nightmare

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-09-08 20:21, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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.

I *did* say this was only a first approximation. The point is
that we're not even close to melting lead or freezing air, and
I can't believe that anyone trying to model the climate would
come up with anything like that.

I don't trust any climate model pretending to predict mean
global temperature to a fraction of a degree, but they can't
be *that* far out.

Jeroen Belleman

 

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 02:12:53 UTC+1, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

I'm afraid Bill is wholly immune to that.


NT

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 9/9/19 4:11 am, Jeroen Belleman 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.

Solar input has been measured widely and there are reasonably good
models for net global energy absorption (both atmospheric absorption and
surface). Net radiation is much harder to estimate (because it's black
body + variable reflection), and the current best estimates have an
error margin of about 1%. Further variation arises in estimates of
internal self-heating from nuclear reactions.

The upshot is that the global averages for net energy inflow and outflow
are both about 400W per square metre. The 1% margin (based on our
current best measurement technologies) means it could be 389W in, 402W
out, or vice versa. Any small change in either inflow or outflow would
not be very noticable, but over time would mount up quite quickly.

The above information I got when I met (a couple of years ago) the
Australian scientist who one an award for his 35 year career primarily
focused on measuring solar energy inflow. Can't recall his name at present.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 2:38:38 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@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 haven't said when you got it, where you got it or when you posted your version of the story here.

Whatever you did post can be retrieved from the google archives, and I'm tolerably confident that you won't bother to do that because it won't look much like what you are claiming here.

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.

The Koch brother's astro-turfing of the Republican Party with the Tea Party movement is fact. Not the kind of fact that you will acknowledge because you played a small part in it, but fact none-the-less.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/25/tea-party-koch-brothers

You won't like the Guardian as a source or George Monbiot as a reporter - both are committed to presenting real facts of the kind you don't like, but that's a symptom of your mental disorder.

"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)

You aren't stupid, but that doesn't stop you from having your head way up your behind.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 2:36:37 AM UTC+10, 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.

Cursitor Doom likes to think this. In reality there are people around who are less gullible than Cursitor Doom, John Larkin and James Arthur, who can do their own versions of fact-checking.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 09:44:47 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Are you really trying to compete with AlwaysWrong? You're doing a
great job of it, if so.

Hint: John was responding to Joseph Gwinn.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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...
[and, of course, immediately rejecting some of those for cause]

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.

Actual earth average temp is about 288K.

Yeah, so 'simply balancing' and black-body approximation
gives two significant digits, the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere
fills in the next one, and fancy layered-atmosphere/chemical-makeup/carbon-pollution
fills in further. That's progress, science-style.

Modeling a complex system starting with simple bits, and growing
into something complex and hard to express in a sound bite... that's
why science reporting is a difficult discipline, and why dramatists try
to play up conflict and controversy instead.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 10:17:57 AM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

You don't start modeling climate and weather with a set of known
physical processes,

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

Starting point for studying hurricanes: they spin counterclockwise in the US area.
Observations came before any formal physical analysis (before
the theoretic tools for multivariate analysis, like big computers).
The study of weather is older than our knowledge of atmospheric
chemistry, or ability to characterize the ocean of air (or those of water)
with any precision.

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.

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.

Basis in science is always observations. The pile of 'assumptions' is
a set of approximations, necessary to get any result, as in the
familiar example of 'a spherical cow radiating milk in all directions'.
Models are useful. Accurate models, if not usable, ought to
be discarded. The judgment call on what models to use is a
fine art, not suitable for casual inspect-and-reject criticism.

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

Says a casual critic, who does not have a productive model to offer as
an alternative, on a planetary scale. Lots of the details that
matter are not the laboratory-susceptible 'known physical processes'.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 4:21:25 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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.

John Larkin seems to be talking about a friend of James Arthur who started off in the business but seems to have been really bad at it, and left.

The story came out here a few years ago, and James Arthur seems to have adopted his friend's face-saving attitude, which was that everybody else was as incompetent as his friend, but lied about their results.

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.

Joseph Fourier is perhaps the first to point out this difference, which is normally attributed to the greenhouse effect.

In reality the effective emitting altitude is a couple of miles up into the atmosphere, which is cooler than the surface.

Trust John Larkin to be unaware of this elementary fact.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 09:44:47 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Are you really trying to compete with AlwaysWrong? You're doing a
great job of it, if so.

Hint: John was responding to Joseph Gwinn.

Read again. John replied to Joe's post, but he was responding to my content. Joe was criticizing the mediabiasfactcheck.com I had posted and JL felt the need to criticize on top. As I said, JL doesn't read my posts, but he feels the need to criticize them when he sees them through other's replies..

I guess AlwaysWrong isn't the only one who is wrong a lot.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 3:49:28 PM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 11:21:17 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

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

<snip>

Water vapor is responsible for about 2/3 of the greenhouse effect and
the rest, including CO2, is responsible for the rest.

IPCC has created an artificial 'radiative forcing' scale, which only
includes greenhouse gases emitted by humans. According to IPCC the CO2
radiative forcing is calculated from the increase of CO2 from 295 to
405 ppm and assuming that all the 110 ppm difference is attributed to
human activity. This change is attributed to radiative forcing of 1.8
W/m². For doubling of CO2, the radiative forcing is about 3.7 W/m².
According to IPCC this relation is logarithmic so the same radiative
forcing change is the same for each doubling, so no runaway effect.

Things get absurd with water vapor, since IPCC radiative forcing only
caused the extra vapor generating by irrigating and burning fuels
containing hydrogen. This is a very small number much less than CO2
numbers.

When one tries to question of the water vapor effects, this is
dismissed by IPCC supporters claiming that it is negligible because it
is originally so small in IPCC radiative forcing.

They seem to forget that the water vapor is responsible for 30-50 W(m²
of total greenhouse effect (not just IPCC radiative forcing). Any
small changes in water vapor contents will have a much larger than
small changes in CO2 contents.

The point about water vapour is that it equilibrates within a couple of weeks.

It's pretty much purely determined by the ocean surface temperatures, and what we add just condenses out in the next rain storm.

In that sense it is a pure positive feedback on the CO2 and methane forcings.

CO2 seems to take about 800 years to equilibrate, and methane oxidises to CO2 and water with a half life of about seven years.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sun, 08 Sep 2019 11:21:17 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

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

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 would be the black body temperature of an air-less body orbiting
150 million kilometers from the sun (as 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.

This is the measured average temperature. The about 30 K difference is
due to greenhouse gases, i.e. the thermal isolation causes the surface
temperature to rise in order to get rid of the same heat as compared
with an airless object.

Water vapor is responsible for about 2/3 of the greenhouse effect and
the rest, including CO2, is responsible for the rest.

IPCC has created an artificial 'radiative forcing' scale, which only
includes greenhouse gases emitted by humans. According to IPCC the CO2
radiative forcing is calculated from the increase of CO2 from 295 to
405 ppm and assuming that all the 110 ppm difference is attributed to
human activity. This change is attributed to radiative forcing of 1.8
W/m˛. For doubling of CO2, the radiative forcing is about 3.7 W/m˛.
According to IPCC this relation is logarithmic so the same radiative
forcing change is the same for each doubling, so no runaway effect.

Things get absurd with water vapor, since IPCC radiative forcing only
caused the extra vapor generating by irrigating and burning fuels
containing hydrogen. This is a very small number much less than CO2
numbers.

When one tries to question of the water vapor effects, this is
dismissed by IPCC supporters claiming that it is negligible because it
is originally so small in IPCC radiative forcing.

They seem to forget that the water vapor is responsible for 30-50 W(m˛
of total greenhouse effect (not just IPCC radiative forcing). Any
small changes in water vapor contents will have a much larger than
small changes in CO2 contents.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:4429ea65-f1cf-
4238-8e8d-661381522ef5@googlegroups.com:

I guess AlwaysWrong isn't the only one who is wrong a lot.

Jackasses that use other jackass's jackassed monikers are wholly
wrong, jackass.

 

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:14:59 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:4429ea65-f1cf-
4238-8e8d-661381522ef5@googlegroups.com:

I guess AlwaysWrong isn't the only one who is wrong a lot.


Jackasses that use other jackass's jackassed monikers are wholly
wrong, jackass.

Non-jackasses/non-cowards use their real names.

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 10:33:18 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:14:59 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:4429ea65-f1cf-
4238-8e8d-661381522ef5@googlegroups.com:

I guess AlwaysWrong isn't the only one who is wrong a lot.


Jackasses that use other jackass's jackassed monikers are wholly
wrong, jackass.

Non-jackasses/non-cowards use their real names.

Like us, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com, right?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 18:53:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 10:17:57 AM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 4:22:14 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

You don't start modeling climate and weather with a set of known
physical processes,

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

Starting point for studying hurricanes: they spin counterclockwise in the US area.

Unless you are Al Gore.

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 18:53:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 10:17:57 AM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 4:22:14 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

You don't start modeling climate and weather with a set of known
physical processes,

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

Starting point for studying hurricanes: they spin counterclockwise in the US area.

Unless you are Al Gore.

George Bush was wondering which way the cloud from a nucular blast might rotate.

"Molecular comes from molecule, and particular comes from particle, but there is no nucule to support nucular."

You guys do make me laugh!

--

Rick C.

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

 

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:8jocnepmejj34o2k6qhmc6uc97825s06ve@4ax.com:

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:14:59 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:4429ea65-
f1cf-
4238-8e8d-661381522ef5@googlegroups.com:

I guess AlwaysWrong isn't the only one who is wrong a lot.


Jackasses that use other jackass's jackassed monikers are wholly
wrong, jackass.

Non-jackasses/non-cowards use their real names.

Nice try. Just because you 'use your real name' in Usenet does not
exclude you from being on, or even driving the jackass hay ride.

You can try to exclude yourself by declaring yourself to be a 'non-
jackass', but that only serves to make you more of a jackass,
jackass.

And it is not about cowardice either. Someone is not a coward
because they use a nym in Usenet. Again, nice try, chump.

Goddamn, boy, you could not be more wrong.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 8:08:32 AM UTC+10, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 02:12:53 UTC+1, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

I'm afraid Bill is wholly immune to that.

NT has his own "facts" which aren't accessible to checking.

He likes to think that they are reliable, which is unfortunate, and didn't like it when I compared them with reality and found them wanting.

He seems managed to reinterpret that interaction as me failing to fact-check his output, which is revealing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 7:28:03 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:8jocnepmejj34o2k6qhmc6uc97825s06ve@4ax.com:

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:14:59 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:4429ea65-
f1cf-
4238-8e8d-661381522ef5@googlegroups.com:

I guess AlwaysWrong isn't the only one who is wrong a lot.


Jackasses that use other jackass's jackassed monikers are wholly
wrong, jackass.

Non-jackasses/non-cowards use their real names.



Nice try. Just because you 'use your real name' in Usenet does not
exclude you from being on, or even driving the jackass hay ride.

You can try to exclude yourself by declaring yourself to be a 'non-
jackass', but that only serves to make you more of a jackass,
jackass.

And it is not about cowardice either. Someone is not a coward
because they use a nym in Usenet. Again, nice try, chump.

Goddamn, boy, you could not be more wrong.

Hey everybody! For once he's RIGHT!!!

--

Rick C.

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