I put this piece up in the links of my previous article, though I think it needs its own thread, given the misconceptions about climate change itself, and the clear political bias surrounding Carbon driven 'warming'.

The Geologic Record and Climate Change - Tim Patterson

In this lecture delivered at the Risk: Regulation and Reality Conference, Tim Patterson of Carleton University provides an enlightening lecture on climate change and the variable associated with these changes from a geological perspective.

Please take the time and give this a good read.

Then breathe and think.

On the ‘IPCC climate model’

3 hours ago

In the second hour of the Friday Nov 27 Alex Jones interviews Lord Muncton on this topic. He really does not like these climate scientists and wants to lock them all up. I do too - at least have a trial. I think the whole bunch of them, Gore, Suzuki, and all the rest should be locked up for the rest of their natural lives. His show starts every 4 hours starting at 12.

ReplyDeleteWe all know the real goal is to depopulate the world and that the world is far from overpopulated. To prove this, take an airplane flight, get a window seat. Know that it costs $0.65 to desalinate a cubic meter of water. We could re terreform all the deserts.

Doug, totally off topic, but do you remember Fortran????

ReplyDeleteI remember Fortran. Its just like any other language. I didn't do much programming in school and the Fortran course I took was very easy.

ReplyDeleteI think I know where this is going...I don't have a Fortran compiler.

I think the difficulty in analyzing their code may be in reverse engineering their intentions and deciphering their advanced numerical techniques.

Take this where you want, but analyzing their math code may not be possible. The language is no barrier. Waddya have in mind ?

I can do all kinds of things with numerical data and moving averages - the temp can be made to go up or down over any time window, just by adjusting the averaging window width. You can see when they do this is their data.

ReplyDeleteI don't get what the hoopla is all about CO2 doesn't drive climate and its obvious from any data they present. The public is shown one thing but told to think another and its right in front of all of us. Rocks don't fly.

We used fortran years ago for a climate modelling lab we did for physical chemistry.

ReplyDeleteIt was sort of funny, adjusting this and that, getting various outcomes... oddly though nobody did it the way the prof wanted.

When working out individual variables manually (ie using the straight calculus and graphing all results) we came to wildly different conclusions than the 'program' did.

Funny that too.

I've never had any training as a scientist except in a basic chem class where we were to characterize what was inside a closed box on the first day. Physics is a lot like engineering at the basic level.

ReplyDeleteEngineering is a totally different subject than science. At the basic level, its more more rote and precise. Its really just applied math and we learn that well.

The problem with climate modeling is that its all non linear and there are no really accepted or standard methods. In linear systems we always work with nice neat DE's and little tricks to deal with gear play and other funny characteristics of machinery that are not linear. But this is messy, but accurate.

I did numerical analysis, but again with linear systems.

Ahh nice neat DE's... I would agree. Non-Linear systems and their accompanying calculus is not for everyone, especially the more esoteric theoretical sides. I'll fully admit that my greatest strength lay in the applications of various equations and certainly not in the derivation of said equations from 'first principles'.

ReplyDeleteArghhh that still strikes FEAR in me!

Just give me the equation and I'll use it though, I have no problem with that.

If I recall correctly there was a whole separate calculus course which was geared entirely from the perspective of engineering. We (us chem students) argued that it would be far more beneficial for us to take that one. Of course are little idea fell on deaf ears, as they use the physical chemistry courses as weeders.

I made it through my the seat of my pants, and a healthy dose of terror.

I just can't prove theorems. That scares me, nothing else really does in math anymore. I got D's in gen math in high school, so I never got the basis of theorems. I did study the basic theorems in calculus (L'Hopitals rule, Greens, etc) but I can't prove the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, the pythagorean theroem or anything like that.

ReplyDeleteWhat we engineers know is little, but we know it very well.