Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (991178)	12/31/2016 10:13:33 PM
From: Bearcatbob	1 Recommendation Recommended By Stock Puppy Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573717

Interesting - my degrees are both in ChE as well. Somehow I learned the difference between an analog world and a digital one.

To: Land Shark who wrote (991178)	12/31/2016 11:30:42 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	2 Recommendations Recommended By longz Stock Puppy Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573717

well anonymous sharkie, your claims of your supposed education really reveal you to be a double double dumb ass. if you look up this guy Pat Frank, he is a chemist and has 50 peer reviewed publications. But showing the absolute fraud of AGW where the only science is based 100% upon GCMs The doctrine of these speculations of how the green house gas does whatever is founded 100% upon GCMs. Now it seem using the aritmetic of time series analysis and statistics shows the GCM are stupid dumb beyond belief. Message 30911858 is reposted. Anyone who can do arithmetic and look at the data can compare model output and real world data look at the errors made in the models and know exactly how they are predictive bags of shit. But it seems that is far far over the heads of th 97% know it alls and anonymous sharkie. I was reading a WUWT article wattsupwiththat.com In it was a link to the Pat Frank presentation. It is a talk about applying generic statistical analysis to find or calibrate the prediction accuracy of the Global Climate Models(GCM). The presentation is 42 minutes and I found I followed the math and the logic. The simple summary is. that using 20 plus years of satellite cloud data and comparing it with what the GCM predicted as cloud cover there was a 4 MW/M2 error in the models. The supposed effect of annual increases in CO2 is 35 MW/M2. The GCM are jokes, how stupid supposed scientists have to be to have faith or belief in them. The following presentation by Pat Frank details some of the devastating predictive weaknesses of climate models, especially their poor statistical management of uncertainty. "He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense." —John McCarthy This can also be found as wattsupwiththat.com the-needle-in-the-haystack-pat-franks-devastating-expose-of-climate-model-error/