97% Scientists agree AGAIN

[westwall]

There have ALLLLLLLWAYS been erratic weather patterns.

Will the weather always be more erratic than average?

The weather now is less erratic than at any time in recorded history. Deaths due to all natural causes is down....of course a considerable amount of that is because of improved building methods, but overall the severity and frequency of major storms is down.

That is a simple fact that you revisionists try so hard to bury with your BS.

 

[skookerasbil]

Extreme weather is a fantasy of the environmental k00ks........


Completely made up shit.........


The Fantasy of Extreme Weather | Behind The Black

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The weather now is less erratic than at any time in recorded history.

Can you justify that statement with evidence?

Deaths due to all natural causes is down....

Every single person I know that has died, has died of natural causes. I know people are often murdered and die in accidents - but I find it hard to believe that "death due to all natural causes is down"

of course a considerable amount of that is because of improved building methods, but overall the severity and frequency of major storms is down.

How much?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Is that a serious question? If so, then you really don't have a clue do you? Showing rotation is important because the earth consists of two thermodynamically very different hemispheres at any given time...one being constantly heated to varying degrees by incoming solar radiation and the other receiving no radiation at all and constantly cooling....

So that wouldn't be true if the Earth didn't rotate on its axes? Seems to me if it didn't rotate - it would still be half lit by Sun and half unlit by Sun, right? Maybe you should think about rotation some more.

None of the current crop of models represent the earth as a rotating sphere.

This one does:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1983/1983_Hansen_etal.pdf
The top equation in Table one clearly has rotational terms. It has the Coriolis force explicitly in the equation and the centrifugal force included in the effective gravity term. Of course, you wouldn't have any clue either which way, would you? And on page 619 top left paragraph "Solar Radiation" you see them described how the zenith angle is used to compute the radiation from the sun.


How did you miss this model? Its the NASA model, pretty well known. What models did you research before concluding that all of the lacked the features you claim they lack? 5? 2? 1? 0?

The energy budget model (Trenbeth) used in most studies, does represent the earth as a flat disc with 24/7 daylight.

Ok. Then name a single specific production GCM code that represents the Earth as flat disc. You ought to be able to name a few of them considering you're so well versed in this area.

Just as your linked paper published in 1983 tried to do...

What did they "try" to do? Have a rotating spherical Earth? Here's the geometry terms from the FORTRAN source code itself:

SUBROUTINE GEOM 401.
C**** CALCULATE SPHERICAL GEOMETRY (for 4x5 or 7.8x10) 402.
C**** This is as in Model II'
INCLUDE 'BA94jalC9.COM'
COMMON U,V,T,P,Q 403.
DATA EDPERD/1./,EDPERY/365./ 404.
405.
LAT(1) = -.25*TWOPI 406.
LAT(JM) = -LAT(1) 407.
SINP(1) = -1. 408.
SINP(JM) = 1. 409.
COSP(1) = 0. 410.
COSP(JM) = 0. 411.
DXP(1) = 0. 412.
DXP(JM) = 0. 413.
FJEQ = .5*(1+JM) 414.
DO 620 J=2,JM-1 415.
LAT(J) = DLAT*(J-FJEQ) 416.
SINP(J) = SIN(LAT(J)) 417.
COSP(J) = COS(LAT(J)) 418.
620 DXP(J) = RADIUS*DLON*COSP(J) 419.
DO 640 J=2,JM 420.
COSV(J) = .5*(COSP(J-1)+COSP(J)) 421.
DXV(J) = .5*(DXP(J-1)+DXP(J)) 422.
640 DYV(J) = RADIUS*(LAT(J)-LAT(J-1)) 423.
DYP(1) = .5*DYV(2) 424.
DYP(JM) = .5*DYV(JM) 425.
DXYP(1) = .5*DXV(2)*DYP(1) 426.
DXYP(JM)= .5*DXV(JM)*DYP(JM) 427.
DXYS(1) = 0. 428.
DXYS(JM) = DXYP(JM) 429.
DXYN(1) = DXYP(1) 430.
DXYN(JM) = 0. 431.
AREAG = DXYP(1)+DXYP(JM) 432.
DO 660 J=2,JM-1 433.
DYP(J) = .5*(DYV(J)+DYV(J+1)) 434.
DXYP(J) = .5*(DXV(J)+DXV(J+1))*DYP(J) 435.
DXYS(J) = .5*DXYP(J) 436.
DXYN(J) = .5*DXYP(J) 437.
660 AREAG = AREAG+DXYP(J) 438.
AREAG = AREAG*FIM 439.
RAVPS(1) = 0. 440.
RAVPN(JM) = 0. 441.
DO 680 J=2,JM 442.
DXYV(J) = DXYN(J-1)+DXYS(J) 443.
RAPVS(J) = .5*DXYS(J)/DXYV(J) 444.
RAPVN(J-1) = .5*DXYN(J-1)/DXYV(J) 445.
RAVPS(J) = .5*DXYS(J)/DXYP(J) 446.
680 RAVPN(J-1) = .5*DXYN(J-1)/DXYP(J-1) 447.
C**** CALCULATE CORIOLIS PARAMETER 448.
OMEGA = TWOPI*(EDPERD+EDPERY)/(EDPERD*EDPERY*SDAY) 449.
F(1) = -RADIUS*OMEGA*.5*COSP(2)*DXV(2) 450.
F(JM) = -F(1) 451.
DO 690 J=2,JM-1 452.
690 F(J) = OMEGA*(DXV(J)*DXV(J)-DXV(J+1)*DXV(J+1))/DLON 453.
CLAT_DG latitude of mid points of primary and sec. grid boxs (deg)
C**** latitudinal spacing depends on whether you have even spacing or
C**** a partial box at the pole
DLAT_DG=180./(JM-1) ! 1/2 box at pole for 4x5 and 7.8x10
C**** LATITUDES (degrees); used extensively in the diagn. print routines
LAT_DG(1,1)=-90.
LAT_DG(1,2)=-90.
LAT_DG(JM,1)=90.
DO J=2,JM-1
LAT_DG(J,1)=DLAT_DG*(J-FJEQ) ! primary (tracer) latitudes
END DO
DO J=2,JM
LAT_DG(J,2)=DLAT_DG*(J-JM/2-1) ! secondary (velocity) latitudes
END DO
RETURN 454.
END 455.

See the bold terms?

How did you miss this when you looked through the source code?
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/ModelII/modelII_source.zip
I know its FORTRAN 77 but, computational scientists like you and I are probably used to reading that by now!

but evidently failed because they don't actually use that model, they use Trenberth..

Yeah that makes complete sense considering the Kiel/Trenberth paper I believe you are referring to was published 14 years later.

 

[gslack]

So that wouldn't be true if the Earth didn't rotate on its axes? Seems to me if it didn't rotate - it would still be half lit by Sun and half unlit by Sun, right? Maybe you should think about rotation some more.


This one does:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1983/1983_Hansen_etal.pdf
The top equation in Table one clearly has rotational terms. It has the Coriolis force explicitly in the equation and the centrifugal force included in the effective gravity term. Of course, you wouldn't have any clue either which way, would you? And on page 619 top left paragraph "Solar Radiation" you see them described how the zenith angle is used to compute the radiation from the sun.


How did you miss this model? Its the NASA model, pretty well known. What models did you research before concluding that all of the lacked the features you claim they lack? 5? 2? 1? 0?

The energy budget model (Trenbeth) used in most studies, does represent the earth as a flat disc with 24/7 daylight.

Ok. Then name a single specific production GCM code that represents the Earth as flat disc. You ought to be able to name a few of them considering you're so well versed in this area.

Just as your linked paper published in 1983 tried to do but evidently failed because they don't actually use that model, they use Trenberth..

Yeah that makes complete sense considering the Trenberth paper you are referring to was published 14 years later.

I don't have to. Because the Trenberth budget does hence my point socko.

General Circulation Models (GCM) , which type?A general fluid GCM? AGCM? OGCM? A combination AGCM/OGCM? And used in what context? What parameters?

And you mention GCM code, like it's some kind of thing no one can google up.. Gimme a break you silly man, you are doing a mamooth and spouting off acronyms and vernacular found in a google search to try and pretend some kind of higher knowledge on it.

Point still remains, Trenberth, the basis upon many such AGCM models are built, does represent earth as a flat disk with 24/7 daylight. AND.. Trenberth has been updated a great deal since it's publication. Meaning it's not the same budget it was back then..

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract
An update is provided on the Earth's global annual mean energy budget in the light of new observations and analyses. In 1997, Kiehl and Trenberth provided a review of past estimates and performed a number of radiative computations to better establish the role of clouds and various greenhouse gases in the overall radiative energy flows, with top-of-atmosphere (TOA) values constrained by Earth Radiation Budget Experiment values from 1985 to 1989, when the TOA values were approximately in balance. The Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) measurements from March 2000 to May 2004 are used at TOA but adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of 0.9 W m−2. Revised estimates of surface turbulent fluxes are made based on various sources. The partitioning of solar radiation in the atmosphere is based in part on the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) FD computations that utilize the global ISCCP cloud data every 3 h, and also accounts for increased atmospheric absorption by water vapor and aerosols.

As we see Trenberth is in compliance with in the very least their 2004 numbers, and perhaps even more current since...Also notice trenberth was published in 1997, not 14 years before 1983 as you implied..

UPDATE:

http://www.fmf.uni-lj.si/~zagarn/GC2013/Trenberthetal_BAMS2009.pdf

EARTH’S GLOBAL
ENERGY BUDGET
by Kevin e. TrenberTh, John T. Fasullo, and JeFFrey Kiehl

mArCh 2009

Found another update to it from 2009..

So you can stop the pretense socko, we know you don't know a thing about what your googling.. You can't fake it dumbass... Mamooth couldn't and neither can you..

 

[gslack]

So that wouldn't be true if the Earth didn't rotate on its axes? Seems to me if it didn't rotate - it would still be half lit by Sun and half unlit by Sun, right? Maybe you should think about rotation some more.


This one does:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1983/1983_Hansen_etal.pdf
The top equation in Table one clearly has rotational terms. It has the Coriolis force explicitly in the equation and the centrifugal force included in the effective gravity term. Of course, you wouldn't have any clue either which way, would you? And on page 619 top left paragraph "Solar Radiation" you see them described how the zenith angle is used to compute the radiation from the sun.


How did you miss this model? Its the NASA model, pretty well known. What models did you research before concluding that all of the lacked the features you claim they lack? 5? 2? 1? 0?

The energy budget model (Trenbeth) used in most studies, does represent the earth as a flat disc with 24/7 daylight.

Ok. Then name a single specific production GCM code that represents the Earth as flat disc. You ought to be able to name a few of them considering you're so well versed in this area.


What did they "try" to do? Have a rotating spherical Earth? Here's the geometry terms from the FORTRAN source code itself:

SUBROUTINE GEOM 401.
C**** CALCULATE SPHERICAL GEOMETRY (for 4x5 or 7.8x10) 402.
C**** This is as in Model II'
INCLUDE 'BA94jalC9.COM'
COMMON U,V,T,P,Q 403.
DATA EDPERD/1./,EDPERY/365./ 404.
405.
LAT(1) = -.25*TWOPI 406.
LAT(JM) = -LAT(1) 407.
SINP(1) = -1. 408.
SINP(JM) = 1. 409.
COSP(1) = 0. 410.
COSP(JM) = 0. 411.
DXP(1) = 0. 412.
DXP(JM) = 0. 413.
FJEQ = .5*(1+JM) 414.
DO 620 J=2,JM-1 415.
LAT(J) = DLAT*(J-FJEQ) 416.
SINP(J) = SIN(LAT(J)) 417.
COSP(J) = COS(LAT(J)) 418.
620 DXP(J) = RADIUS*DLON*COSP(J) 419.
DO 640 J=2,JM 420.
COSV(J) = .5*(COSP(J-1)+COSP(J)) 421.
DXV(J) = .5*(DXP(J-1)+DXP(J)) 422.
640 DYV(J) = RADIUS*(LAT(J)-LAT(J-1)) 423.
DYP(1) = .5*DYV(2) 424.
DYP(JM) = .5*DYV(JM) 425.
DXYP(1) = .5*DXV(2)*DYP(1) 426.
DXYP(JM)= .5*DXV(JM)*DYP(JM) 427.
DXYS(1) = 0. 428.
DXYS(JM) = DXYP(JM) 429.
DXYN(1) = DXYP(1) 430.
DXYN(JM) = 0. 431.
AREAG = DXYP(1)+DXYP(JM) 432.
DO 660 J=2,JM-1 433.
DYP(J) = .5*(DYV(J)+DYV(J+1)) 434.
DXYP(J) = .5*(DXV(J)+DXV(J+1))*DYP(J) 435.
DXYS(J) = .5*DXYP(J) 436.
DXYN(J) = .5*DXYP(J) 437.
660 AREAG = AREAG+DXYP(J) 438.
AREAG = AREAG*FIM 439.
RAVPS(1) = 0. 440.
RAVPN(JM) = 0. 441.
DO 680 J=2,JM 442.
DXYV(J) = DXYN(J-1)+DXYS(J) 443.
RAPVS(J) = .5*DXYS(J)/DXYV(J) 444.
RAPVN(J-1) = .5*DXYN(J-1)/DXYV(J) 445.
RAVPS(J) = .5*DXYS(J)/DXYP(J) 446.
680 RAVPN(J-1) = .5*DXYN(J-1)/DXYP(J-1) 447.
C**** CALCULATE CORIOLIS PARAMETER 448.
OMEGA = TWOPI*(EDPERD+EDPERY)/(EDPERD*EDPERY*SDAY) 449.
F(1) = -RADIUS*OMEGA*.5*COSP(2)*DXV(2) 450.
F(JM) = -F(1) 451.
DO 690 J=2,JM-1 452.
690 F(J) = OMEGA*(DXV(J)*DXV(J)-DXV(J+1)*DXV(J+1))/DLON 453.
CLAT_DG latitude of mid points of primary and sec. grid boxs (deg)
C**** latitudinal spacing depends on whether you have even spacing or
C**** a partial box at the pole
DLAT_DG=180./(JM-1) ! 1/2 box at pole for 4x5 and 7.8x10
C**** LATITUDES (degrees); used extensively in the diagn. print routines
LAT_DG(1,1)=-90.
LAT_DG(1,2)=-90.
LAT_DG(JM,1)=90.
DO J=2,JM-1
LAT_DG(J,1)=DLAT_DG*(J-FJEQ) ! primary (tracer) latitudes
END DO
DO J=2,JM
LAT_DG(J,2)=DLAT_DG*(J-JM/2-1) ! secondary (velocity) latitudes
END DO
RETURN 454.
END 455.

See the bold terms?

How did you miss this when you looked through the source code?
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/ModelII/modelII_source.zip
I know its FORTRAN 77 but, computational scientists like you and I are probably used to reading that by now!

but evidently failed because they don't actually use that model, they use Trenberth..

Yeah that makes complete sense considering the Kiel/Trenberth paper I believe you are referring to was published 14 years later.

LOL had to edit the post after the fact for padding? LOL, we know socko, we know...

I didn't look at the source code schmuck, no point in it, I'm not a coder and neither are you. Again Trenberth DOES *use a flat disk earth with 24/7 daylight* (edited because the weasel wants to try and play all pedantic rather than debate)... what part of this is beyond your comprehension?

See the bigger bold terms? yeah it means a calculation, based on what? Well for starters, an energy budget. Whose energy budget? Well most likely Trenberth's...

Now please stop trying to BS your way through google physicist man...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The energy budget model (Trenbeth) used in most studies, does represent the earth as a flat disc with 24/7 daylight.

Ok. Then name a single specific production GCM code that represents the Earth as flat disc. You ought to be able to name a few of them considering you're so well versed in this area.


What did they "try" to do? Have a rotating spherical Earth? Here's the geometry terms from the FORTRAN source code itself:

See the bold terms?

How did you miss this when you looked through the source code?
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/ModelII/modelII_source.zip
I know its FORTRAN 77 but, computational scientists like you and I are probably used to reading that by now!

but evidently failed because they don't actually use that model, they use Trenberth..

Yeah that makes complete sense considering the Kiel/Trenberth paper I believe you are referring to was published 14 years later.

LOL had to edit the post after the fact for padding? LOL, we know socko, we know...

I didn't look at the source code schmuck, no point in it, I'm not a coder and neither are you. Again Trenberth DOES... what part of this is beyond your comprehension?

See the bigger bold terms? yeah it means a calculation, based on what? Well for starters, an energy budget. Whose energy budget? Well most likely Trenberth's...

Now please stop trying to BS your way through google physicist man...

So Hansen's Coriolis force calculation is based on the Trenberth energy budget model?
I've never computed the Coriolis force that way. Can you explain how its done?

 

[gslack]

Ok. Then name a single specific production GCM code that represents the Earth as flat disc. You ought to be able to name a few of them considering you're so well versed in this area.


What did they "try" to do? Have a rotating spherical Earth? Here's the geometry terms from the FORTRAN source code itself:

See the bold terms?

How did you miss this when you looked through the source code?
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/ModelII/modelII_source.zip
I know its FORTRAN 77 but, computational scientists like you and I are probably used to reading that by now!


Yeah that makes complete sense considering the Kiel/Trenberth paper I believe you are referring to was published 14 years later.

LOL had to edit the post after the fact for padding? LOL, we know socko, we know...

I didn't look at the source code schmuck, no point in it, I'm not a coder and neither are you. Again Trenberth DOES... what part of this is beyond your comprehension?

See the bigger bold terms? yeah it means a calculation, based on what? Well for starters, an energy budget. Whose energy budget? Well most likely Trenberth's...

Now please stop trying to BS your way through google physicist man...

So Hansen's Coriolis force calculation is based on the Trenberth energy budget model?
I've never computed the Coriolis force that way. Can you explain how its done?

Nice try phony, but no.. The energy budget they use as a guideline and base is Trenberth which is what I said..

You know making up my argument to suit yourself, is lame.

BTW, you just made the claim "I've never computed the Coriolis force that way." To do what exactly? To imply you are somehow privy to knowledge an experience that would somehow make you an expert on this? yes of course.. LOL, so tell me OH socko of climate modeling and all other matters that suits your argument today.. Why did you not recognize Trenberth as, first being always updated as new information becomes available, and second, that Trenberth's energy budget is the standard parameter used when trying to create climate models?

Nice... So you're a Pseudo-expert who doesn't know squat about what he just tried out peddle using googled vernacular and terms he has no real understanding of beyond that of the standard internet forum physicist.. Like IanC, Mamooth, Saigon and so many others, you spout off things you grab off the net and read just enough to find a perceived "eureka" moment, and just go with it. Just like mamooth's "nuke" training, and Saigons"finnish journalist" stories, you are found flat and lacking...ROFL, you people crack me up.

 

[edthecynic]

Dumbass,

What do you think when you read this phrase...

"New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures."

If they aren't claiming that 2012 was the hottest in the decade why the BS about "capped the hottest decade"????

Look dude it was your link, they tried to imply something the data didn't support. AND YOU posted it... So, if it is my mistake better tell them to stop implying it with such loose and misrepresenting phrases like "2012 capped the the hottest decade on record" . When I read capped, liked most people I assume they mean topped it off and should therefore be more or at least some kind of evidence to support the claim.. Ninth warmest doesn't even cut it dude..

If you don't like misunderstandings, don't post misleading crap..

Again we see the absolute STUPIDITY required to be a denier. Even after being shown that the DECADE was the hottest and not the year 2012, this inserts HIS word "in" to change what was stated and then plays too dumb to know what HE did.

They weren't my words asshole, they were the words in the cut and paste article you used.. Want to argue it fine, but at least be honest about the the words..The tried togive a false impression, and you did too..

YOU added the word "IN" to try to give a false impression. The original unedited by YOU quote clearly and undeniably refers to the DECADE being the warmest, not the ending year.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

LOL had to edit the post after the fact for padding? LOL, we know socko, we know...

I didn't look at the source code schmuck, no point in it, I'm not a coder and neither are you. Again Trenberth DOES... what part of this is beyond your comprehension?

See the bigger bold terms? yeah it means a calculation, based on what? Well for starters, an energy budget. Whose energy budget? Well most likely Trenberth's...

Now please stop trying to BS your way through google physicist man...

So Hansen's Coriolis force calculation is based on the Trenberth energy budget model?
I've never computed the Coriolis force that way. Can you explain how its done?

Nice try phony, but no.. The energy budget they use as a guideline and base is Trenberth which is what I said..

So the Hansen 83 paper uses the Trenberth 97 paper as a guideline. OK.

You know making up my argument to suit yourself, is lame.

BTW, you just made the claim "I've never computed the Coriolis force that way." To do what exactly? To imply you are somehow privy to knowledge an experience that would somehow make you an expert on this?

No. I made it because I've never heard of using the Trenberth energy budget to compute the Coriolis force. I just use 2 Omega X (rho*V). Its not any kind of expert knowledge, its something you can find in any high school physics book. What I do find interesting is the idea of using a climate model which includes no rotation to compute the Coriolis force. Can you please explain how this is done?

yes of course.. LOL, so tell me OH socko of climate modeling and all other matters that suits your argument today.. Why did you not recognize Trenberth as, first being always updated as new information becomes available, and second, that Trenberth's energy budget is the standard parameter used when trying to create climate models?

So the 83 Hansen paper used the 97 Trenberh paper to create its model?

Nice... So you're a Pseudo-expert who doesn't know squat about what he just tried out peddle using googled vernacular and terms he has no real understanding of beyond that of the standard internet forum physicist.. Like IanC, Mamooth, Saigon and so many others, you spout off things you grab off the net and read just enough to find a perceived "eureka" moment, and just go with it. Just like mamooth's "nuke" training, and Saigons"finnish journalist" stories, you are found flat and lacking...ROFL, you people crack me up.

I learned about the Coriolis force in 1995 in high school. The internet was kinda new, I didn't really have good access to it. If I had perhaps I could have learned how to use the Trenberth energy budget to calculate the Coriolis force.




We've had a nice discussion and all, but I was wondering, are you ever going to name a GCM computer model that doesn't have a rotating spherical Earth?

 

[westwall]

The weather now is less erratic than at any time in recorded history.

Can you justify that statement with evidence?

Deaths due to all natural causes is down....

Every single person I know that has died, has died of natural causes. I know people are often murdered and die in accidents - but I find it hard to believe that "death due to all natural causes is down"

of course a considerable amount of that is because of improved building methods, but overall the severity and frequency of major storms is down.

How much?

Google it yourself poopy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The weather now is less erratic than at any time in recorded history.

Can you justify that statement with evidence?
Every single person I know that has died, has died of natural causes. I know people are often murdered and die in accidents - but I find it hard to believe that "death due to all natural causes is down"

of course a considerable amount of that is because of improved building methods, but overall the severity and frequency of major storms is down.

How much?

Google it yourself poopy.

Ok well if you don't wanna justify your arguments then we don't need to have a debate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Extreme weather is a fantasy of the environmental k00ks........


Completely made up shit.........


The Fantasy of Extreme Weather | Behind The Black

What happened yesterday was extreme weather.

 

[RKMBrown]

Extreme weather is a fantasy of the environmental k00ks........


Completely made up shit.........


The Fantasy of Extreme Weather | Behind The Black

What happened yesterday was extreme weather.

To the contrary, what happened yesterday was typical weather for OK. Tornadoes happen all the time in tornado alley.

 

[gslack]

So Hansen's Coriolis force calculation is based on the Trenberth energy budget model?
I've never computed the Coriolis force that way. Can you explain how its done?

Nice try phony, but no.. The energy budget they use as a guideline and base is Trenberth which is what I said..

So the Hansen 83 paper uses the Trenberth 97 paper as a guideline. OK.



No. I made it because I've never heard of using the Trenberth energy budget to compute the Coriolis force. I just use 2 Omega X (rho*V). Its not any kind of expert knowledge, its something you can find in any high school physics book. What I do find interesting is the idea of using a climate model which includes no rotation to compute the Coriolis force. Can you please explain how this is done?

yes of course.. LOL, so tell me OH socko of climate modeling and all other matters that suits your argument today.. Why did you not recognize Trenberth as, first being always updated as new information becomes available, and second, that Trenberth's energy budget is the standard parameter used when trying to create climate models?

So the 83 Hansen paper used the 97 Trenberh paper to create its model?

Nice... So you're a Pseudo-expert who doesn't know squat about what he just tried out peddle using googled vernacular and terms he has no real understanding of beyond that of the standard internet forum physicist.. Like IanC, Mamooth, Saigon and so many others, you spout off things you grab off the net and read just enough to find a perceived "eureka" moment, and just go with it. Just like mamooth's "nuke" training, and Saigons"finnish journalist" stories, you are found flat and lacking...ROFL, you people crack me up.

I learned about the Coriolis force in 1995 in high school. The internet was kinda new, I didn't really have good access to it. If I had perhaps I could have learned how to use the Trenberth energy budget to calculate the Coriolis force.




We've had a nice discussion and all, but I was wondering, are you ever going to name a GCM computer model that doesn't have a rotating spherical Earth?

When you calculate an atmospheric model, you have some parameters, some limitations or guidelines that give your model limitations, which make it a more reliable, more accurate model.

For instance, you can't juts create a model to show it being 100 F at the poles in july, why? Because you have limitations that try and keep it within a set of parameters.. Get it yet silly man?

Are you saying that your models are not within the energy levels accepted in Trenberth's energy budget? Really? LOL, and we can no longer even pretend you know what your talking about can we.. Thanks pooppie doo...

And noI didn't make a ridiculous claim regarding Trenberth and Coriolis force. That was you dumbass.. I explained it several times, and yet you persist the false implication...

AND no you didn't learn it in High school, matter of fact you still don't know it. All you know is google...

Funny but most people who actually do that sort of thing, do it this way..Amazing what a person can google up..LOL

Keep on repeating the same lie and maybe people won't notice you were an idiot again? Good plan, it will work I'm sure..ROFL.

 

[GHook93]

The Cooling world!!!

Here is the clip:

1975 : Tornado Outbreaks Blamed On Global Cooling | Real Science

It basically says that the it's undisputable that the Earth is cooling and will have drastic effects. The main one they point out is the great bread baskets of the world will dry up and food production will be a so low every part of the planet will be in an endless famine!

They even said the science community is UNANIMOUS on this conclusion!

They even used, wait get this, the tornados in the US as evidence of this!

Would you say the science community (or media the hype it) was wrong? Ubetchya!

 

[skookerasbil]

The Cooling world!!!

Here is the clip:

1975 : Tornado Outbreaks Blamed On Global Cooling | Real Science

It basically says that the it's undisputable that the Earth is cooling and will have drastic effects. The main one they point out is the great bread baskets of the world will dry up and food production will be a so low every part of the planet will be in an endless famine!

They even said the science community is UNANIMOUS on this conclusion!

They even used, wait get this, the tornados in the US as evidence of this!

Would you say the science community (or media the hype it) was wrong? Ubetchya!

lol

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They even said the science community is UNANIMOUS on this conclusion!

They weren't.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Nice try phony, but no.. The energy budget they use as a guideline and base is Trenberth which is what I said..

So the Hansen 83 paper uses the Trenberth 97 paper as a guideline. OK.



No. I made it because I've never heard of using the Trenberth energy budget to compute the Coriolis force. I just use 2 Omega X (rho*V). Its not any kind of expert knowledge, its something you can find in any high school physics book. What I do find interesting is the idea of using a climate model which includes no rotation to compute the Coriolis force. Can you please explain how this is done?



So the 83 Hansen paper used the 97 Trenberh paper to create its model?

Nice... So you're a Pseudo-expert who doesn't know squat about what he just tried out peddle using googled vernacular and terms he has no real understanding of beyond that of the standard internet forum physicist.. Like IanC, Mamooth, Saigon and so many others, you spout off things you grab off the net and read just enough to find a perceived "eureka" moment, and just go with it. Just like mamooth's "nuke" training, and Saigons"finnish journalist" stories, you are found flat and lacking...ROFL, you people crack me up.

I learned about the Coriolis force in 1995 in high school. The internet was kinda new, I didn't really have good access to it. If I had perhaps I could have learned how to use the Trenberth energy budget to calculate the Coriolis force.




We've had a nice discussion and all, but I was wondering, are you ever going to name a GCM computer model that doesn't have a rotating spherical Earth?

When you calculate an atmospheric model, you have some parameters, some limitations or guidelines that give your model limitations, which make it a more reliable, more accurate model.

For instance, you can't juts create a model to show it being 100 F at the poles in july, why? Because you have limitations that try and keep it within a set of parameters.. Get it yet silly man?

Are you saying that your models are not within the energy levels accepted in Trenberth's energy budget? Really? LOL, and we can no longer even pretend you know what your talking about can we.. Thanks pooppie doo...

So the 1983 Hansen model is based on the model published in the 97 Trenberth paper?

And noI didn't make a ridiculous claim regarding Trenberth and Coriolis force. That was you dumbass.. I explained it several times, and yet you persist the false implication...

You said that the term "calculate" in the code comment below:

C**** CALCULATE CORIOLIS PARAMETER 448.

means "a calculation, based on what? Well for starters, an energy budget." - those are your exact words
So according to you, the calculation of the Corilois parameter is based on an energy budget. http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/294156-97-scientists-agree-again-9.html#post7264588

I'd really love to know how that's done.

Funny but most people who actually do that sort of thing, do it this way..Amazing what a person can google up..LOL

Wow - you caught a theoretical physicist making a sign error. Stop the presses.

 

[GHook93]

They even said the science community is UNANIMOUS on this conclusion!

They weren't.

Exactly mental midget! They weren't but the media repeatedly claimed there was no opposition and global COOLING was a foregone conclusion! They were distorting the news back then and they are doing the same with global warming.

97% of scientists agree!!! Laughable at best! The media, much as the left does, refuse to ignore the fact there is a large opposition to the so called global warming hoax!