• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

Status
Not open for further replies.
3bodyproblem said:
Again incorrect. I said I believe he may have cited the paper that mentions the number of GCM's using entropy flux.
Click to expand...
Read what you wrote and what I wrote:
Reality Check said:
Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
(I'm pretty sure Tshaitanaku actually linked the paper in question. I'm not surprised you didn't read it, it's quite heavy and laden with thermodynamics and such)
Click to expand...

Here we go with your memory again instead of actual citations.
Click to expand...
I know that you "believe" that Tshaitanaku may have cited the paper.
Now which one of the papers that he has cited is it?

3bodyproblem said:
Could you please tell us what this red herring is about? Why do you think you need a citation to the number of GCM's using entropy flux as a parameter? Or do you just think because you can't figure out how to google it yourself it just doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
Learn to read: It is not a citation to the phrase "7 of 23 GCMs using entropy flux as a parameter".
It is evidence that any GCMs have entropy flux as a parameter.
Provide some evidence that you are not mistaken or lying:
The fact that you cannot google it means that you are probably lying.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
The point is simple: No statistics = not statistically significant.
So it is exteremely ignirant for someone to say that the 400% different is statistically significant.
The authors have the opinion that the 400% difference is significant. They know that they have no statisics and so are not dumb enough to call the difference statistically significant.
Click to expand...

lol, what an utterly pointless derail.

The value is "statistically significant" because of the millions of calculations in the GCM's that are off because of it. And unfortunately none of this is due to chance.

Is this all you have to say? Your educated opinion is that it's "significant" but not "statically significant". Maybe instead of pointless semantics you could comment on the paper? Just a thought.
 
Reality Check said:
Read what you wrote and what I wrote:

I know that you "believe" that Tshaitanaku may have cited the paper.
Now which one of the papers that he has cited is it?


Learn to read: It is not a citation to the phrase "7 of 23 GCMs using entropy flux as a parameter".
It is evidence that any GCMs have entropy flux as a parameter.
Provide some evidence that you are not mistaken or lying:
The fact that you cannot google it means that you are probably lying.
Click to expand...

lol, you create a red herring so you can call me a liar. Unbelievable.

I enjoy stringing you along because it shows how desperate you are. It also exposes just how little you know about climate models.

Face it, you don't have the skills. Admit it and I will gladly show you how to use google.
 
3bodyproblem's delusion that the Wu et al result is statistically significant

3bodyproblem said:
lol, what an utterly pointless derail.

The value is "statistically significant" because of the millions of calculations in the GCM's that are off because of it. And unfortunately none of this is due to chance.

Is this all you have to say? Your educated opinion is that it's "significant" but not "statically significant". Maybe instead of pointless semantics you could comment on the paper? Just a thought.
Click to expand...
How utterly pointless and ignorant of you 3bodyproblem.
The paper does not do "the millions of calculations in the GCM's" to show that their resilt is significant. The authors opinion is that their results will be significant in climate science.

The point is simple: No statistics = not statistically significant.
So it is exteremely ignorant for someone to say that the 400% different is statistically significant.
It is not my opinion. It is the authors opinion (the result is significant).
The fact that they do not include statistics that shows that the result is not statistically significant.

You are continuing with your delusion that the Wu et al result is statistically significant even though the authors do not say so and there are no statistics about their result.
 
3bodyproblem said:
lol, you didn't read the paper at all did you? Try 26.
Click to expand...
Way to show your ignorance, 3bodyproblem.

Equation 26 is "the globally averaged incident solar entropy flux received at the TOA for a blackbody Sun under the assumption II".
The entropy flux is defined as the result of an integration over all all wavelengths. It is not a paramneter.
The integration is replaced by equation 16. So you could calcuate the temperature of the Sun or the distance to the Sun from the entropy flux :).

Try substituting the value of entry flux and calculating the energy flux, 3bodyproblem.
 
3bodyproblem said:
lol, you create a red herring so you can call me a liar.
...usual pathetic insults snipped....
Click to expand...
LOL: You cannot read.
You are probably a liar or mistaken because
  1. You cannot give a citation to back up your assertion.
  2. You cannot even use googe (or any other research tool) to find a citation to back up your assertion.
  3. Your response is partially pathetic insults.
    That is an indication of a desperate person floundering about because they have no idea what they are talking about.
3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter
First asked 15th March 2011
Just one will do :jaw-dropp!
 
Reality Check said:
You are continuing with your delusion that the Wu et al result is statistically significant even though the authors do not say so and there are no statistics about their result.
Click to expand...

Oh noes! Alert the presses, a terrible mistake has been made.

The only delusion is your continued insistence that it makes any difference at all. This is some unprecedented handwaving I must say. Hilarious.:D
 
Reality Check said:
LOL: You cannot read.
You are probably a liar or mistaken because
  1. You cannot give a citation to back up your assertion.
  2. You cannot even use googe (or any other research tool) to find a citation to back up your assertion.
  3. Your response is partially pathetic insults.
    That is an indication of a desperate person floundering about because they have no idea what they are talking about.
3bodyproblem: Citations to the GCM's that have a solar entropy flux parameter
First asked 15th March 2011
Just one will do :jaw-dropp!
Click to expand...

lol, you can't prove me wrong so you create a red herring. Great stuff.
 
3bodyproblem said:
The only delusion is your continued insistence that it makes any difference at all. This is some unprecedented handwaving I must say. Hilarious.:D
Click to expand...
The delusion is yours: 3bodyproblem's delusion that the Wu et al result is statistically significant!

The fact is that the Wu et al result is significant according to the authors.

Your delusion that they have statistics in the paper about their result and so it is statistically significant is not funny - just sad and pathetic :(.

The nasty thing is that it makes you seen extremely ignorant. This is something that a high school student should know. Your continued inability to recognize that that no statistics = not statistically significant casts doubts on you education and intelligence. That makes anything you say doubtful. But you have said a couple of things in this thread that are insightful. That suggests a problem that stops you from acknowledging that you are wrong.
 
Reality Check said:
Way to show your ignorance, 3bodyproblem.

Equation 26 is "the globally averaged incident solar entropy flux received at the TOA for a blackbody Sun under the assumption II".
The entropy flux is defined as the result of an integration over all all wavelengths. It is not a paramneter.
The integration is replaced by equation 16. So you could calcuate the temperature of the Sun or the distance to the Sun from the entropy flux :).

Try substituting the value of entry flux and calculating the energy flux, 3bodyproblem.
Click to expand...

Which is J in this equation.

This is pretty simple stuff, I'm surprised you are having difficulty following a rather simple integration.

I'm fascinated by someone claiming to have a University education failing to see how easy it is to work backwards from entropy flux to get the incident radiation. Do you think all "math" is some irreversible process?
 
Reality Check said:
The delusion is yours: 3bodyproblem's delusion that the Wu et al result is statistically significant!

The fact is that the Wu et al result is significant according to the authors.

Your delusion that they have statistics in the paper about their result and so it is statistically significant is not funny - just sad and pathetic :(.

The nasty thing is that it makes you seen extremely ignorant. This is something that a high school student should know. Your continued inability to recognize that that no statistics = not statistically significant casts doubts on you education and intelligence. That makes anything you say doubtful. But you have said a couple of things in this thread that are insightful. That suggests a problem that stops you from acknowledging that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

lol, if you understood the paper you would probably see why it is so significant.

400% is statistically significant, get over it :)
 
3bodyproblem said:
lol, you create a red herring so you can call me a liar. Unbelievable.

I enjoy stringing you along because it shows how desperate you are. It also exposes just how little you know about climate models.

Face it, you don't have the skills. Admit it and I will gladly show you how to use google.
Click to expand...

mhaze used to mention Google a lot. Whenasked to substantiate somey claim, "it's on Google" would be the reply finally wrung from him. You're stringing along Reality Check like a wildebeest strings along an alligator.

And in the background lurks Megalodon. There's no escape for you.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Which is J in this equation.
...sniped usual pathetic insults...
Click to expand...
Yes it is: J is the entropy flux that is derived from the integration.
So I was wrong!
Differentiation is the second step.

So take the next step, 3bodyproblem:
Put J = the value of the entropy flux and differentiate. Then go backward through the paper to get the energy flux and then the TSI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom