Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory

[sunsettommy]

From American Thinker,

February 28, 2007

Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory

By Jerome J. Schmitt

Excerpt:

Global warming theory is a prediction based on complex mathematical models developed to explain the dynamics of the atmosphere. These models must account for a myriad of factors, and the resultant equations are so complex they cannot be solved explicitly or "analytically" but rather their solutions must be approximated "numerically" with computers. The mathematics of global warming should not be compared with the explicit calculus used, for example, by Edmund Halley to calculate the orbit of his eponymous comet and predict its return 76 years later.

Although based on scientific "first principles", complex numerical models inevitably require simplifications, judgment calls, and correction factors. These subjective measures may be entirely acceptable so long as the model matches the available data -- acceptable because the model is not intended to be internally consistent with all the laws of physics and chemistry, but rather to serve as an expedient means to anticipate behavior of the system in the future. However, problems can arise when R&D funding mechanisms inevitably "reward" exaggerated and alarming claims for the accuracy and implications of these models.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/num...egrated_ci.html

[obsidian]

was this supposed to be of value? i dont see how it is. its obvious you cannot be even 80% accurate predicting what will exactly happen when talking about our planets climate. there are too many variables, and lets not forget chaos theory. however if you posted this for support of the "no global warming theory" i think you have failed misserably. do you think they're predicting something so intricately complex that it can never be of value? because all scienctist do, regarding weather, is identify future trends. in all of their models they have predicted a warming trend, not that there will be a thunderstorm over toronto on june 27 2018...global warming is a TREND. and a warming trend forewarns of a climate shift, most likely resulting in unpredictable weather systems. this article says this is bad because it rewards developers of "green technology"...WOW. please never use this source again, the bias is apparent throughout. you really think its a bad thing that we're attempting to make sustainable technology? we'll have to sooner or later. even if global warming doesnt kill us because YOU think that it doesnt exist, we still will need "green technology". Populations are exponential curves. by 2050 the population is estimated to be around 10 billion people...if a radical climate shift we dont prepare for doesnt kill us, the worlds carcinogenic mutating pollution we dont prepare for will.

OILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOI

OILOILOILOIL

OIL IS THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU HEAR PEOPLE ATTACKING GLOBAL WARMING, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME DONT LISTEN TO THE TV GO ASK A F**CKING SCIENTIST. THEY DO NOT WHAT TO GIVE UP THEIR ENORMOUS PROFITS. WE'RE ADDICTED TO OIL, WE GO TO WAR FOR OIL, WE KILL FOR OIL. THE OIL DOENST BENEFIT US, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO ALL OF THIS, THE OIL BENEFITS THE OIL BARRONS WHICH DONT CARE ABOUT THE PLANET, ONLY PROFIT AND POWER

OILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOI

OILOILOILOIL

thanks captain obvious if you posted this for some scientific purpose. to inform people that you can't forecast everything...

and if you were trying to make a myth of global warming, you failed.

[sunsettommy]

From American Thinker,

February 28, 2007

Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory

By Jerome J. Schmitt

Excerpt:

Global warming theory is a prediction based on complex mathematical models developed to explain the dynamics of the atmosphere. These models must account for a myriad of factors, and the resultant equations are so complex they cannot be solved explicitly or "analytically" but rather their solutions must be approximated "numerically" with computers. The mathematics of global warming should not be compared with the explicit calculus used, for example, by Edmund Halley to calculate the orbit of his eponymous comet and predict its return 76 years later.

Although based on scientific "first principles", complex numerical models inevitably require simplifications, judgment calls, and correction factors. These subjective measures may be entirely acceptable so long as the model matches the available data -- acceptable because the model is not intended to be internally consistent with all the laws of physics and chemistry, but rather to serve as an expedient means to anticipate behavior of the system in the future. However, problems can arise when R&D funding mechanisms inevitably "reward" exaggerated and alarming claims for the accuracy and implications of these models.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/num...egrated_ci.html

From American Thinker. Good news source. Sounds reliable. Sounds plausible. You fucking idiot. The uncertainties in climate modelling are KNOWN uncertainties just like with potilical polls, totals right within 3% pts 19 times out of 20, and so forth. The science and physics are even more certain. Honestly, it is nothing but anally retentive Conservatives out on this forum tonight. Their sons fuck eachother and their daughters masturbate with a cross. I dunno how they keep breeding...

Judging from your reply.

You have no rebuttal to offer.

Just be vile is all you offer.

The political slurs and the namecalling from you means that you do not know how to debate civily.

Sad.

[sunsettommy]

was this supposed to be of value? i dont see how it is. its obvious you cannot be even 80% accurate predicting what will exactly happen when talking about our planets climate. there are too many variables, and lets not forget chaos theory. however if you posted this for support of the "no global warming theory" i think you have failed misserably. do you think they're predicting something so intricately complex that it can never be of value? because all scienctist do, regarding weather, is identify future trends. in all of their models they have predicted a warming trend, not that there will be a thunderstorm over toronto on june 27 2018...global warming is a TREND. and a warming trend forewarns of a climate shift, most likely resulting in unpredictable weather systems.

thanks captain obvious if you posted this for some scientific purpose. to inform people that you can't forecast everything...

and if you were trying to make a myth of global warming, you failed.

So you offer no pointed rebuttal of the article itself.

Whatever gave you the idea that I was a believer in the myth of global warming?

[obsidian]

ok i posed two possibilities.

either you were trying to dispell global warming

or

you were pointing out the blatantly obvious

if you just wanted to bring this information to the people, congragulations. however, sorry to burst your bubble, but you're a little slow on finding this one out buddy. its not news.

and you havent even taken a position in this debate, so inturn im attacking the article. not you, don't flatter yourself.

and if you couldnt identify the PURPOSE of the article you were probably better off reading a hardy boy book.

you say "Whatever gave you the idea that I was a believer in the myth of global warming?" um u realise thats not a definitive statement, it can go both ways...like a bisexual. do you believe it exist or not?

you also say "So you offer no pointed rebuttal of the article itself." yes i did, everything i wrote pertains to this article. the article says in the last line:

"However, problems can arise when R&D funding mechanisms inevitably "reward" exaggerated and alarming claims for the accuracy and implications of these models. " and thats the thesis of the article,if you couldnt see that. and thats what i dispelled.

you say there is no room for rebuttal, but id like to see your rebuttal. and if you can't... you lose, i win.

[sunsettommy]

was this supposed to be of value? i dont see how it is. its obvious you cannot be even 80% accurate predicting what will exactly happen when talking about our planets climate. there are too many variables, and lets not forget chaos theory. however if you posted this for support of the "no global warming theory" i think you have failed misserably. do you think they're predicting something so intricately complex that it can never be of value? because all scienctist do, regarding weather, is identify future trends. in all of their models they have predicted a warming trend, not that there will be a thunderstorm over toronto on june 27 2018...global warming is a TREND. and a warming trend forewarns of a climate shift, most likely resulting in unpredictable weather systems. this article says this is bad because it rewards developers of "green technology"...WOW. please never use this source again, the bias is apparent throughout. you really think its a bad thing that we're attempting to make sustainable technology? we'll have to sooner or later. even if global warming doesnt kill us because YOU think that it doesnt exist, we still will need "green technology". Populations are exponential curves. by 2050 the population is estimated to be around 10 billion people...if a radical climate shift we dont prepare for doesnt kill us, the worlds carcinogenic mutating pollution we dont prepare for will.

OILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOI

OILOILOILOIL

OIL IS THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU HEAR PEOPLE ATTACKING GLOBAL WARMING, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME DONT LISTEN TO THE TV GO ASK A F**CKING SCIENTIST. THEY DO NOT WHAT TO GIVE UP THEIR ENORMOUS PROFITS. WE'RE ADDICTED TO OIL, WE GO TO WAR FOR OIL, WE KILL FOR OIL. THE OIL DOENST BENEFIT US, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO ALL OF THIS, THE OIL BENEFITS THE OIL BARRONS WHICH DONT CARE ABOUT THE PLANET, ONLY PROFIT AND POWER

OILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOI

OILOILOILOIL

thanks captain obvious if you posted this for some scientific purpose. to inform people that you can't forecast everything...

and if you were trying to make a myth of global warming, you failed.

I see that you edited your post to add some smears.

Whatever happened to the idea of discussing the content of the article I posted?

Maybe you just do not care and go the red herring process?

Here from another forum this handy quote that now applies to people like you:

You are resorting to the "argument from smear." I have identified 4 unscientific arguments for global warming. 1. Argument from smear. 2. Argument from authority. 3. Anecdotal evidence. 4. Computer models. None of these are scientific arguments. None of them are arguments from evidence. But that is mostly what you encounter in the media and on these discussions boards. I contend that without these 4 arguments, well known to be unscientific, there really isn't a very strong case for the greenhouse gas theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Recently, of course, I have identified a fifth unscientifc argument. This is the arguement from authoritarianism. That is, threats, intimidation, and censorship

.

What about the posted article?

[sunsettommy]

ok i posed two possibilities.

either you were trying to dispell global warming

or

you were pointing out the blatantly obvious

if you just wanted to bring this information to the people, congragulations. however, sorry to burst your bubble, but you're a little slow on finding this one out buddy. its not news.

and you havent even taken a position in this debate, so inturn im attacking the article. not you, don't flatter yourself.

and if you couldnt identify the PURPOSE of the article you were probably better off reading a hardy boy book.

you say "Whatever gave you the idea that I was a believer in the myth of global warming?" um u realise thats not a definitive statement, it can go both ways...like a bisexual. do you believe it exist or not?

you also say "So you offer no pointed rebuttal of the article itself." yes i did, everything i wrote pertains to this article. the article says in the last line:

"However, problems can arise when R&D funding mechanisms inevitably "reward" exaggerated and alarming claims for the accuracy and implications of these models. " and thats the thesis of the article,if you couldnt see that. and thats what i dispelled.

you say there is no room for rebuttal, but id like to see your rebuttal. and if you can't... you lose, i win.

LOL,

You have no idea how little you rebutted anything.

It is plain that you lack the skill to discuss civily.

You are not worth my time.

Pathetic.

[obsidian]

wow man you're such a hypocrit.

ive voiced my oppinon

AND ALL YOU HAVE WRITTEN, IN YOUR OWN THREAD IS :

"LOL,

You have no idea how little you rebutted anything.

It is plain that you lack the skill to discuss civily.

You offer slurs and insults.

You are not worth my time.

Pathetic."

"So you offer no pointed rebuttal of the article itself.

Whatever gave you the idea that I was a believer in the myth of global warming?"

so i see you have also given no rebuttal, let ALONE VOICE YOUR OWN OPPINION. i asked whether you believe in global warming or not. and please, please show me the slander, sorry for trying to be a little less analy retentive.

i thought maybe you were past a grade 5 level of reading comprehension, but i guess ill have to explain-point for point-my rebuttals.

-this is nothing new, no real relevance

-internal combustion engines need to stopped being used, regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming

-that we can see these trends now happening, just turn on the news kid. 8 feet of snow in upstate newyork, all the storms in BC, warmest year in recorded history, it was 8 until like mid jan in toronto, etc, etc, etc

-that it does make sense to forecast, and adjust accordingly, to incoming-even potential-threats

-if we all switched to green energy it would benefit EVERY SINGLE BIOTIC SYSTEM ON THE PLANTET.the only people who are to suffer from this is the billionaire oil barrons.

-all companies forecast trends FOR EVERYTHING, and ACT UPON THEM.

-you havent even voiced your oppinion, nothing more than 5 word sentences.

[obsidian]

and just for future consideration, you consider this slander?

-it can go both ways...like a bisexual

-sorry to burst your bubble, but you're a little slow on finding this one out buddy. its not news.

-and if you can't... you lose, i win.

well hell i guess im just a potty mouth, but hey, this isnt slander. im not attacking your character, or your oppinons, its just an informal writing style. if you removed any of my "supposed slanders" all of my points would still be just as relevant.

the definition

slan·der /ˈslændər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slan-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.

2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

–verb (used with object) 4. to utter slander against; defame.

–verb (used without object) 5. to utter or circulate slander.

explain how i did any of the following

and ps you say i cannot discuss civily, but you my friend, dont appear to be able to discuss anything at all...

[sunsettommy]

and just for future consideration, you consider this slander?

-it can go both ways...like a bisexual

-sorry to burst your bubble, but you're a little slow on finding this one out buddy. its not news.

-and if you can't... you lose, i win.

well hell i guess im just a potty mouth, but hey, this isnt slander. im not attacking your character, or your oppinons, its just an informal writing style. if you removed any of my "supposed slanders" all of my points would still be just as relevant.

the definition

slan·der /ˈslændər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slan-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.

2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

–verb (used with object) 4. to utter slander against; defame.

–verb (used without object) 5. to utter or circulate slander.

explain how i did any of the following

and ps you say i cannot discuss civily, but you my friend, dont appear to be able to discuss anything at all...

This is a rant.

What about the posted articles CONTENT?

[obsidian]

im getting peeved, either you're doing this on purpose, or you're a moron.

if you OPENED YOUR EYES, IVE ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION BEFORE YOU'VE ASKED.

i already posted this, but posting it again may actually help your comprehension...

wow man you're such a hypocrit.

ive voiced my oppinon

AND ALL YOU HAVE WRITTEN, IN YOUR OWN THREAD IS :

"LOL,

You have no idea how little you rebutted anything.

It is plain that you lack the skill to discuss civily.

You offer slurs and insults.

You are not worth my time.

Pathetic."

"So you offer no pointed rebuttal of the article itself.

Whatever gave you the idea that I was a believer in the myth of global warming?"

so i see you have also given no rebuttal, let ALONE VOICE YOUR OWN OPPINION. i asked whether you believe in global warming or not. and please, please show me the slander, sorry for trying to be a little less analy retentive.

i thought maybe you were past a grade 5 level of reading comprehension, but i guess ill have to explain-point for point-my rebuttals.

-this is nothing new, no real relevance

-internal combustion engines need to stopped being used, regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming

-that we can see these trends now happening, just turn on the news kid. 8 feet of snow in upstate newyork, all the storms in BC, warmest year in recorded history, it was 8 until like mid jan in toronto, etc, etc, etc

-that it does make sense to forecast, and adjust accordingly, to incoming-even potential-threats

-if we all switched to green energy it would benefit EVERY SINGLE BIOTIC SYSTEM ON THE PLANTET.the only people who are to suffer from this is the billionaire oil barrons.

-all companies forecast trends FOR EVERYTHING, and ACT UPON THEM.

-you havent even voiced your oppinion, nothing more than 5 word sentences.

[obsidian]

I consider all of your comments, up to now, of no value. If you don't respond properly, with more than 4 words, im going to give up on you, like im sure your parents already have....

[obsidian]

sorry i didnt reply to this earlier, buy you REALLY think co2 emmisions do not affect the temperature? it has been scientifically proven. seems like ur living under a rock.

i cant wait til others read this, then maybe you will realise how badly you have been burned.

the only quasi-defence or rebuttal you have given me is that quote...which you admitted yourself was from a forum. what is this forum? who is the user? and most importantly, regardless of what forum it was posted on, or the user who posted it, it means nothing. its sad that you think that is actually quote worthy...

[White Doors]

Very obvious that you are only 17.

[obsidian]

once again, answer me with facts, quotations, and your oppinion is fine too, but it is not relevant.

i cannot fathom how you think im in the wrong, frankly i dont care, but id like an explanation. i made my points, and he didnt reply, at all, with anything of importance regarding this subject

my points were:

-this is nothing new, no real relevance

-internal combustion engines need to stopped being used, regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming

-that we can see these trends now happening, just turn on the news kid. 8 feet of snow in upstate newyork, all the storms in BC, warmest year in recorded history, it was 8 until like mid jan in toronto, etc, etc, etc

-that it does make sense to forecast, and adjust accordingly, to incoming-even potential-threats

-if we all switched to green energy it would benefit EVERY SINGLE BIOTIC SYSTEM ON THE PLANTET.the only people who are to suffer from this is the billionaire oil barrons.

-all companies forecast trends FOR EVERYTHING, and ACT UPON THEM.

what is wrong with that? and the supposed slander didnt start until s/he didnt reply, and i still dont consider it slander.

[obsidian]

eh ill retract my statements until i can look them up, verify them, then come to a conclusion

[sunsettommy]

Obsidian,

I made a very bad mistake charging that you have insulted me.

I was going back and fourth between 2 forums and people like Cgy-4-a-1st-round-pick in this thread and someone at the other forum who had potty mouths.I somehow lumped you in with them.

I am sorry.

[sunsettommy]

Very obvious that you are only 17.

Well he is understandably peeved by my saying he was insulting me.I was wrong.

But for the rest he never did offer any actual rebuttal of the article I posted.

No actual quotes or details from the posted article for me to consider.

Just this from him (obsidian):

was this supposed to be of value? i dont see how it is. its obvious you cannot be even 80% accurate predicting what will exactly happen when talking about our planets climate. there are too many variables, and lets not forget chaos theory. however if you posted this for support of the "no global warming theory" i think you have failed misserably. do you think they're predicting something so intricately complex that it can never be of value? because all scienctist do, regarding weather, is identify future trends. in all of their models they have predicted a warming trend, not that there will be a thunderstorm over toronto on june 27 2018...global warming is a TREND. and a warming trend forewarns of a climate shift, most likely resulting in unpredictable weather systems. this article says this is bad because it rewards developers of "green technology"...WOW. please never use this source again, the bias is apparent throughout. you really think its a bad thing that we're attempting to make sustainable technology? we'll have to sooner or later. even if global warming doesnt kill us because YOU think that it doesnt exist, we still will need "green technology". Populations are exponential curves. by 2050 the population is estimated to be around 10 billion people...if a radical climate shift we dont prepare for doesnt kill us, the worlds carcinogenic mutating pollution we dont prepare for will.

A rambling rant is all it is.

LOL.

[sunsettommy]

From the posted article:

Let's consider how these process engineering mathematical models are actually used in industry. Intel and its competitors (as well as their key suppliers) employ many chemical engineers who are familiar with such process models, some of whom specialize solely in mathematical modeling. Often a new technical challenge will emerge in which a process must be changed (such as for scale-up to accommodate larger silicon wafers) or adjusted to accommodate a new material composition.

Almost all semiconductor manufacturing processes occur in closed vessels. This permits the engineers to precisely control the input chemicals (gases) and the pressure, temperature, etc. with high degree of precision and reliability. Closed systems are also much easier to model as compared to systems open to the atmosphere (that should tell us something already). Computer models are used to inform the engineering team as the design the shape, temperature ramp, flow rates, etc, etc, (i.e. the thermodynamics) of the new reactor.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that 1) the chemical reactions are highly studied, 2) there exists extensive experience with similar reactors, much of it recorded in the open literature, 3) the input gases and materials are of high and known purity, and 4) the process is controlled with incredible precision, the predictions of the models are often wrong, requiring that the reactor be adjusted empirically to produce the desired product with quality and reliability.

The fact that these artificial "climates" are closed systems far simpler than the global climate, have the advantage of the experimental method, and are subject to precise controls, and yet are frequently wrong, should lend some humility to those who make grand predictions about the future of the earth's atmosphere.

What about this part about Engineering Mathematical modeling with CLOSED system versus Planetary climate model with an OPEN system?

[obsidian]

no offense taken sunsettommy, and btw im 16 so maybe thats why it comes off that way? and its interesting that you mention the closed vs open theory because i remember hearing that that water aswell as other minerals can come into the earth from space, i remember hearing this on coast2coast.

i think it's definetly not all caused by humans and our biproducts. the earth goes through cycles, and this has been documented as far back as the mayans and zapotecs. {they believe we're coming to an end of the 4th recored cycle, and about to enter the 5th on dec 12 2001}-random, but interesting)

but i still think climate change is happening, and i believe this isnt a bad thing, because all life evolved to its surroundings, and continues to adapt to survive in its surroundings. i think weather was the fundemental motivator for all evolution during early stages (in combonation with cooperation among animals-plants and competition amongst other species). if you look at our earliest forms of technology, we developed them to survive. we needed clothes, because it was cold. we needed weapons and traps because we had no claws or sharp enough teeth. we needed fire to stay warm. and since technology advancement is an exponential curve, meaning that more technology inturn produces more technology, etc, etc, we have reached the current stage we have now. and you can picture this exponential curve very clearly in your mind when you picture the advancement of computers in the last 30 years or that 90% of our technology came from this century.

all in all, change is good. ^rant^

um i think chaos theory and the sheer complexity make it impossible to draw proper conclusins.

wayyyy to many variables. but dont you think they can identify atleast a warming trend?