15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!

[PMZ]

Nothing in your reference contradicts what I said, moron. A finite element program designed for stress analysis cannot easily be adapted for heat transfer analysis.

FEA is generic. It's matrix algebra. It's easily adapted to many disciplines. Matlab, as a simple example, doesn't care what you are calculating as long as it can be modeled as finite elements, each of which affects, and is affected by, adjoining finite elements.

Moron.

So how does one maintain data integrity by using one of these packages?

The two are separate issues.

 

[asterism]

FEA is generic. It's matrix algebra. It's easily adapted to many disciplines. Matlab, as a simple example, doesn't care what you are calculating as long as it can be modeled as finite elements, each of which affects, and is affected by, adjoining finite elements.

Moron.

So how does one maintain data integrity by using one of these packages?

The two are separate issues.

True, and that's why Climatologists shouldn't write their own software. They are concerned with the calculations, not so much with maintaining the data.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's a simple explanation of FEA. The next time you try to claim expertise in it you can use this for a more credible act.

Introduction to Finite Element Analysis

Nothing in your reference contradicts what I said, moron. A finite element program designed for stress analysis cannot easily be adapted for heat transfer analysis.

FEA is generic. It's matrix algebra. It's easily adapted to many disciplines. Matlab, as a simple example, doesn't care what you are calculating as long as it can be modeled as finite elements, each of which affects, and is affected by, adjoining finite elements.

Moron.

It's not that simple, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

What package did you work on?

I worked on the stuff my engineering professor wrote.

Did it have a recognizable name?

He didn't market his software. He used it for teaching purpose, and I suppose his own research purposes. It's been over 25 years since I touched the stuff, so my memory of it is sketchy,

 

[gallantwarrior]

Because they become ocean. That huge body of water that we built most of our cities on. When it goes up, they'll come down.

I'm still not seeing the downside.

The only downside is the cost of protecting shoreline civilization from rising sea level. And recovering from storm damage worsened by high sea levels.

Why? Those who refuse to relocate are obviously too stupid to be allowed to reproduce. Not to mention, most of the warrens you are so concerned about are cesspits swarming with the dregs of humanity. It would be kind of like...flushing the toilet.

 

[gallantwarrior]

In other words, it's logical in your tiny mind to believe that you are an expert in everything.

That is a logical fatality.

Seems to me he's more an expert at blindly and unquestioningly lapping up whatever agenda-driven "science" is presented to him and then steadfastly insisting on the so-called "science" is absolutely infallible and beyond question.

I have faith in science. You have faith in evangelical media based political entertainers paid by big oil.

I'm pretty sure now that you pay absolutely no attention to what people talk about here. Evangelical media? Really? Me? Your particular choice of political entertainer sucks their monetary sustenance from far more sinister sources than Big Oil.
I am still waiting for your proposals to solve your AGW dilemma.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Finite elements are finite elements. Stress and strain, heat and temperature, fluid flow.

Wrong.

I've written Finite Element analysis software. What's your expertise?

Here's a simple explanation of FEA. The next time you try to claim expertise in it you can use this for a more credible act.

Introduction to Finite Element Analysis

Google does work on your system...you should try it to broaden your knowledge, not support you very narrow views.

 

[PMZ]

I haven't noticed you posting your proposed solutions yet. Lots of blah, blah, blah, but no solutions.
I'll be waiting.

As far as you and I are concerned? Stay out of the way. There are millions of IPCC staff, engineers, scientists, investors, builders of things, regulators, politicians, etc who will make a good living building the future for upcoming generations. Now that we understand the consequences of doing nothing, and how unaffordable that is, we have armies of well prepared workers in the businesses that will provide solutions. More than enough jobs to provide those who will lose their jobs in the transition who choose to learn new skills.

Opportunity abounds as well as a viable future.

What hampers everything are the naysayers. The nattering nabobs of negativity.

Don't be one.

Still just platitudes and mumbo-jumbo talking points. No concrete proposals. You know, something like...limit births? Or force everybody to spend a certain amount of time daily on a treadmill, generating power to feed back into an electric grid? Or, how about rationing food? Ya got anything other than sit on your ass and wait for someone else to come up with something better?

I'm pretty sure that you're a genuinely sick individual. No wonder you're conservative. You're misogynistic.

 

[gallantwarrior]

As far as you and I are concerned? Stay out of the way. There are millions of IPCC staff, engineers, scientists, investors, builders of things, regulators, politicians, etc who will make a good living building the future for upcoming generations. Now that we understand the consequences of doing nothing, and how unaffordable that is, we have armies of well prepared workers in the businesses that will provide solutions. More than enough jobs to provide those who will lose their jobs in the transition who choose to learn new skills.

Opportunity abounds as well as a viable future.

What hampers everything are the naysayers. The nattering nabobs of negativity.

Don't be one.

Still just platitudes and mumbo-jumbo talking points. No concrete proposals. You know, something like...limit births? Or force everybody to spend a certain amount of time daily on a treadmill, generating power to feed back into an electric grid? Or, how about rationing food? Ya got anything other than sit on your ass and wait for someone else to come up with something better?

I'm pretty sure that you're a genuinely sick individual. No wonder you're conservative. You're misogynistic.

Your assessment of me is absolutely hilarious. Misogynistic? Where, exactly, did that come from. You still have no recommendations, good, bad, or otherwise. Give us some point to begin a discussion. What do you suggest as a solution to your current AGW dilemma?

 

[PMZ]

Still just platitudes and mumbo-jumbo talking points. No concrete proposals. You know, something like...limit births? Or force everybody to spend a certain amount of time daily on a treadmill, generating power to feed back into an electric grid? Or, how about rationing food? Ya got anything other than sit on your ass and wait for someone else to come up with something better?

I'm pretty sure that you're a genuinely sick individual. No wonder you're conservative. You're misogynistic.

Your assessment of me is absolutely hilarious. Misogynistic? Where, exactly, did that come from. You still have no recommendations, good, bad, or otherwise. Give us some point to begin a discussion. What do you suggest as a solution to your current AGW dilemma?

There is no AGW dilemma other than the mature one of using science to find and get to the world's optimum energy future. That’s what it's always been about.

I'm 99 percent sure that you won't make the effort to learn from this video, but for the sake of the 1 percent, here it is.

http://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=uvy292xj#/watch?v=WXaruC4vJCU&feature=related

 

[PMZ]

A post from another thread.

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'm pretty sure that you're a genuinely sick individual. No wonder you're conservative. You're misogynistic.

Your assessment of me is absolutely hilarious. Misogynistic? Where, exactly, did that come from. You still have no recommendations, good, bad, or otherwise. Give us some point to begin a discussion. What do you suggest as a solution to your current AGW dilemma?

There is no AGW dilemma other than the mature one of using science to find and get to the world's optimum energy future. That’s what it's always been about.

I'm 99 percent sure that you won't make the effort to learn from this video, but for the sake of the 1 percent, here it is.

YouTube

A Miley Sirus video? Riiiiigggghtt... Miley Sirus is a "scientific" authority on AGW. You say there is no AGW dilemma, so why so much angst and drang? Ya kno wut...kiss my ASS, you fuckin' schill.

 

[PMZ]

I'm still not seeing the downside.

The only downside is the cost of protecting shoreline civilization from rising sea level. And recovering from storm damage worsened by high sea levels.

Why? Those who refuse to relocate are obviously too stupid to be allowed to reproduce. Not to mention, most of the warrens you are so concerned about are cesspits swarming with the dregs of humanity. It would be kind of like...flushing the toilet.

Nothing misogynistic about:

''Those who refuse to relocate are obviously too stupid to be allowed to reproduce. Not to mention, most of the warrens you are so concerned about are cesspits swarming with the dregs of humanity. It would be kind of like...flushing the toilet.''

 

[gallantwarrior]

A post from another thread.

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

The consequences? NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! You are an absolutely MORON if you think your puny existence means ANYTHING in the greater scheme of life.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The only downside is the cost of protecting shoreline civilization from rising sea level. And recovering from storm damage worsened by high sea levels.

Why? Those who refuse to relocate are obviously too stupid to be allowed to reproduce. Not to mention, most of the warrens you are so concerned about are cesspits swarming with the dregs of humanity. It would be kind of like...flushing the toilet.

Nothing misogynistic about:

''Those who refuse to relocate are obviously too stupid to be allowed to reproduce. Not to mention, most of the warrens you are so concerned about are cesspits swarming with the dregs of humanity. It would be kind of like...flushing the toilet.''

I am convinced you do not know the meaning of "misogynistic".

 

[PMZ]

A post from another thread.

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

The consequences? NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! You are an absolutely MORON if you think your puny existence means ANYTHING in the greater scheme of life.

Nothing misogynistic about this either.

 

[gallantwarrior]

A post from another thread.

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

The consequences? NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! You are an absolutely MORON if you think your puny existence means ANYTHING in the greater scheme of life.

Nothing misogynistic about this either.

yet you label me "misongynist". Please post the basis for this analysis.

 

[PMZ]

A post from another thread.

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

The consequences? NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! You are an absolutely MORON if you think your puny existence means ANYTHING in the greater scheme of life.

As everyone expects, you are completely unable to support what you wish was true with any evidence, science, data, theory, nothing at all. You are a misogynistic shaman dancing around with a scary mask on hoping it will rain.

 

[PMZ]

Your assessment of me is absolutely hilarious. Misogynistic? Where, exactly, did that come from. You still have no recommendations, good, bad, or otherwise. Give us some point to begin a discussion. What do you suggest as a solution to your current AGW dilemma?

There is no AGW dilemma other than the mature one of using science to find and get to the world's optimum energy future. That’s what it's always been about.

I'm 99 percent sure that you won't make the effort to learn from this video, but for the sake of the 1 percent, here it is.

YouTube

A Miley Sirus video? Riiiiigggghtt... Miley Sirus is a "scientific" authority on AGW. You say there is no AGW dilemma, so why so much angst and drang? Ya kno wut...kiss my ASS, you fuckin' schill.

As I said, you are 99 percent predictable in your aversion to learning.

 

[gallantwarrior]

A post from another thread.

Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.

There are many things left to ponder though.

If we stopped today, what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks.

We can't stop today, so our choice really is, how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered?

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point. Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous.

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse, if, in fact, we still can avoid worse.

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.

The consequences? NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! You are an absolutely MORON if you think your puny existence means ANYTHING in the greater scheme of life.

As everyone expects, you are completely unable to support what you wish was true with any evidence, science, data, theory, nothing at all. You are a misogynistic shaman dancing around with a scary mask on hoping it will rain.

And you have absolutely failed to present any possible solutions to your false, AGW bullshit. Despite my proposing possible solutions, you continue to regurgitate bullshit platitudes. I would be most interested in what you think makes me "misogynistic".