh, right,
you just want to target the main stream media and not reveal the lies of
others the main stream media is reporting on.

You miss the point as usual. Of course it's important that lies be
exposed, from whichever source they may originate. You will get no
opposition from me on that issue.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 12:36:37 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 08:44:13 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:

That you cite a website that tells you who to believe, says you're not
thinking for yourself, and are looking for people to believe.

This recent phenomenon of "fact-checking" websites and their
proliferation fascinates me. Clearly the MSM/establishment are rattled.
This has been forced upon them as their last resort, clearly. Once
organisations like the BBC et al admit anything you read from alternative
sources may be fake, it invites the obvious conclusion: how do we know
YOUR news isn't fake, too? Once that's acknowledged, it's game over for
the mind-controllers.

Not sure why you fell fact checking is so new. Snopes has been around for a long time. The sites you seem to be talking about didn't show up until about the same time the main stream media started publishing fake news. Don't you think it is important to reveal their lies? Oh, right, you just want to target the main stream media and not reveal the lies of others the main stream media is reporting on.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 09:38:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 10:45:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
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.

I wrote: "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."

I'm not sure how, in the greater context, you could possibly be confused
about my meaning -- I downloaded the entire publicly-available source
code for one of the major global climate models. The whole thing. I
posted the details contemporaneously on s.e.d.

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.

You're spewing anti-factual conspiracy theories. You're obsessed with
stupid, irrational fantasies, and you make new ones up as quickly as
your older ones are dispelled.

You're telling stories, and confusing them for facts.

James Arthur

~~~~
"In short, the same knowledge that underlies the ability to produce
correct judgement is also the knowledge that underlies the ability
to recognize correct judgement. To lack the former is to be
deficient in the latter." --Kruger and Dunning (1999)

Ignore him. He's a hater, not an electronic designer.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-09-08 19:17, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
[Snip!]

One of NOAA's model-writers told me they'd started off modelling
with a set of energy-balance assumptions that initially had the
earth alternately melting lead or freezing atmosphere, sensitively
depending on the settings, then proceeded to twiddle various
fudge-factors from there until they got something with a
room-temperature equilibrium.

That guessclimateology doesn't produce accurate models of known
physical processes.

That seems apocryphal. Simply balancing solar radiation input
against black body radiation gets a first approximation of
260 K or so for the average surface temperature of the earth.
That's nothing like as crazy as your claim for the initial
NOAA model. They cannot possibly have been that much wrong!

Jeroen Belleman

 

On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 20:11:40 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2019-09-08 19:17, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
[Snip!]

One of NOAA's model-writers told me they'd started off modelling
with a set of energy-balance assumptions that initially had the
earth alternately melting lead or freezing atmosphere, sensitively
depending on the settings, then proceeded to twiddle various
fudge-factors from there until they got something with a
room-temperature equilibrium.

That guessclimateology doesn't produce accurate models of known
physical processes.

That seems apocryphal. Simply balancing solar radiation input
against black body radiation gets a first approximation of
260 K or so for the average surface temperature of the earth.
That's nothing like as crazy as your claim for the initial
NOAA model. They cannot possibly have been that much wrong!

Jeroen Belleman

Actual earth average temp is about 288K.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:04:25 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 09:48:57 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Not sure why you fell fact checking is so new. Snopes has been around
for a long time. The sites you seem to be talking about didn't show up
until about the same time the main stream media started publishing fake
news. Don't you think it is important to reveal their lies? Oh, right,
you just want to target the main stream media and not reveal the lies of
others the main stream media is reporting on.

You miss the point as usual. Of course it's important that lies be
exposed, from whichever source they may originate. You will get no
opposition from me on that issue.

Ok, we are in agreement then. So what are you complaining about?

BTW, no one said, "anything you read from alternative
sources may be fake", just the fake stuff, same as any source.

--

Rick C.

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

 

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
news:a392db3a-ac52-4127-8fd6-baf4cfc415de@googlegroups.com:

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

I found a 1 inch by 26 inch fiberglass rod (large versio of fishing
rod media) and I found that using it like a kitchen steel or razor
strop actually worked pretty darn good.

Xacto and the like are tiny blades and not as easy to 'hone' well.

But hell, even the copper of the pins of an old DIP chip can be
used to hone steel if one know what one is doing. Fine sharp edges
have a few simple rules once one achieves getting one.