• 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.
Reality Check said:
If you cannot answwer
then you are lying or mistaken about there being such GCMs.
Which one is it, 3bodyproblem.
Click to expand...

I'm not mistaken and I'm quite sure you know this and are lying in order to hide your own ignorance at this point.

You'd look pretty foolish not knowing how to google something as simple as this. I mean you claim to have a university education but you can't figure out how to use google? lol.
 
3bodyproblem said:
I'm not mistaken and I'm quite sure you know this and are lying in order to hide your own ignorance at this point.

You'd look pretty foolish not knowing how to google something as simple as this. I mean you claim to have a university education but you can't figure out how to use google? lol.
Click to expand...

You're not gaining any ground with that.
 
CapelDodger said:
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.
Click to expand...

I must admit it's amusing to see people claiming to be well read and educated not be able to google something for themselves.

Now if you'd just admit it I'll gladly show you how. :D
 
3bodyproblem's delusion that the Wu et al result is statistically significant

Forgot to cite where this delusion of yours 3bodyproblem started:
3bodyproblem said:
And yet you don't seem to know that 400% is statistically significant
Click to expand...
on 17th March 2011

You continued with many posts including
Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
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".
Click to expand...
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:
I'm not mistaken ...
Click to expand...

Nobody's taking your word on that.

... and I'm quite sure you know this and are lying in order to hide your own ignorance at this point.
Click to expand...

We know that you won't explain any of your post-normal physics because you're hiding your own failings from your own frail self. mhaze went through this phase, and Diamond before him. Now they're in comfortably padded accomodation ranting "Google! Google!" when their meds need adjusting.

You'd look pretty foolish not knowing how to google something as simple as this. I mean you claim to have a university education but you can't figure out how to use google? lol.
Click to expand...

So how did you do it? Take us through it step by step.
 
3bodyproblem said:
It proves quite conclusively you and RC don't have any idea how GCM's work if you think they all use entropy flux as a parameter.
Click to expand...
You are wrong: I do not think that all GCMs use entropy flux as a parameter. I suspect that CapelDodger does not think that all GCMs use entropy flux as a parameter.

You have no credibility since you cannot understand the Wu et al paper
Thus your assertion that 7 of 23 GCM's have entropy flux as a parameter needs to be backed up by citations. Just one citation will show that at least 1 GCM has entropy flux as a parameter.
 
3bodyproblem said:
It proves quite conclusively you and RC don't have any idea how GCM's work if you think they all use entropy flux as a parameter.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of them do. I wouldn't myself.

Back in the 70's, when I was at university studying computer science, we used to rap with climate scientists about climate modelling. Building castles in the air, of course : there's vastly more computing power in a modern mobile phone than we had on campus in those days, but the principles of the task weren't so limited. I didn't pursue it for my degree project (I went for a formal languages approach to symbolic differentiation and integration; pointless but fun, with little danger of accidental plagiarism) but friends of mine did. I've always followed the story, and I do have a good understanding of how physical models work on computers.

Entropy never featured. That's the thing about entropy, it only emerges after the event.
 
Reality Check said:
Thus your assertion that 7 of 23 GCM's have entropy flux as a parameter needs to be backed up by citations.
Click to expand...

23 is over 300% of 7 : is that statistically significant, I wonder? Both 7 and 23 are suspiciously specific anyway.

Just one citation will show that at least 1 GCM has entropy flux as a parameter.
Click to expand...

I'd follow that up and report back, to the best of my abilities.
 
3bodyproblem said:
lol, yes it can. It shouldn't, but it can. :D
Click to expand...

My mistake. I should have said "cannot validly" rather than a simple "cannot" . Most people would take that for granted but most people aren't flailing around like arecently-landed mackerel.

So as to your "statistically significant" difference between two numbers, how valid do you think that concept is? Certainly? Uncertainly? Something in-between? Entropically ill-defined? Google?
 
Reality Check said:
You have no credibility since you cannot understand the Wu et al paper
Click to expand...

And yet I'm explaining it to you. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Reality Check said:
[*]3bodyproblem's delusion that the Wu et al result is statistically significant! a delusion maintained since 17th March 2011.
Click to expand...

I doubt if you understand the meaning of the word "delusion". Your usage is gratuitous at best.

Reality Check said:
[*]3bodyproblem's mistakes about the Wu et al paper
Click to expand...

My mistake was presenting a paper that hasn't been RealCrapClimate.com approved.

Reality Check said:
Thus your assertion that 7 of 23 GCM's have entropy flux as a parameter needs to be backed up by citations. Just one citation will show that at least 1 GCM has entropy flux as a parameter.
Click to expand...

Why? I realize you may be used to having things spoon fed to you but that's not how I do things. If you feel the need to pursue this red herring google is your friend.

The simple fact that the authors of Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth's climate refer to the models and the use of entropy flux is good enough for me.

Or do you think they are lying as well? It would seem that anyone controverting your misconceptions about climate science is a liar. I've found most alarmists are fanatics.
 
Reality Check said:
3bodyproblem's delusion that the Wu et al result is statistically significant! a delusion maintained since 17th March 2011

Back up your claim with the statistics from the paper. Or you are just deluded or ignorant. Period.
Click to expand...

Once again you are incorrect. You've moved the goal posts significantly. Given the number of times you've been incorrect I'm inclided to believe it's statistically significant. It's certainly not by chance, even a broken clock is right a couple times a day! :D
 
CapelDodger said:
I don't think any of them do. I wouldn't myself.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have much to learn about climate models. At least this is a start. Hopefully this will encourage you to learn more about climate models and atmospheric physics. If you have any questions I'm more than willing to help.

CapelDodger said:
Entropy never featured. That's the thing about entropy, it only emerges after the event.
Click to expand...

Entropy features heavily in any discussion about heat. If it doesn't you're probably missing something :D
 
CapelDodger said:
mhaze used to mention Google a lot. Whenasked to substantiate somey claim, "it's on Google" would be the reply finally wrung from him.
Click to expand...
I'll never forget the time he was asked what he meant by a particular phrase, and his response was to tell us to google it, saying he'd done so and got tens of thousands of hits. I did and got just 5 hits, the first of which was his posts on that very thread. Turned out he had not put quote marks around the phrase, so had got hits for every webpage that used the three words it was composed of. And then he had the nerve to spend the next couple of pages insisting that I was the one who didn't know how to use google. :D

I have to say I am very bored with the discussion between RC and 3bp. 3bp is never going to admit he was wrong about this, RC. I've stopped bothering to read his posts, and I suggest you do the same.
 
3bodyproblem said:
And yet I'm explaining it to you. Go figure. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Delusions are not explanations :rolleyes:!
3bodyproblem's delusion that the Wu et al result is statistically significant! no statistics = not statistically significant!
It would be a mistake but the maintaining of it since 17th March 2011 makes it a delusion.
The inability to understand the simple point that no statistics for the result means the result is not statistically significant makes it a delusion.
Or it may just be a mental defect that does not allow 3bodyproblem to admit that he is wrong.

The Wu et al paper never states that their result is statistically significant.

Making mistakes abut the paper is not explaining it: 3bodyproblem's mistakes about the Wu et al paper
In any case I do not need your explanations - the paper is clear.

3bodyproblem said:
The simple fact that the authors of Spectral solar irradiance and its entropic effect on Earth's climate refer to the models and the use of entropy flux is good enough for me.
Click to expand...
Quote where Wu et al explicitly refer to the use of entropy flux in models.
The authors refer to models and entropy flux
I see no reference to entropy flux as a parameter of GCMs.

I cannot find a explicit reference in the paper to the use of entropy flux in any climate model. Maybe it is in one of the referenced papers that you would have read (:rolleyes:). You should be able to quote that paper.

There are mentions of TOA SSI in models.
There are mentions of the importance of entropy in the study of climate systems, in "aspects such as atmospheric circulation, role of clouds, hydrology, ecosystem exchange of energy and mass".

Entropy seems to be a product of models not a parameter according to the titles of some of the paper's references.

3bodyproblem said:
Or do you think they are lying as well?.
Click to expand...
No - I think that 3bodyproblem is mistaken or lying or deluded.
 
Pixel42 said:
3bp is never going to admit he was wrong about this, RC. I've stopped bothering to read his posts, and I suggest you do the same.
Click to expand...
I thnik I will continue for a while if only to emphasis to lurkers how 3bodyproblem cannot understsand the basics of mathematics (statistical significance needs statistics :eye-poppi).
And a bit of curiosity about how long he can continue to display this astounding bit of ignorance or whether he is capable of learning this basic fact.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom