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 (991284)	1/1/2017 9:21:56 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 1573922

The giss measurements have error bars and who knows what they mean in the sampling error of measurement of every thousands of square miles covered by the very few thousand sensors. There is no giss measurements in million and million of square miles. The GGM models all use simulated estimates of cloud cover and from that compute h20 and cloud forcings. Pat Frank used 25 years of actual data and compared, using GCM model rules of the forcing of observed cloud cover and then compared that to the models predicted cloud forcing. The result was an average error of 4 watt/m2 across the GCM. Everything out of the GCM models is bullshit. Clearly you have never used models in any real world work. You cannot see a 35mw/m2 annual forcing in a model with 4 watt/m2 error. In a time step model errors just keep summing and 2 +or- 2 washes away any .035 + .035 You again show by your comment you cannot find your ass with both hands..