Thread: Eight Questions for Clippo et al

re:-

Earth's temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth's temperature with CO2 levels.

Prove it !!!!!! - with peer-reviewed science links.

perhaps you might also like to read this from today's Skeptical Science

Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1

Perhaps you might also like to read this;

- Bishop Hill blog - Hansen's*predictions

Or his new venture to Antarctica with Al Gore et al to watch the last of the summer ice fall in the ocean. I wonder why they dont go there in the winter

Gore, Hansen, Trenberth to make Antarctic PR expedition | Watts Up With That?

Originally Posted by Clippo

re:-

Of course I agree with you that 'Programming at an advanced level is nothing like just plugging formulae in' and I'm sorry/apologise if I gave that impression earlier -(I was hurried), -but I insist that Modelling is completely different.

In my view, Modelling is trying to derive a mathematical 'equation' which will describe the past behaviour of a 'system' as accurately as possible SO THAT future behaviour of that 'system' can be reasonably predicted from expected changes in the variables of the 'equation'.

Several years of my industrial career, (perhaps more than I care to admit), was spent trying to improve the yields of chemical reactions and/or with product quality improvements. This involved identifying the variables that might affect these parameters, such as temperature and pressure, (and many others), and carrying out as many factorial experiments - (look that up if you are unsure) - to identify whether a variable has a statistically relevent effect, and to estimate random variability which is ever present, but ultimately to get an 'equation' from which one might predict the optimum combination of variables to get best yield / quality.

The equations I derived were quite complicated, virtually NEVER with a simple straight line or curve but ..... from what I understand nowhere near the complexity of Climate models.

.

Yes, it reminds me of this bridge. I'm sure you have seen the video, which is one they teach every civil engineer about. They designed it in the usual way with all the loads and stresses worked out and things like the pressure of the wind on it, but something odd happened. It caught some wind one day and they had neglected certain three-dimensional modes of resonance. There is a bit of mathematics that you can use that involves eigenvalues to calculate this, and I'm sure they do it now, but it rather caught them out at the time.

Programming is a bit like this. You can stare at the code for hours and days sometimes, but there is nearly always something odd that happens in a complex bit of code. The more complex the system the more likely something unexpected will happen. Now programming is a bit easier because often we are working with systems with a lot of binary states in them, but this climate modelling is the analogue world with continuous functions. I'm aware that is far more difficult, just as analogue electronics is more difficult than digital electronics. Even a thing that is as simple as an audio amplifier is very complex to analyse when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, such as transient Intermodulation distortion and that sort of thing. Those climate modellers seem to have one of the most difficult of jobs you can do. There is a lot of chemistry going on in that atmosphere that needs to be taken into account.

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

Yes, it reminds me of this bridge. I'm sure you have seen the video, which is one they teach every civil engineer about. They designed it in the usual way with all the loads and stresses worked out and things like the pressure of the wind on it, but something odd happened. It caught some wind one day and they had neglected certain three-dimensional modes of resonance. There is a bit of mathematics that you can use that involves eigenvalues to calculate this, and I'm sure they do it now, but it rather caught them out at the time.

Programming is a bit like this. You can stare at the code for hours and days sometimes, but there is nearly always something odd that happens in a complex bit of code. The more complex the system the more likely something unexpected will happen. Now programming is a bit easier because often we are working with systems with a lot of binary states in them, but this climate modelling is the analogue world with continuous functions. I'm aware that is far more difficult, just as analogue electronics is more difficult than digital electronics. Even a thing that is as simple as an audio amplifier is very complex to analyse when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, such as transient Intermodulation distortion and that sort of thing. Those climate modellers seem to have one of the most difficult of jobs you can do. There is a lot of chemistry going on in that atmosphere that needs to be taken into account.

More succinctly, humans can, and, do err.

Here it is.

Originally Posted by chimera

Hair dryers- so that's what you use on your Stirling lawn mower, with a dinky little cooler on the down stroke. clever..

OK smartarse that little 50 I got works, needs improving a lot, but it WORKS! Suck on that!

Originally Posted by paralreg

OK smartarse that little 50 I got works, needs improving a lot, but it WORKS! Suck on that!

It's OK. Chimeria has never ever been wrong.

He uses the very old tecnique of never saying anything.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Those from Hiroshima and Nagasaki might just have a different take on that.

• View topic - Impossible Shadows & Fake Ruins on official Hiroshima Photos

Most of the buildings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of traditional Japanese timber construction. A fire storm was created by area bombing using M16 cluster fire bombs resulting in EXACTLY THE SAME type of devastation we see in the photographs of Tokio. Tokio was devastated with M16 Bombs.The Atom Bomb is a psyops hoax. Complete media censorship was imposed by the Allied Powers on reporting from Japan for six months following Japan's surrender. This period was used, with the co-operation of the puppet Japanese regime, to produce fake evidence to support the supposed characteristics of this mythical Doomsday weapon. One of the made up attributes was blast. There was no evidence of this extreme blast wave so they had to fake it. In the following link you will find irrefutable evidence that the US Government lied in their teeth and deliberately engaged in falsification of evidence on an industrial scale. Also kindly refrain from using the fallacy of "appeal to emotion" in your answer because it gives no credibility to your opinion and just highlights your apparent purpose to divert attention away from the evidence.