Talk-Polywell.org

For those who claim models are worthless, a demonstration of a successful model. This one is a model of a rhinovirus, and a particularly elusive one that is nevertheless believed responsible for as much as 50% of all colds and 70% or more among children.

Its adaptability and multiple modes of attack explain its success. But knowing its structure now we can sabotage it, and cure the common cold.

With a model.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162359.htm

Weren't you whining about models again, choff?

Guess you didn't see this.

Some models work





And some models don't...

Not all models are equal in quality.

In general the correctness of a model increases the longer it's compared with the real world and improved.

You still insist on yammering about three-decade-old models. You don't want to talk about the current ones, because they're on line, you know, and I can argue about the code and produce the physics antecedents for each line.

But see, you don't know enough to do that, so you just pretend you can say "Bah, humbug" and it will all go away.

Ahhh, it's nice the teagaggers got slapped in the nose and NASA is back up. Here's the GISS ModelE GCM source code portal page: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

As noted they have been improving its ocean modeling, and are now referring to it as a "coupled atmosphere-ocean model." This is not as well integrated as the AOGCMs that are the eventual end product of the exercise, but still far better than the fairly flat ocean heat models used a decade ago.

Now let me repeat here: yes you heard me right NASA sourcecode is available to the general public online. If you have the computer power to run it you can compile it and simulate the climate, and then you can start tweaking it with whatever corrections you'd like to put in.

Yes Really.

Now, how is that a conspiracy?

Because you're too stupid to read FORTRAN source code and refer to physics texts to see if the equations make sense?

Right it's a conspiracy against the incompetent.

Duh.

Seriously, no joke, here's the download for the gzipped source tarball: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/modelE/modelE1.tar.gz

Now, can we get rid of the BS and start talking about reality soon?

And in any case, what's this got to do with the common cold?

This looks pretty, but getting something useful out of it going to take work:
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/artic ... common.htm

This on the other hand is pretty obvious on its face, and from its name, Arctic Ice Death Spiral:

And that's not a model.

That's measurements models have to replicate.

And see, the ones that do all have global warming and the ones that can't don't.

One of the reasons I discussed the Viking descriptions of reaching Greenland via an eastern route was the obvious inference that the N. Siberian coast would have been navigable by long boat where today the Russians need employ a nuclear powered icebreaker in order to get through. Hence, there is nothing about polar ice retreat that isn't outside human experience.

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4g1bv2.html

Yes, they've modeled the rhinovirus which while complex, has far fewer molecules than the earths atmosphere.

choff wrote:One of the reasons I discussed the Viking descriptions of reaching Greenland via an eastern route was the obvious inference that the N. Siberian coast would have been navigable by long boat where today the Russians need employ a nuclear powered icebreaker in order to get through. Hence, there is nothing about polar ice retreat that isn't outside human experience.

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4g1bv2.html

Yes, they've modeled the rhinovirus which while complex, has far fewer molecules than the earths atmosphere.

But molecules behave in stereotyped fashions known since the 19th century: Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. Remember

S = k•logW

You know, thermodynamics and all that stuff? Like, as in, real physics instead of the BS you spew all the time?

Choff, you need to learn math if you really want to find out what's going on.

And I have super-bad news: it's a language for making self- and externally-consistent models of reality.

It's also less difficult to model dead rhinovirus at the stages of it's life cycle being static and immobile and you can scan it with electron microscopes. Climate's a lot more tricky, things tend to not cooperate, they move around in ways you didn't expect.

My god! How the climate models suck!?!?!

You didn't read the article.

And I was right, you don't understand math.

Nothing like arguing math with the innumerate.

So did you read the article and find out why you're wrong, or are you still in denial again?