Where in the World is Global Warming?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Where in the World is Global Warming?

Where in the World is Global Warming?02-01-2019 22:44
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	I really got to thinking about average temperature this morning, and the more I thought about, it really seemed sort of meaningless. Obviously, the planet can't warm evenly, uniformly, since we have night and day, and seasons, sun cycles, weather (cloud cover). We also have a variety of climates around the planet, which change with the seasons as well. So, I'm looking at this warming trend, which the IPCC defined for us, as a 30 year period, but don't recall the frequency. Would guess that to achieve a semi-accurate average, it would be a whole year. But, even then, the temperature can swing wildly, some years are warmer, some cooler. Even the geographic locations would play a role. It was -1 F degrees in Fargo, 74 F degrees in Orlando, about 4:00 AM, or so they said on the local news. Some places may make record highs, where others might go the other direction, so on overall, most places would stay consistent with their usually temperatures for this time of year. Isn't this what we call normal? You can manipulate the numbers, cherry pick locations, time of day/night, and how often to take readings, and the average could be pretty much anything you like. I can see why there is a lack of transparency, since the same methods could be used to show the opposite, or no change at all. I still don't see how they can estimate a temperature, even if it's only 30 years down the road, to just 1-3 C degrees. Just can't imagine have that much precision to work with. Guess I'd still be skeptical, if the stated +/- 5 degrees. They also use the words 'CAN', or 'COULD' very frequently, which are words you use, if you have a high level of confidence.
03-01-2019 03:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: I really got to thinking about average temperature this morning, and the more I thought about, it really seemed sort of meaningless. Obviously, the planet can't warm evenly, uniformly, since we have night and day, and seasons, sun cycles, weather (cloud cover). We also have a variety of climates around the planet, which change with the seasons as well. So, I'm looking at this warming trend, which the IPCC defined for us, as a 30 year period, but don't recall the frequency. Would guess that to achieve a semi-accurate average, it would be a whole year. But, even then, the temperature can swing wildly, some years are warmer, some cooler. Even the geographic locations would play a role. It was -1 F degrees in Fargo, 74 F degrees in Orlando, about 4:00 AM, or so they said on the local news. Some places may make record highs, where others might go the other direction, so on overall, most places would stay consistent with their usually temperatures for this time of year. Isn't this what we call normal? You can manipulate the numbers, cherry pick locations, time of day/night, and how often to take readings, and the average could be pretty much anything you like. I can see why there is a lack of transparency, since the same methods could be used to show the opposite, or no change at all. I still don't see how they can estimate a temperature, even if it's only 30 years down the road, to just 1-3 C degrees. Just can't imagine have that much precision to work with. Guess I'd still be skeptical, if the stated +/- 5 degrees. They also use the words 'CAN', or 'COULD' very frequently, which are words you use, if you have a high level of confidence. All things to consider. It comes down to a branch of mathematics known as statistical mathematics. Statistical mathematics is all about selecting points of raw data, averaging them, normalizing the average against the selected data itself to reject outlier points, and then calculating the margin of error for the summary result. Because of it's use of random numbers, both to select data and to normalize it, it is incapable of predicting the future, which is normally inherent in a closed functional system like mathematics. Probability mathematics has the same problem. The reason is that random numbers themselves do not come from that Domain of mathematics, but are imported from another Domain (another mathematics that has a different set of founding axioms). Importing from across Domains removes the predictable nature of mathematics. The margin of error calculation is where most people screw up. This is the +- figure you see with a summary result. It's value does not come from the data, but from the possible variance of the data. This source of variance must be specified (and justified) in the summary as well. The usual screw-up is to not include it, even though it is a required part of the summary. As you note, temperatures can vary widely over time and over distance, but how widely? We can eliminate the effects of time by taking all measurements at the same time, but what about distance? This figure can only come from observation, and is known as the maximum temperature gradient. Personally, I have observed in multiple occasions temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile. These most often occurred across fast moving cold fronts, but I have seen them generated by mountain wave compression and a variety of other factors. This means that if we take a temperature reading at point A, it is quite possible that only a mile away, the temperature might be 20 deg F different from point A, either plus or minus. Thermometers we have today are grouped. They are not uniformly spread across the Earth. They tend to be grouped in cities and along roads or navigable waterways (they need regular maintainance). For simplification, we can eliminate the air above 10 ft from the surface, since we are interested only in surface temperature. We are also not trying to measure underground or underwater temperatures. This grouping, however, is a problem. It is introducing bias. Twenty thermometers at point A tells you nothing about anything at point B, a point 10 miles away, where there is no thermometer at all. Simple averages are not statistics. They are meaningless without the remaining summary, which must include methods to eliminate this sort of bias, and must include the margin of error calculation. Assuming we took all the thermometers being used by NASA or NOAA, and spread them uniformly across the surface of the Earth, then read them at the same time, then and only then could be begin to have a chance at building a sensible statistical summary. NASA uses the higher number of thermometers (about 7500 of them). The Earth's surface is 170 million square miles. This means there is one thermometer for every 22,666 square miles of Earth's surface. This is about the size of the entire State of Texas. It's like using one thermometer to measure the entire State of Texas. Assuming the gradient steepness possible that I've already specified, this means that one thermometer is accurate to somewhere between the minimum and maximum temperatures ever observed on Earth. The margin of error is so great, it is greater than the total variance of temperatures ever observed on Earth at all, so that is the fence of variance. This is a mathematical way of saying that spreading thermometers uniformly is so thin and reading them at the same time is essentially guessing at an Earth temperature. The summary becomes useless. Indeed, if we built and installed thousands and thousands of thermometers, we would be no better off. Some people, like Wake, figure that you can measure temperature using satellites. That's not possible. Satellites can only see light. They are not in contact with Earth. To convert light to a temperature, you have to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law. One constant in that law is called 'emissivity'. This is a measured value. To measure it, you must first know the temperature of the surface to be measured. For Earth, you must first know accurately the temperature of the Earth, which is the thing you are trying to measure in the first place! It is this chicken and egg problem that makes satellites useless for measuring an absolute temperature anywhere on Earth. Satellites are very good at measuring relative temperatures. They can tell if something is warmer than something else, assuming they are the same emissivity. (Emissivity varies widely over the distance of a single foot). They are useful for mapping out ocean currents, larger storms, lightning activity, even traffic flow; but they cannot measure an absolute temperature. The upshot of all this is that it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth's surface. We only know it's somewhere between the hottest place ever measured and the coldest place ever measured. These two points are measured at different times, so we can't shoot for the middle of that road either. All the charts from NASA and NOAA about global average temperature are manufactured data. They come from bad math. They are essentially random numbers of type randU (the 'predictable' random number, the result of someone just making a number up in their head, even if it is by using some equation to do it). We really have no idea what Earth's average global surface temperature is. Even if we had the necessary thermometers, and performed the analysis and obtained a summary, that only is good for the time of the measurement. It tells nothing about the future. Statistical math cannot predict. It is a summarizing tool. Like probability math, which can calculate the odds of rolling a pair of dice, it cannot predict any one roll. Incidentally, this is why SSL encryption is so good. It makes use of random numbers, removing the predictability of the multi-time pad used for the main encryption process, and removing the predictability of transmitting that pad to the receiving party. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-01-2019 06:27
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Hey ITN, What happened to the RAW data from the United States Historical Climatology Network? It seems to have merged with and been high jacked by CDIAC. Are these station data charts still available anywhere? Harvey and me think a lot the same and he'd find those charts fascinating. Hey one more thing... The NAM and the GFS has frozen up today. That something to do with the shutdown? or maybe just the site I'm using...... https://www.instantweathermaps.com/GFS-php/conussfc.php?run=2018011200&time=PER&var=ASNOWI&hour=168 Edited on 03-01-2019 06:31
03-01-2019 10:55
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	With so many people onboard with IPCC, I really find it hard to understand how they all can ignore variance and margin of error. Even with satellite readings, the atmosphere is going to have a huge impact on accuracy. Guess if there is a volcano erupting, they can just omit that block of readings, until all the ash settles out. Or when there are a lot of wildfires, they can wait until the smoke clears, before resuming the readings. A hurricane can be hundreds of square miles of dense water vapor, I'm sure that obscures surface readings as well. Over a years time, we normally expect several of these sorts of events, that would make regular satellite readings inaccurate (even if they were to begin with). They don't have line of sight, all the time. There is a lot of surface variance as well, different materials would have a different emissive value. Altitude would also have some effect. The scientists, and mathematicians should all be aware of all these variants, and can only be ignored, or arbitrarily compensated for, which would only be okay, for discussion sake, but not for calling it a crisis. I'm no scientist, or a mathematician, although I did take a few more class than the average person needs to, and I still study in to both often. It's not just a fun discussion, the IPCC is treating it as if it's real, amd using money and resources, badly needed for other more pressing issues, and wanting to focus considerably more on there non-issue. There just seems like a huge margin of error for there to be such small and precise calculations, I don't know how it could be ignored by so many experts. We know from weather models, that the error grows with time, only reasonably good for a few days, a forecast doesn't rely entirely on the models, but current measurements and observations as well. It's not just with the temperature predictions either, the atmospheric CO2 is go to have a huge variance as well. I get that it's not so much the measured CO2, but the coal and oil pulled from the ground, and sold. It's not all used immediately, nor all gets burned. The CO2 that is produced, isn't all going to stay in the atmosphere. If the plant life is having a good growing season, they will pull out an unusually high level of CO2. If it's a poor season, not so much. I'm sure the other 'sink' mechanisms have there good and bad times as well, conditions change all the time. Guess it's the power of marketing, politics, and religion, real science can't compete.
03-01-2019 22:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GasGuzzler wrote: Hey ITN, What happened to the RAW data from the United States Historical Climatology Network? It seems to have merged with and been high jacked by CDIAC. Are these station data charts still available anywhere? Harvey and me think a lot the same and he'd find those charts fascinating. Hey one more thing... The NAM and the GFS has frozen up today. That something to do with the shutdown? or maybe just the site I'm using...... https://www.instantweathermaps.com/GFS-php/conussfc.php?run=2018011200&time=PER&var=ASNOWI&hour=168 It was shut down Nov 1st, 2017 by NOAA. The data was conflicting too much with NOAA's 'global temperature' chart. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

03-01-2019 22:41
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Hey ITN, What happened to the RAW data from the United States Historical Climatology Network? It seems to have merged with and been high jacked by CDIAC. Are these station data charts still available anywhere? Harvey and me think a lot the same and he'd find those charts fascinating. Hey one more thing... The NAM and the GFS has frozen up today. That something to do with the shutdown? or maybe just the site I'm using...... https://www.instantweathermaps.com/GFS-php/conussfc.php?run=2018011200&time=PER&var=ASNOWI&hour=168 It was shut down Nov 1st, 2017 by NOAA. The data was conflicting too much with NOAA's 'global temperature' chart. Sounds about right....and that explains why the old address takes you to CDIAC. ...but it's the National Weather service...no propaganda here! Bullshit.
03-01-2019 22:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: With so many people onboard with IPCC, I really find it hard to understand how they all can ignore variance and margin of error. They ignore it because they have to in order to keep their religion going. HarveyH55 wrote: Even with satellite readings, the atmosphere is going to have a huge impact on accuracy. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. HarveyH55 wrote: Guess if there is a volcano erupting, they can just omit that block of readings, until all the ash settles out. Nope. No correction for data is allowed in a statistical analysis. HarveyH55 wrote: Or when there are a lot of wildfires, they can wait until the smoke clears, before resuming the readings. Nope. No correction for data is allowed. HarveyH55 wrote: A hurricane can be hundreds of square miles of dense water vapor, I'm sure that obscures surface readings as well. No, it doesn't. Thermometers still work in hurricanes. Satellites can't measure absolute temperature anyway. HarveyH55 wrote: Over a years time, we normally expect several of these sorts of events, that would make regular satellite readings inaccurate (even if they were to begin with). Satellites have no capability to measure the temperature of Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. HarveyH55 wrote: There is a lot of surface variance as well, different materials would have a different emissive value. Very true. Emissivity will vary radically in the space of even a few inches. HarveyH55 wrote: Altitude would also have some effect. True. Not the major problem though. Satellites simply can't measure an absolute temperature at all. HarveyH55 wrote: The scientists, and mathematicians should all be aware of all these variants, and can only be ignored, or arbitrarily compensated for, which would only be okay, for discussion sake, but not for calling it a crisis. The 'scientists' and 'mathematicians' you refer to are not. They only call themselves 'scientists' and 'mathematicians'. They deny both science and mathematics. They are priests of the Church of Global Warming. HarveyH55 wrote: I'm no scientist, or a mathematician, although I did take a few more class than the average person needs to, and I still study in to both often. It's not just a fun discussion, the IPCC is treating it as if it's real, amd using money and resources, badly needed for other more pressing issues, and wanting to focus considerably more on there non-issue. There just seems like a huge margin of error for there to be such small and precise calculations, I don't know how it could be ignored by so many experts. Because they aren't experts in science or math. They ARE experts at lying and pushing their religion though. HarveyH55 wrote: We know from weather models, that the error grows with time, only reasonably good for a few days, a forecast doesn't rely entirely on the models, but current measurements and observations as well. Nope. Just observations. Current measurements are observations. The only real predictive capability they have is that storms generally move eastward across the United States, with the exception of the northward flow along the Gulf States and the eastern seaboard. They also know that storms near the Atlantic equatorial currents will travel generally westward, following the current. HarveyH55 wrote: It's not just with the temperature predictions either, the atmospheric CO2 is go to have a huge variance as well. I get that it's not so much the measured CO2, but the coal and oil pulled from the ground, and sold. It's not all used immediately, nor all gets burned. The CO2 that is produced, isn't all going to stay in the atmosphere. If the plant life is having a good growing season, they will pull out an unusually high level of CO2. If it's a poor season, not so much. I'm sure the other 'sink' mechanisms have there good and bad times as well, conditions change all the time. CO2 is heavier than air. It will tend to sink. Winds can push it aloft, but the end result is that CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Further, CO2 in a local area will vary depending on plant activity and local ocean temperatures. As a result, it is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 concentration. It matters little anyway. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. HarveyH55 wrote: Guess it's the power of marketing, politics, and religion, real science can't compete. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. This is the 'real' science. It is nothing more than this. It is nothing less. The IPCC, like Las Vegas, is very good at hoodwinking people with bad math and fake science. They are experts at this and this only. They deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, so they deny science. They deny the rules of statistical mathematics, and therefore deny mathematics. People in government are also following an agenda. Since a government or government agency does not have a profit motive, their success metric is to use any means to justify themselves and grow. If that means creating a false crisis so they can ride in like the cavalry to solve it (without actually solving it!), they can justify themselves. Career bureaucrats are experts at this routine. It's all about the show, not any actual problem. That said, there ARE people in government actually trying to solve a real problem. Global warming is not one of them. It was never a problem to begin with. It is completely fake. Be careful of falling into the 'experts' routine. Neither mathematics nor science is credentials. Algebra still works the same way whether an 'expert' is using it or a 'schmuck'. Statistical mathematics is no exception. It still works the same way. These liars can get away with calling what they're doing 'stastical math' because most people don't know statistical math. This branch of mathematics it often taught very badly even in most universities. Remember that universities get their money by selling degrees. If they can come up with a 'climate scientist' degree, they can get money from students going through the courses to get this degree. It is not science. Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics. It is a crime what has happened to science and even to mathematics. It is not a new problem. This kind of fakery has been around for a long time, ranging across a wide array of subjects. Las Vegas is literally a town built on bad math. The casino operators know the correct math and use it to set up their games. They market the fun aspect of the casino, and the chance to win big could be yours! Never mind that to win the jackpot on that machine is a 1 in 64^5 chance, if the machine is allowed to run free (casinos can set 'collection' times on their machines for certain hours and days, which prohibits any chance at a jackpot during those times. Yes, the NGC is aware of the practice and even regulates it). The IPCC is like Las Vegas. They are experts at marketing, politics, and pushing their religion. People fall for it because they actually know very little about statistical math (although they think they do, just like 'Vegas profits because most people know very little about probability math although they think they do). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-01-2019 04:31
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	The point I tried to make is that there are plenty of non-church scientists and mathematicians, who should have pointed out the flaws, and haven't. I do understand, that credibility, and employment are at risk, but there should be plenty that it wouldn't matter. I'd find it real interesting to get ahold of one of those computer models. Was always curious about what sort results you could get if you substituted non-climate related data, for the CO2, and see if it still puts out the same generic hockey-stick style graph. I'd try things like the price of postage stamps, crop production reports, price of gold, crime rates. Should be all kinds of data sets that are easy to find, and feed into one of those models. Guess that's another reason why they don't share, people like me would play with them, and it would show there true worth and value. Surprise there isn't a Climate Change computer game, since a good portion of the adult population grew up on video games. Seems like it would be an effective marketing tool, and an efficient way to get into peoples heads, and plant mis-information. Most people just don't have the patience to sit down and read through mountains of scientific papers, well sit down and read much of anything these days. But, a computer game would be something more appealing, and we already know there are so many, who have trouble separating truth from fiction. Social media is a great example, lot of unbelievable people on there. The best thing about selling it through a game, is that it doesn't having of the restrictions, it's for entertainment and education (cult recruitment). You couldn't win the game, with out learning the methods and scriptures, the climatologists need everyone to follow. Easier to sell garbage in a game.
04-01-2019 08:14
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	HarveyH55 wrote: ...I'd find it real interesting to get ahold of one of those computer models.... try here:https://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/
04-01-2019 10:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: The point I tried to make is that there are plenty of non-church scientists and mathematicians, who should have pointed out the flaws, and haven't. I do understand, that credibility, and employment are at risk, but there should be plenty that it wouldn't matter. There are. They have said something. Remember that a lot of them are bound by risk to say anything, and the media's constant drumbeat tends to drown out those that speak out against the Church of Global Warming. HarveyH55 wrote: I'd find it real interesting to get ahold of one of those computer models. Was always curious about what sort results you could get if you substituted non-climate related data, for the CO2, and see if it still puts out the same generic hockey-stick style graph. I'd try things like the price of postage stamps, crop production reports, price of gold, crime rates. Should be all kinds of data sets that are easy to find, and feed into one of those models. Guess that's another reason why they don't share, people like me would play with them, and it would show there true worth and value. Computer models only produce numbers that are considered 'correct', as designed by the computer programmers. They really have nothing to do with correctly predicting anything. It doesn't matter whether it's the weather, the price of a commodities or stocks, or crime rates. HarveyH55 wrote: Surprise there isn't a Climate Change computer game, since a good portion of the adult population grew up on video games. Seems like it would be an effective marketing tool, and an efficient way to get into peoples heads, and plant mis-information. Many video games do have a certain bias towards supporting the Church of Green, the Church of Global Warming, and the Church of Karl Marx. HarveyH55 wrote: Most people just don't have the patience to sit down and read through mountains of scientific papers, well sit down and read much of anything these days. But, a computer game would be something more appealing, and we already know there are so many, who have trouble separating truth from fiction. Social media is a great example, lot of unbelievable people on there. The best thing about selling it through a game, is that it doesn't having of the restrictions, it's for entertainment and education (cult recruitment). You couldn't win the game, with out learning the methods and scriptures, the climatologists need everyone to follow. Easier to sell garbage in a game. Build a game completely around the Church of Global Warming would make a boring game. A video game, to be successful at all, must first be a game. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-01-2019 23:49
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	I did some google searching for models, and games, and found both. The games seemed to be a few years old, guess they were so successful. Guess it's easier to 'game' the governments of the world, than to produce a video game. The models I looked at from sites that seemed more trust worth (.gov an universities), weren't exactly what I was looking for, but still several to check into. Seems like the 30-day trial, is popular among them. I'd want something that isn't limited, might take a month or two, just to get around to playing with it much. All three that I too a serious look at, seem to be pre-loaded with data, and no mention of substituting your own. I know the out put would be garbage, I just want to see if it's the same garbage as CO2. Pretty sure these are meant for classroom demonstrations, where the show how to tweak various parameters (tune), to get a desired output. Which, is about what you'd expect, from a group that started off with the results, and just need to clean it up for final sale. Guess what I need to do, is hit the IPCC website again, and see if they have reference to a model name and source, and search for that. Anyway, using the same model and method, and if you can substitute pretty much any sort of data, and get the same results as CO2, would mean anything could explain the observed warming trend. Since the warming is normal anyway, and not beyond any reasonable range or variation as seen in the past, obviously the climate science must be false. Use their own tools and methods to disprove. On day one, our progressive-liberal socialist House, had some disturbing things to say about their plans for the country. Impeaching the president seems high priority, although I don't think they have any proper grounds, abusing their new won power. One of the first time elected Reps, used some inappropriately vulgar language, which should be spanked for, and apologize to Trump, and the people of the United States. Speaker Nancy, was a little more restrained, though she firmly stated there would be no wall, impeachment depends on the russian investigation, and she has big plans for a 'greener' future. Which sort of gave me a cruel idea. If we incorporated wind turbines, as part of the wall, with the blades near ground level, they could knock the wall climbers off, least make it considerable more challenging. Wouldn't expect much electricity to be generated, maybe enough to power some sensors, or cameras, motion activated lights. Personally, I think alternative energy shouldn't be government funded, if it's a great idea, and people want it, it'll get done, without taxpayer funding. The money would be better spent on border security, The Wall...
05-01-2019 12:25
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	HarveyH55 wrote: I did some google searching for models, and games, and found both. The games seemed to be a few years old, guess they were so successful. Guess it's easier to 'game' the governments of the world, than to produce a video game. The models I looked at from sites that seemed more trust worth (.gov an universities), weren't exactly what I was looking for, but still several to check into. Seems like the 30-day trial, is popular among them. I'd want something that isn't limited, might take a month or two, just to get around to playing with it much. All three that I too a serious look at, seem to be pre-loaded with data, and no mention of substituting your own. I know the out put would be garbage, I just want to see if it's the same garbage as CO2. Pretty sure these are meant for classroom demonstrations, where the show how to tweak various parameters (tune), to get a desired output. Which, is about what you'd expect, from a group that started off with the results, and just need to clean it up for final sale. Guess what I need to do, is hit the IPCC website again, and see if they have reference to a model name and source, and search for that. Anyway, using the same model and method, and if you can substitute pretty much any sort of data, and get the same results as CO2, would mean anything could explain the observed warming trend. Since the warming is normal anyway, and not beyond any reasonable range or variation as seen in the past, obviously the climate science must be false. Use their own tools and methods to disprove. On day one, our progressive-liberal socialist House, had some disturbing things to say about their plans for the country. Impeaching the president seems high priority, although I don't think they have any proper grounds, abusing their new won power. One of the first time elected Reps, used some inappropriately vulgar language, which should be spanked for, and apologize to Trump, and the people of the United States. Speaker Nancy, was a little more restrained, though she firmly stated there would be no wall, impeachment depends on the russian investigation, and she has big plans for a 'greener' future. Which sort of gave me a cruel idea. If we incorporated wind turbines, as part of the wall, with the blades near ground level, they could knock the wall climbers off, least make it considerable more challenging. Wouldn't expect much electricity to be generated, maybe enough to power some sensors, or cameras, motion activated lights. Personally, I think alternative energy shouldn't be government funded, if it's a great idea, and people want it, it'll get done, without taxpayer funding. The money would be better spent on border security, The Wall... If you find some of those models please show them and we can all have a go.
05-01-2019 17:35
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I did some google searching for models, and games, and found both. The games seemed to be a few years old, guess they were so successful. Guess it's easier to 'game' the governments of the world, than to produce a video game. The models I looked at from sites that seemed more trust worth (.gov an universities), weren't exactly what I was looking for, but still several to check into. Seems like the 30-day trial, is popular among them. I'd want something that isn't limited, might take a month or two, just to get around to playing with it much. All three that I too a serious look at, seem to be pre-loaded with data, and no mention of substituting your own. I know the out put would be garbage, I just want to see if it's the same garbage as CO2. Pretty sure these are meant for classroom demonstrations, where the show how to tweak various parameters (tune), to get a desired output. Which, is about what you'd expect, from a group that started off with the results, and just need to clean it up for final sale. Guess what I need to do, is hit the IPCC website again, and see if they have reference to a model name and source, and search for that. Anyway, using the same model and method, and if you can substitute pretty much any sort of data, and get the same results as CO2, would mean anything could explain the observed warming trend. Since the warming is normal anyway, and not beyond any reasonable range or variation as seen in the past, obviously the climate science must be false. Use their own tools and methods to disprove. On day one, our progressive-liberal socialist House, had some disturbing things to say about their plans for the country. Impeaching the president seems high priority, although I don't think they have any proper grounds, abusing their new won power. One of the first time elected Reps, used some inappropriately vulgar language, which should be spanked for, and apologize to Trump, and the people of the United States. Speaker Nancy, was a little more restrained, though she firmly stated there would be no wall, impeachment depends on the russian investigation, and she has big plans for a 'greener' future. Which sort of gave me a cruel idea. If we incorporated wind turbines, as part of the wall, with the blades near ground level, they could knock the wall climbers off, least make it considerable more challenging. Wouldn't expect much electricity to be generated, maybe enough to power some sensors, or cameras, motion activated lights. Personally, I think alternative energy shouldn't be government funded, if it's a great idea, and people want it, it'll get done, without taxpayer funding. The money would be better spent on border security, The Wall... If you find some of those models please show them and we can all have a go. Actually this was the best of all possible worlds. The Democrats gained a soapbox but no real power. From that soapbox they will literally horrify the American people what they believe a world should look like. A large portion of the House Democrats got elected via counterfeit voting and perhaps this will horrify the public into demanding Voter ID for ALL elections. Something will have to be done with what passes for a media as well. Though that may have already fixed itself. Only the loonies watch MSNBC anymore, the Washington Post and the New York Times are little more than supermarket checkout line rags and without Trump they are going to dissolve on their own. ABC and CBS have sunk down into ratings so that they are surviving on a couple of shows but those are getting questionable since they are even writing propaganda into NCIS and the like. PBS is now not supported by the actual viewers anymore because of their far left wing views and are taking on advertisers. That's not a good sign for a network that is surviving almost entirely on British programming. So I'm not too worried about the future. I think that the Democrats have shown their hand.
06-01-2019 02:25
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	I haven't found much luck on finding a download for any of the main current models, that are free to use. Several 30 day trials, haven't checked the purchase price, got a hunch I'd need a government grant... I did find one that looks to have some promise, just need to see if I can use it, and how much trouble it's going to be. Not even sure if will work with Windows. https://github.com/ESCOMP/cesm HADCM3 seems to be the most used model, and pretty sure it runs on Windows 10, though not much on that, guessing Windows is less than ideal for simulations. Was all set to download it, but the require you to fill out a form, name, Email, university, job/project, bunch of other stuff. Could have probably made up most of it, used my Gmail, and nobody would have cared. Just not my style, and I wasn't positive I could have used it anyway. Also seemed like you had to use data from the same site, didn't see anything in the description stating otherwise. The user manual was huge, didn't feel like tying up the computer that long to download. Watched a YouTube of the simulation though, it was a flat earth, with colored bands, that changed from blue, to bright red, when it hit the year 2100. Had what I guess were currents, wind or water, but just moved around, didn't catch them shifting much, might have missed it though. I guess what I really want, is the Al Gore Hockey-Stick graph, maybe there are older version of the models, that run well on Windows. Have to see when that movie was popular, 2010? Think it was further back maybe, don't even remember the name. Wonder why Al Gore didn't run for president a second time, almost beat Bush, came down to one county in Florida. Guess he's making good money off Climatology, no need to rob Americans like a politician.
06-01-2019 14:10
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	HarveyH55 wrote: I haven't found much luck on finding a download for any of the main current models, that are free to use. Several 30 day trials, haven't checked the purchase price, got a hunch I'd need a government grant... I did find one that looks to have some promise, just need to see if I can use it, and how much trouble it's going to be. Not even sure if will work with Windows. https://github.com/ESCOMP/cesm HADCM3 seems to be the most used model, and pretty sure it runs on Windows 10, though not much on that, guessing Windows is less than ideal for simulations. Was all set to download it, but the require you to fill out a form, name, Email, university, job/project, bunch of other stuff. Could have probably made up most of it, used my Gmail, and nobody would have cared. Just not my style, and I wasn't positive I could have used it anyway. Also seemed like you had to use data from the same site, didn't see anything in the description stating otherwise. The user manual was huge, didn't feel like tying up the computer that long to download. Watched a YouTube of the simulation though, it was a flat earth, with colored bands, that changed from blue, to bright red, when it hit the year 2100. Had what I guess were currents, wind or water, but just moved around, didn't catch them shifting much, might have missed it though. I guess what I really want, is the Al Gore Hockey-Stick graph, maybe there are older version of the models, that run well on Windows. Have to see when that movie was popular, 2010? Think it was further back maybe, don't even remember the name. Wonder why Al Gore didn't run for president a second time, almost beat Bush, came down to one county in Florida. Guess he's making good money off Climatology, no need to rob Americans like a politician. Well, it is all beyond me. Good luck.

06-01-2019 17:37
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Yeah, it's a little bit of a reach for me. I used to program computers quite a bit when I was younger, before Windows took over. I didn't take well to the 'C' language, because of having to use a compiler, which really over-complicated the process for me. Later on, I started working with microcontrollers, the machine language was similar to what I had work with before, so not too bad. I did find a few projects on the internet I wanted to build, but the source was in 'C', and had to fiddle around to compile, before I could burn the chip. Fortunately, they gave clear enough instructions to walk through it. I'm pretty sure that compiler won't work for a Windows application. I've got an old version of Visual 'C', but not sure if it'll run on Vista, probably not on Windows 10. I'm going to look for a pre-built Windows version of a model, must be an older model available some place, probably run quicker too. It all still comes down to playing with numbers, mostly just random numbers to begin with.
06-01-2019 21:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Yeah, it's a little bit of a reach for me. I used to program computers quite a bit when I was younger, before Windows took over. I didn't take well to the 'C' language, because of having to use a compiler, which really over-complicated the process for me. Later on, I started working with microcontrollers, the machine language was similar to what I had work with before, so not too bad. I did find a few projects on the internet I wanted to build, but the source was in 'C', and had to fiddle around to compile, before I could burn the chip. Fortunately, they gave clear enough instructions to walk through it. I'm pretty sure that compiler won't work for a Windows application. I've got an old version of Visual 'C', but not sure if it'll run on Vista, probably not on Windows 10. I'm going to look for a pre-built Windows version of a model, must be an older model available some place, probably run quicker too. It all still comes down to playing with numbers, mostly just random numbers to begin with. What microcontrollers are you playing with? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-01-2019 23:30
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Yeah, it's a little bit of a reach for me. I used to program computers quite a bit when I was younger, before Windows took over. I didn't take well to the 'C' language, because of having to use a compiler, which really over-complicated the process for me. Later on, I started working with microcontrollers, the machine language was similar to what I had work with before, so not too bad. I did find a few projects on the internet I wanted to build, but the source was in 'C', and had to fiddle around to compile, before I could burn the chip. Fortunately, they gave clear enough instructions to walk through it. I'm pretty sure that compiler won't work for a Windows application. I've got an old version of Visual 'C', but not sure if it'll run on Vista, probably not on Windows 10. I'm going to look for a pre-built Windows version of a model, must be an older model available some place, probably run quicker too. It all still comes down to playing with numbers, mostly just random numbers to begin with. What microcontrollers are you playing with? Atmel ATtiny series, couple of the ATMegas. Microchip bought Atmel a few years ago. I went with Atmei, because their chips had a language I could understand and work with. Microchip's PIC series, has a very reduced instruction set, tough to work with, unless you compile from a high level language, like 'C'. I got back into it last year, with Arduino boards. Mostly, a lot of the sensor and modules were showing up on the electronic surplus store sites I shop, cheap. When I looked at the price, an Arduino Nano goes for $3.50 (average), cheaper than many of the single chips I was using. The good part, don't need to design and etch PC boards for permanent projects. Fortunately, the software is written for kids, and all the tricky details are handled automatically. There are libraries for most hardware you want to work with, so not real hard to throw something together.

Join the debate Where in the World is Global Warming?: