nightmare

Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

It sure made you nuttier than a fruitcake, butterfly.

Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

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.

Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Cheers, James Arthur

is

of a

re.

swapping parts to see what happens.

n at

ons.

ation is easy.

tterfly effect means that it can't match a specific situation for longer th an ten days - so it's a different ball game. Despite the whinging of the de nialist propaganda machine, it is still worth doing.

rocesses. The difficulty is that the systems being modelled are chaotic so you can't have accurate predictions for periods longer than about ten days.

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 lo bby has a large financial interest in ignoring these results, and James Art hur and John Larkin seem happy to forget this.

des

at

Koch brothers, whose fortune depends on the fossil carbon fuel industry be ing able to keep on selling fossil carbon as fuel.

Climategate files which he's been misrepresenting as a research grade cli mate simulations ever since. I've called him on it before, but he keeps on lying about it.

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

I had to edit and recompile some of it (to use models made with lowercase lettering) but that might have been 40 years ago.

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.

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.

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.

te:

he Koch brothers, whose fortune depends on the fossil carbon fuel industry being able to keep on selling fossil carbon as fuel.

he Climategate files which he's been misrepresenting as a research grade c limate simulations ever since. I've called him on it before, but he keeps o n lying about it.

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

You've admitted to being investigated by the US tax office as part of an in itiative instigated by the Obama administration into the astro-turfing exer cise by the Koch brothers which created the Tea Party faction in the Republ ican Party. The Koch brothers had covered their tracks well enough that nob ody got prosecuted, but the only lunatic aspect of the story was the Koch b rothers destroying the Republican Party (and letting in Trump) in their eff ort to reshape it.

nstrates lack of basic diligence.

Twaddle.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Sep 7, 2019, Rick C wrote (in article):

of a

e.

at

ns.

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 .

Joe Gwinn

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.

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

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

mediabiasfactcheck should take a look at itself.

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.

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

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.