Historian Mark Lewis Wonders About Weird Weather

[Andre Jute]

Historian Mark Lewis Wonders About Weird Weather:
https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2023/04/24/weird-weather-n2622307

Andre Jute
Computer models predicting events a century hence are not Science, they're witchcraft with a thin veneer of crooked statistics.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:17:01 AM UTC-4, jute-the-coward defecated:
> <snipped more ignorant political bullshit>

RBT readers wonder why the ignorant arrogant fake-irish troll continues to use a cycling forum as his political toilet after he's he's been shamed into admitting he lies about pretty much everything.

>
> ̶A̶n̶d̶r̶e̶ ̶J̶u̶t̶e̶ ̶
> C̶o̶m̶p̶u̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶e̶l̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶d̶i̶c̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶e̶n̶t̶u̶r̶y̶ ̶h̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶S̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶c̶h̶c̶r̶a̶f̶t̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶ ̶v̶e̶n̶e̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶r̶o̶o̶k̶e̶d̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶s̶t̶i̶c̶s̶.̶

andre/dakota
a writer of vanity novels and diarrhea-mouthed, long winded poster to the Usenet - where he pretends to be famous.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/24/2023 9:30 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:17:01 AM UTC-4, jute-the-coward defecated:
>> <snipped more ignorant political bullshit>
>

> RBT readers wonder why the ignorant arrogant fake-irish troll continues to use a cycling forum as his political toilet ...

Perhaps it's because he's tried posting his "wisdom" to a group of
political experts, and has been roundly humiliated?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Very likely. it's also interesting how he doesn't post this garbage to his own little writers group - probably for the same reason: They would quickly realize what an ignorant arrogant twerp he is. And since he has a tendency to immediately resort to insults whenever someone disagrees, he'd lose even those 200 people rather quickly.

[Jeff Liebermann]

What would recommend as a suitable replacement for today's witchcraft
based long range weather predictions? Perhaps a farmers almanac?
<https://www.almanac.com/weather/longrange>
I agree, that the current technology isn't very accurate. As the
computer models improve and better satellite are launched, the
forecasts should improve. However, weather is a chaotic system and
modeling chaos is not (yet) a science. I suggest you reduce your
expectations and work with what is currently available.

"How AI can help predict weather in the era of climate change"
<https://www.fastcompany.com/90859814/ai-help-improve-weather-forecasts>
"As conditions become more chaotic, scientists are looking to AI to
help with the forecast"

Drivel: I check tomorrows weather forecasts before going to sleep.
Last week, the forecast was something like a 5% chance of rain. I had
left my wood piles uncovered to help dry them out from the last
unexpected rain. At 3AM it rained lightly for about 30 minutes, which
was sufficient to soak the upper layers of firewood. Yes, there is
room for improvement.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:04:14 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 03:16:59 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Historian Mark Lewis Wonders About Weird Weather:
> >https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2023/04/24/weird-weather-n2622307
> >
> >Andre Jute
> >Computer models predicting events a century hence are not Science, they're witchcraft with a thin veneer of crooked statistics.
> What would recommend as a suitable replacement for today's witchcraft
> based long range weather predictions? Perhaps a farmers almanac?
> <https://www.almanac.com/weather/longrange>
> I agree, that the current technology isn't very accurate. As the
> computer models improve and better satellite are launched, the
> forecasts should improve. However, weather is a chaotic system and
> modeling chaos is not (yet) a science.

Sure it is. Chaos theory is widely studied and applied across many different fields of study - weather, economics, evolution, linguistics, gaming......it's based on predictive analysis of emergent systems. I personally don't believe in chaos. To me, it's just a way of copping out that we don't know enough about the system and or the history of it to be predictive beyond a certain level of accuracy. "Chaos" and "random" are shorthand for "we don't know all the factors influencing the outcome". AFAIAC, computer modeling of weather systems is a classic example. Your anecdote of not covering your woodpile as an example of how the forecast was wrong actually wasn't really wrong. The forecast gave you a probability of 5%. Based on the information the models came up with, there was a 5% chance due to certain unknowns in the data set that it would rain. The forecast was not only not wrong, it was right. Those unknowns fit the the 5% model, and it rained.

If they said there was a 0% chance of rain, and it rained anyway, you could have said they were wrong. But even then we're dealing with a statistical probability, which in reality is _never_ 0% when you're dealing with a 'chaotic' system. The NOAA claims 36 hour weather forecasting has increased in accuracy from ~ 25% in the 1930s to well over 90% today. https://www.weather.gov/about/models. The reason is that they have access to more data to build the predictions and better tools to process it. This brings me back to my original point: the more we know about the past, the better we will be about predicting the future.

[John B.]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 10:04:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Most people would have a "wood shed" which keeps the firewood dry (:-)

Granted you live in California and "it never rains in California"
according to the song, but still...
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

The Global Warmie Faithfull hasn't even read Mark Lewis's article. At the first sign of a contrary opinion, they instantly resort to ad hominem. One has to wonder if deep down they know that the global warming edifice is fraudulent. Artificial Intelligence, my arse. AI at it's output tells you the input a human programmer expects and programmed for. It's bullshit. People who can't predict the weather next week with any confidence pretend their computer model can predict the climate a century hence?! That is ipso facto bullshit. There's more science about field manure than about Global Warming, these clowns know, the Biden Administration knows it, the UN knows it, and the RBT clowns know it, which is why they'd rather spray omnidirectional abuse than argue cases.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:10:49 PM UTC-4, then re-defecated:
> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 11:17:01 AM UTC+1, jute-the-coward defecated:

> > Historian Mark Lewis Wonders About Weird Weather:
> > https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2023/04/24/weird-weather-n2622307
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Computer models predicting events a century hence are not Science, they're witchcraft with a thin veneer of crooked statistics.
> >
> The Global Warmie Faithfull hasn't even read Mark Lewis's article.

No, because this is a cycling newsgroup, you asshole, not your personal political toilet.

> At the first sign of a contrary opinion, they instantly resort to ad hominem.

Which is all you deserve for constantly polluting this forum with right wing opinion pieces.

< snipped whiney political rant>

And you could make me stop pointing out your perversion by simply posting a link, troll boy....
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/DqCb-ESz57s/m/AusaM73FAQAJ
"Tell ya what fuckwit. You post the link that shows you as the administrator of this 30K+ member forum - where you have the privileges of moderating and approving membership, and I'll post my real name and never post in this forum again. That way you can find my linked in profile, where I work, and have your fun harassing my employer (as if they would give a flying fuck about anything in this forum, especially since I specifically didn't make a link to them with anything I've written)."

> >
> ̶A̶n̶d̶r̶e̶ ̶J̶u̶t̶e̶ ̶
> C̶o̶m̶p̶u̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶e̶l̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶d̶i̶c̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶e̶n̶t̶u̶r̶y̶ ̶h̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶S̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶c̶h̶c̶r̶a̶f̶t̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶ ̶v̶e̶n̶e̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶r̶o̶o̶k̶e̶d̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶s̶t̶i̶c̶s̶.̶

andre/dakota
a writer of vanity novels and diarrhea-mouthed, long winded poster to the Usenet - where he pretends to be famous.

and chickenshit to boot.....

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:10:47 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Perhaps you should lookup the definition of ad hominem. It's
something like:

<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem>
":marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than
by an answer to the contentions made"

Could you show me where I attacked you or your character instead of
attacking your claims, allegations or ideas? Also, where is this
spread of "omnidirectional abuse" that you mentioned? If you had read
what I've written in RBT, you might have noticed that I make it a rule
to always debate the merits of someone's ideas and to never personally
attack anyone who disagrees with me. If I've failed to follow my
rule, I would really like to know where I did this so I can apologize
and offer any necessary corrections.

Also why are you top posting and replying to your own message instead
of replying to the person who allegedly attacked your character? Did
you accidentally attack yourself?

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

In a manner of speaking yes, but it wasn't here. He committed career suicide when he published his book about Stieg Larsson. It was pure drivel and alienated him from his publishers. This is why every book after that was self published - no one would work with him.

There was also a curious incident regarding the Irish Times. It is evident that he wrote for them, but they have scrubbed every article he wrote from their website (which claims to have everything they've published since 1970). The only reference to to him is one letter t the editor, in which a reader complains about his article criticizing a local musical performance. I can't imagine how humiliating it must be to have a newspaper delete every article he ever wrote for them. The only thing we do know is that he likely did something to deserve it. He landed in unmoderated forums soon after, knowing that his shenanigans would get him booted in any other forum he tried to pull that bullshit.

[Tom Kunich]

The Stupid 5 don't have a brain between them. My younger brother sent me an email gloating over the fact that Tucker Carlsen parted ways with Fox - supposedly for his FAR, FAR right programming. No one that has ever listened to him would call his program far right. My brother has never listened to Tucker's program in his entire life and yet gloats as if this was his demise rather than the start of more. He was let go because he was asking too much money and he he was asking that much because he had the highest rated program on TV by a LONG WAY and he could make the same as what he was making on Pod Casts.

Imagine it being a right wing extremist showing a video of Tony Fauci crying with joy at Biden's swearing in. For those who don't believe in election fraud, I didn't believe it either until I saw it in person.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 07:36:00 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>For those who don't believe in election fraud, I didn't believe it either until I saw it in person.

Here's your quote:

11/04/2021
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/TUUbjBS18Xo/m/AlU5uxk-AQAJ>
"I was the first one to the polls in the morning. When I came out
there was a BUS there that had brought an entire load of illegal
aliens who all had a piece of paper with a name on it they were
supposed to vote under."

Further down the thread, I explained why that was unlikely,
impractical and probably didn't happen:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/TUUbjBS18Xo/m/Kn7muR1CAQAJ>

Accusing Microsoft and Dell of funding the fraud was a nice touch.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 12:18:31 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:04:14?PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 03:16:59 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
>> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Historian Mark Lewis Wonders About Weird Weather:
>> >https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2023/04/24/weird-weather-n2622307
>> >
>> >Andre Jute
>> >Computer models predicting events a century hence are not Science, they're witchcraft with a thin veneer of crooked statistics.
>> What would recommend as a suitable replacement for today's witchcraft
>> based long range weather predictions? Perhaps a farmers almanac?
>> <https://www.almanac.com/weather/longrange>
>> I agree, that the current technology isn't very accurate. As the
>> computer models improve and better satellite are launched, the
>> forecasts should improve. However, weather is a chaotic system and
>> modeling chaos is not (yet) a science.
>
>Sure it is. Chaos theory is widely studied and applied across many different fields of study - weather, economics, evolution, linguistics, gaming......it's based on predictive analysis of emergent systems.

I really don't know how much of today's weather forecasts include
chaos theory in the calculations. I'll ask (time permitting).

Edward Lorenz did his work in chaos theory initially by trying to
improve weather forecasting:
<https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/chaos-theory-and-meteorological-predictions>
"Based on his results, Lorenz stated that it is impossible to predict
the weather accurately."

The basic problem is the weather forecasting by computer is largely an
exercise in getting the initial conditions for the calculations
correct. Give the computer the wrong initial conditions and the
results will soon drift off the charts. Without sufficient and
accurate data, chaos theory is prone to be umm... chaotic. In my
never humble opinion, the real progress in forecasting comes from the
availability of better sensors, better satellite data, and larger
sensor networks. That enables climate scientists to view a 3D picture
of the atmosphere, which produces a much better map of atmospheric
conditions. Try it... Go to:
<https://www.windy.com/?51.998,-84.902,3>
At the right, click on "Wind". Slide the "altitude" slider up and
down. On the surface, the pictures look like the views shown by the
TV weather personalities. Go up a few thousand feet, and everything
looks very different. Weather events are generated at higher
altitudes and not at ground level.

>I personally don't believe in chaos.

Everywhere I look, I see nothing but chaos and entropy. Organization
is just a temporary illusion that occurs just before everything falls
apart.

>To me, it's just a way of copping out that we don't know enough
>about the system and or the history of it to be predictive beyond
>a certain level of accuracy. "Chaos" and "random" are shorthand
>for "we don't know all the factors influencing the outcome".

Yep, that's about it. Whenever we can't deliver accurate answers, we
back step and produce probabilities. Weather is certainly a
probabilistic system, where the best that can be done is something
like 50% chance of rain, which isn't very useful, but better than zero
information.

>AFAIAC, computer modeling of weather systems is a classic example.
>Your anecdote of not covering your woodpile as an example of how
>the forecast was wrong actually wasn't really wrong. The forecast
>gave you a probability of 5%. Based on the information the models
>came up with, there was a 5% chance due to certain unknowns in
>the data set that it would rain.

Nope. Wrong definition of probability of rain:

<https://www.abc15.com/weather/what-does-a-30-chance-of-rain-really-mean-how-meteorologists-determine-rain-chances>
"The official definition of the probability of precipitation by the
National Weather Service is the chance of precipitation (rain, snow,
etc.) occurring at any one spot in the area covered by the forecast.
(...)
P = C x A, or the probability of precipitation equals the
meteorologist’s confidence that it will rain, times the percentage of
the area that is expected to get rainfall."

As of 2016, the grid size for the "area covered" is 9km by 9km for the
ECMWF model. That's noticeably better than the previous 16km grid.
<https://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/media-centre/news/2016/new-forecast-model-cycle-brings-highest-ever-resolution>
"Ensemble forecasts, which describe the range of possible weather
scenarios and the likelihood of their occurrence, usually use twice
the grid spacing of high-resolution forecasts. They are now at 18 km
up to forecast day 15 and 36 km thereafter."

>The forecast was not only not wrong, it was right. Those unknowns
>fit the the 5% model, and it rained.

My problem wasn't the 5%. It was the sudden appearance, apparently
out of nowhere, of the 5% after I went to bed. I was irritated enough
turn on my desktop and check if anything was forecast. Yep, it was
there at 3am, but wasn't there the previous night at about 10pm.

NWS has 3 and 7 day histories on their web pile. The drizzle was so
little, that it didn't show on the accumulated rainfall graph.
However, the history did show two large peaks of 100% RH (relative
humidity), which is a good indication that it might be raining.
<https://www.weather.gov/wrh/timeseries?site=BNDC1>
It might be gone by the time you look at the above link, so I saved a
screen dump:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Drizzle.jpg>
The red circle shows when it rained on Apr 19 (at 3am). There's a 2nd
peak, where it probably tried to rain, but I didn't notice. This kind
of post-mortem comparison between forecast and reality should probably
be done more often:

"How Reliable Are Weather Forecasts?"
<https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/>
"A seven-day forecast can accurately predict the weather about 80
percent of the time and a five-day forecast can accurately predict the
weather approximately 90 percent of the time. However, a 10-day or
longer forecast is only right about half the time."

>If they said there was a 0% chance of rain, and it rained anyway,
>you could have said they were wrong.

True, but is that because they think they are highly confident that it
will rain in a very tiny part of an expected area, or that they are
lacking in confidence that it will rain over a large area? I've seen
it rain quite heavily in a small area but nowhere else (in Hawaii).

>But even then we're dealing with a statistical probability, which
>in reality is _never_ 0% when you're dealing with a 'chaotic' system.

True. Most models fall apart at extremes.

>The NOAA claims 36 hour weather forecasting has increased in accuracy
>from ~ 25% in the 1930s to well over 90% today.
>https://www.weather.gov/about/models.
>The reason is that they have access to more data to build the
>predictions and better tools to process it.

Right. It's the mountains of data that make today's forecasting
possible. The next improvement might be weather data gathering
drones, to deal with urban microclimates. However, we first need to
cleanup our existing sensor network. Here's the sensor head at a
local TV station office sited over the HVAC system:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/KSBW-WX-Station.jpg>
Anthony Watts used to have photos of similarly badly sited weather
stations on his blog, but I can't find them.

>This brings me back to my original point: the more we know
>about the past, the better we will be about predicting the future.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:08:45 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Most people would have a "wood shed" which keeps the firewood dry (:-)

My house and property are on a 45 degree slope. I do have some flat
spots left, where I currently have a 1/2 cord firewood pile, which
isn't big enough for the 3 cords per year that I usually burn. Another
flat spot is earmarked for a storage shed. I've tried to purchase the
neighboring lots with no success.

>Granted you live in California and "it never rains in California"
>according to the song, but still...

After this winter's deluge, we're doing better:
<https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA>
Unfortunately, the water table is still very low. It will take 5 more
years of similar rains to bring it back to "normal".

[John B.]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:08:45 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Most people would have a "wood shed" which keeps the firewood dry (:-)
>
>My house and property are on a 45 degree slope. I do have some flat
>spots left, where I currently have a 1/2 cord firewood pile, which
>isn't big enough for the 3 cords per year that I usually burn. Another
>flat spot is earmarked for a storage shed. I've tried to purchase the
>neighboring lots with no success.
>

Come now... people have been building on hills since there were people
(I suppose) My current house is on a slope and the houses I grew up in
were built on slopes. Albeit not extreme. You either dig a great hole
for the "up hill" wall or fill or otherwise raise the "down hill"
wall.
https://tinyurl.com/4z3dhj2e

>
>>Granted you live in California and "it never rains in California"
>>according to the song, but still...
>
>After this winter's deluge, we're doing better:
><https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA>
>Unfortunately, the water table is still very low. It will take 5 more
>years of similar rains to bring it back to "normal".

Can't be... I'm assured that "climate change" is all a matter of
someone's vivid imagination... the Glaciers are not melting, the seas
are not rising an the polar bears are not dying of starvation. (:-?)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Rolf Mantel]

Chaos theory does not give you any direct insight for weather forecasts,
into only indirectly tells you that minor measuring erros in the
starting point become major forecast errors in the long future (Chaos
theory is concerned with averages over long-term orbits rather than with
the 'one factual orbit' that weather forecasts are concerned with).

All weather forecasts are based on a large number of simulations with
slightly different starting points and with minor variations in those
parameters that are only experimentally known. So in a sense, the fact
that we talk of '5% probability for this weather' is a reauls of Chaos
Theory.

> Edward Lorenz did his work in chaos theory initially by trying to
> improve weather forecasting:
> <https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/chaos-theory-and-meteorological-predictions>
>
>
"Based on his results, Lorenz stated that it is impossible to predict
> the weather accurately."
>
> The basic problem is the weather forecasting by computer is largely
> an exercise in getting the initial conditions for the calculations
> correct. Give the computer the wrong initial conditions and the
> results will soon drift off the charts. Without sufficient and
> accurate data, chaos theory is prone to be umm... chaotic.

Actually, chaos theory promises you that even with perfectly accurate
initial conditions, you would be unable to predict the weather for
December 24th now.

> In my
> never humble opinion, the real progress in forecasting comes from
> the availability of better sensors, better satellite data, and
> larger sensor networks. That enables climate scientists to view a 3D
> picture of the atmosphere, which produces a much better map of
> atmospheric conditions. Try it... Go to:
> <https://www.windy.com/?51.998,-84.902,3> At the right, click on
> "Wind". Slide the "altitude" slider up and down. On the surface,
> the pictures look like the views shown by the TV weather
> personalities. Go up a few thousand feet, and everything looks very
> different. Weather events are generated at higher altitudes and not
> at ground level.

Agreed. The short-term diversion rate between two different simulations
or between a simulation and reality is given by the linear dynamics, so
a good starting point increases the quality of a short-term forecast.

[Rolf Mantel]

Am 26.04.2023 um 04:24 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:08:45 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Most people would have a "wood shed" which keeps the firewood dry (:-)
>
> My house and property are on a 45 degree slope. I do have some flat
> spots left, where I currently have a 1/2 cord firewood pile, which
> isn't big enough for the 3 cords per year that I usually burn. Another
> flat spot is earmarked for a storage shed. I've tried to purchase the
> neighboring lots with no success.
>
>
>> Granted you live in California and "it never rains in California"
>> according to the song, but still...
>
> After this winter's deluge, we're doing better:
> <https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA>
> Unfortunately, the water table is still very low. It will take 5 more
> years of similar rains to bring it back to "normal".

The definition of drought is always 'compared to the average available
water' since a certain start point, so you can have a drought even in a
swampland.

In Germany, we have separate maps for two drought measures

<https://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=40990>

'Upper soil' water table up to 1' deep
'Total soil' water table up to 5' deep.

The 'upper soil' occasionally recovers for a month or two; the 'Total
soil' has been deep red since 2018 in various parts of Germany.

Rolf

[James]

You've read this, I assume?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9

--
JS

[AMuzi]

5 April 2023:

https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/weather/2023/04/05/the-worst-drought-in-3-years-expands-over-central-florida

14 April, 2023

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/14/photos-show-flooding-in-fort-lauderdale-other-parts-of-south-florida.html

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Rolf Mantel]

> 5 April 2023:
>
> https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/weather/2023/04/05/the-worst-drought-in-3-years-expands-over-central-florida
>
> 14 April, 2023
>
> https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/14/photos-show-flooding-in-fort-lauderdale-other-parts-of-south-florida.html

I'm sure there's a direct link that local flooding in Fort Lauderdale
stops a drought in Orlando, and I'm just too stupid to understand the
connection (it appears that Orlando has received a little bit of rain in
the last few days as well).

[Tom Kunich]

Here is California the entire system is inundated with fools like Liebermann. They started out telling us at the beginning of the year that we were all going to die without water and the water prices shot completely through the ceilings. Then we had an average snowfall of 300% normal and even more rainfall at lower altitudes. Then they told us that the large reservoirs were empty (even though the source of water for those reservoirs is snow melt) and then it started raining again and all of the reservoirs filled before the snow melt even started. Now the Slime Stream Media is filled with dreaded stories of us all being drowned in our homes because a couple of towns were allowed to be built where lakes normally are in wet years. They are showing on TV fields underwater even though those pictures were taken during and after the heaviest of rains

And now the water company is asking for a rate increase on top of the rate increase they got for drought conditions.

California has far more than its share of the mentally ill or mentally incompetent and you can learn a lot about this simply by reading the postings of Liebermann who has been a total failure in his working life but suddenly is an expert in all matters political. He is exactly what has broken this state and he continues.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/24/2023 3:18 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I personally don't believe in chaos. To me, it's just a way of copping out that we don't know enough about the system and or the history of it to be predictive beyond a certain level of accuracy. "Chaos" and "random" are shorthand for "we don't know all the factors influencing the outcome".

A colleague and I had our machinist make up a double pendulum rig. It
was similar to this
https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/chaotic-pendulum
with ~8" long arms, very good bearings and mounted on a very rigid stand
probably two feet tall.

It was just to have on display, to demonstrate chaotic motion, but it
was pretty fascinating. There was no way to repeat initial conditions
and generate a repeat response. I don't think measuring starting
position to one thousandth of an inch would do that, in part because I
think even a vibration in the room or a slight movement of air would
affect its path. I think it qualifies as chaotic motion.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 07:07:18 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

California+Mentally incompetent? and Tommy is living proof of the
fact!
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

I tried to. Give us a headline summary. -- AJ
>

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

That's a very strange study - they discuss earthquake frequency in the context of climate change, but don't make any mention at all of sea-level rise, even to state it is or is not happening.

Besides that, there is a warning placed by The European Physical Journal editors "30 September 2022 Editor's Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions reported in this manuscript are currently under dispute. The journal is investigating the issue."

The abstract and conclusion state _their_ data doesn't show evidence of global warming, but goes on to say "The objective should be to improve human well-being in the twenty-first century, while protecting the environment as much as we can and it would be a nonsense not to do so: it would be like not taking care of the house where we were born and raised." A very strange closing statement for a scientific paper.

[AMuzi]

On 4/29/2023 7:13 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

Sea level rise? You probably meant subsidance which, like
orogeny, is localized. Both are happening as we speak just
not in the same place at the same time.

I'm just grateful it's not 2010 any more, what with world
famine and major cities under water (Yes, I read the book.
In 1992)

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/29/2023 10:36 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> I'm just grateful it's not 2010 any more, what with world famine and
> major cities under water (Yes, I read the book. In 1992)

I just wish members of the scientific community would revise their
predictions as more and more data became available.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Like the other crowd of dopes, Flunkyliar doesn't know that the Antarctic station temperature yearly average hasn't changed in 70 years, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-00143-w He is far more interested in protecting the God's of Fear than in protecting facts and scientific truth. But hey! Politifact tells you that it will all change suddenly despite reality.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:36:35 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/29/2023 7:13 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:23:29 AM UTC-4, James wrote:
> >> On 24/4/23 20:16, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> Historian Mark Lewis Wonders About Weird Weather:
> >>> https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2023/04/24/weird-weather-n2622307
> >>>
> >>> Andre Jute
> >>> Computer models predicting events a century hence are not Science, they're witchcraft with a thin veneer of crooked statistics.
> >> You've read this, I assume?
> >>
> >> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
> >>
> >
> > That's a very strange study - they discuss earthquake frequency in the context of climate change, but don't make any mention at all of sea-level rise, even to state it is or is not happening.
> >
> > Besides that, there is a warning placed by The European Physical Journal editors "30 September 2022 Editor's Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions reported in this manuscript are currently under dispute. The journal is investigating the issue."
> >
> > The abstract and conclusion state _their_ data doesn't show evidence of global warming, but goes on to say "The objective should be to improve human well-being in the twenty-first century, while protecting the environment as much as we can and it would be a nonsense not to do so: it would be like not taking care of the house where we were born and raised." A very strange closing statement for a scientific paper.
> >
> Sea level rise? You probably meant subsidance which, like
> orogeny, is localized. Both are happening as we speak just
> not in the same place at the same time.

Which completely misses the point - the paper doesn't discuss it at all.

>
> I'm just grateful it's not 2010 any more, what with world
> famine and major cities under water (Yes, I read the book.
> In 1992)

They also predicted flying cars available to the average consumer.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

I wish people who insist on arguing against the current evidence would stop using 30 year old data to "prove" the current science is wrong.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Like the rest of the anti-science crowd, tommy can't seem to read a simple white paper to understand it doesn't say what he thinks it does - The paper explains why the average has been largely flat while showing dramatic increases at lower attitudes - pretty pathetic reading comprehension for someone who claims to have "read out" three libraries.

[Tom Kunich]

Just got an email telling me that FlunkyStupidLiar cannot read a paper and understand what it means. Apparently his brain cannot absorb the statement "To corroborate our findings, we perform this exercise with two different climate models." Since not a single model has even gotten CLOSE to what the climate has actually done in the PAST, even intimating that a model is any good at all is just the sort of thing you could expect from a total moron like Flunky.

THE Stanford University Think Tank: https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models Note that the actual ability to MEASURE temperatures is SO poor that it is impossible to tell if there has been ANY warming whatsoever! Presently the temperature outside of my house is 72 degrees as measured by a mechanical thermometer and a digital thermometer and yet the weather station near here says that it is 69 degrees at this moment,. But Flunky showing just what sort of "engineer" he is doesn't know that actually shows the impossibility of even correctly AVERAGING temperature. `

As the tears seeps from Flunky's eyes he actually thinks that he knows anything other than how to argue to an empty room. He will say that he isn't afraid of me but is very careful never to print his name, city or employer so that anyone could check up on him. This is why he uses a pseudonym - so that no one can check up on the truth of the things he's saying. And then he tries to convince people that my resume on LinkedIn is phony when you couldn't get a job without their personnel department checking your resume half to death, when, like me, I was making up to a quarter of a million dollars a year while Krygowski was making $2.50 a day.

Flunky is a pathetic loser who pretends that he is, like, really cool. But his pretense doesn't hold up the the slightest scrutiny. Hey Mr. Racer, I have 1,200 miles so far this year and it is going to rain again next week. What is your mileage?

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/29/2023 7:42 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Just got an email telling me ...

Nobody believes that, Tom.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 16:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:58:09?AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:36:35?AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 4/29/2023 7:13 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:23:29 AM UTC-4, James wrote:
>> > >> On 24/4/23 20:16, Andre Jute wrote:
>> > >>> Historian Mark Lewis Wonders About Weird Weather:
>> > >>> https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2023/04/24/weird-weather-n2622307
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Andre Jute
>> > >>> Computer models predicting events a century hence are not Science, they're witchcraft with a thin veneer of crooked statistics.
>> > >> You've read this, I assume?
>> > >>
>> > >> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > That's a very strange study - they discuss earthquake frequency in the context of climate change, but don't make any mention at all of sea-level rise, even to state it is or is not happening.
>> > >
>> > > Besides that, there is a warning placed by The European Physical Journal editors "30 September 2022 Editor's Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions reported in this manuscript are currently under dispute. The journal is investigating the issue."
>> > >
>> > > The abstract and conclusion state _their_ data doesn't show evidence of global warming, but goes on to say "The objective should be to improve human well-being in the twenty-first century, while protecting the environment as much as we can and it would be a nonsense not to do so: it would be like not taking care of the house where we were born and raised." A very strange closing statement for a scientific paper.
>> > >
>> > Sea level rise? You probably meant subsidance which, like
>> > orogeny, is localized. Both are happening as we speak just
>> > not in the same place at the same time.
>> >
>> > I'm just grateful it's not 2010 any more, what with world
>> > famine and major cities under water (Yes, I read the book.
>> > In 1992)
>> > --
>> > Andrew Muzi
>> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> Like the other crowd of dopes, Flunkyliar doesn't know that the Antarctic station temperature yearly average hasn't changed in 70 years, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-00143-w He is far more interested in protecting the God's of Fear than in protecting facts and scientific truth. But hey! Politifact tells you that it will all change suddenly despite reality.
>
>Just got an email telling me that FlunkyStupidLiar cannot read a paper and understand what it means. Apparently his brain cannot absorb the statement "To corroborate our findings, we perform this exercise with two different climate models." Since not a single model has even gotten CLOSE to what the climate has actually done in the PAST, even intimating that a model is any good at all is just the sort of thing you could expect from a total moron like Flunky.
>
>THE Stanford University Think Tank: https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models Note that the actual ability to MEASURE temperatures is SO poor that it is impossible to tell if there has been ANY warming whatsoever! Presently the temperature outside of my house is 72 degrees as measured by a mechanical thermometer and a digital thermometer and yet the weather station near here says that it is 69 degrees at this moment,. But Flunky showing just what sort of "engineer" he is doesn't know that actually shows the impossibility of even correctly AVERAGING temperature. `

But Tommy, the article you quote doesn't imply that global warming is
NOT happening, in fact they state that it IS happening. They simply
question whether CO2 is the major factor.

>
>As the tears seeps from Flunky's eyes he actually thinks that he knows anything other than how to argue to an empty room. He will say that he isn't afraid of me but is very careful never to print his name, city or employer so that anyone could check up on him. This is why he uses a pseudonym - so that no one can check up on the truth of the things he's saying. And then he tries to convince people that my resume on LinkedIn is phony when you couldn't get a job without their personnel department checking your resume half to death, when, like me, I was making up to a quarter of a million dollars a year while Krygowski was making $2.50 a day.
>

But Tommy, the very first entry in your famous "resume" is a lie.

>Flunky is a pathetic loser who pretends that he is, like, really cool. But his pretense doesn't hold up the the slightest scrutiny. Hey Mr. Racer, I have 1,200 miles so far this year and it is going to rain again next week. What is your mileage?

But, of course, no one expects you to respond as that is your schtick
isn't it. Tell a big lie and if anyone questions it just ignore them.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 16:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And then he tries to convince people that my resume on LinkedIn
>is phony when you couldn't get a job without their personnel
>department checking your resume half to death, when, like me,

So, why did you claim to have worked for Berkeley Computer Corporation
(BCC), yet they don't appear in your LinkedIn online resume? BCC
existed from 1969 to 1972. I wouldn't mention BCC except that Jay
Beattie discovered an online document showing your name on a BCC
document. You'll find your name on page 27 (distribution list):
<http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/bcc/originals/Admin/BCC_A-11.pdf>
This is the only evidence of your employment at any of
the companies you have mentioned in RBT or have appeared on your
LinkedIn resume. Some free samples:

02/11/2021
Worked at Analog Devices
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/yzMUyoSvAgAJ>
"I know that working at Analog Devices designing chips to you seems
somehow [un]important but not to me then and not to me now. Since you
don't understand anything about chip design and how 20 engineers will
work on the same chip and each has a section of the design that is so
insignificant, it isn't worth talking about."

01/24/2022
ETEC, Datum, Tality. NASA subcontractors
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/9WEuMylDquc/m/Guv7NHdsAwAJ>
More on ETEC, which was an organization that trained k-12 science
teachers:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/9WEuMylDquc/m/4GNdg-4WAQAJ>

11/07/2022
Tom can't remember the correct names and acronyms for two
organizations where he claims to have worked:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/zkgDSx53ods/m/eSvsPA0KBgAJ>
"6. You never worked for NASA, "Livermore Labs" or "Berkley labs"
because none of them appear on your online resume. (...) Anyone who
has worked for these organizations would be expected to know their
proper names."

Your alleged salary has no effect on your credibility. People who had
earned far more money than you can imagine, were found to be bigger
liars. If you don't value the truth, why would you expect anyone to
value your word?

[John B.]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 20:06:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

I would add that his very first entry in his Resume:
Education
Lowry AFB
Completed, Electronics
1965 - 1966
Activities and Societies: US Air Force Technical School
Is not true.

According to his other posts this was the last year he was in the Air
Force and the Air Force, being fairly astute, doesn't send their
people for training in the last year of their service. They send them
for training in the first year of their enlistment so that they can
get three years of use from them before they are discharged.

So... if you start your resume with a lie what are the odds that you
told the truth in the rest of the document?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

I just got 4 emails, three text messages, and two phone calls all laughing about how tommy is making an idiot of himself..._again_

> Just got an email telling me that FlunkyStupidLiar cannot read a paper and understand what it means. Apparently his brain cannot absorb the statement "To corroborate our findings, we perform this exercise with two different climate models."

Yup, they go on to explain their findings of why the average has been largely flat while showing dramatic increases at lower attitudes. As usual, tommy cherry picks something he thinks means something it doesn't, then deceitfully doesn't consider information contrary to his claims - and he calls _me_ a liar lol.....

> Since not a single model has even gotten CLOSE to what the climate has actually done in the PAST, even intimating that a model is any good at all is just the sort of thing you could expect from a total moron like Flunky.

oh silly tommy...making claims he can't back up...

This is how science is done, sparky:

FRom NASA/JPL
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
"The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017......The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections."

from Geophysical Research Letters
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085378
"We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations...

> THE Stanford University Think Tank: https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models Note that the actual ability to MEASURE temperatures is SO poor that it is impossible to tell if there has been ANY warming whatsoever!

Silly tommy confusing opinion articles with actual science - as usual (funny how all of a sudden a university source is infallible!)

> Presently the temperature outside of my house is 72 degrees as measured by a mechanical thermometer and a digital thermometer and yet the weather station near here says that it is 69 degrees at this moment,. But Flunky showing just what sort of "engineer" he is doesn't know that actually shows the impossibility of even correctly AVERAGING temperature. `

Silly tommy _still_ confusing weather with climate,

> As the tears seeps from Flunky's eyes he actually thinks that he knows anything other than how to argue to an empty room.

Funny, you seem to be the one whing here....need a hanky, sparky?

> He will say that he isn't afraid of me but is very careful never to print his name, city or employer so that anyone could check up on him.

silly tommy...the lies just keep coming!! I've posted under my name here on several occasions - even your friend kitty told you that. I've also listed the city I live in at least a few dozen times. And no, I haven't listed my employer, because it isn't relevant and I can't trust a lying piece of shit like you to not harass them.

>This is why he uses a pseudonym - so that no one can check up on the truth of the things he's saying.

Why would you need to know my real name in order to fact check my statements?

> And then he tries to convince people that my resume on LinkedIn is phony

not just me! Your resume is full of holes and lies, like your alleged 4 year degree from a community college that doesn't offer 4 year degrees....lol....

> when you couldn't get a job without their personnel department checking your resume half to death

You very clearly don't understand the "resume checking" process......Perhaps you should have looked up the HR policies and procedures when you broke into your HR office after hours instead of rifling though personal employee data.....https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tom-kunich-22012_tesla-shareholders-reject-bid-to-strip-musk-activity-6409919522597412864-beRm?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

> when, like me, I was making up to a quarter of a million dollars a year while Krygowski was making $2.50 a day.

And yet you constantly complain about the cost of living and you can't afford to move out of your mothers house.....

> Flunky is a pathetic loser who pretends that he is, like, really cool.

Projection duly noted.

> But his pretense doesn't hold up the the slightest scrutiny.

That's funny coming from someone who constantly makes claims he refuses to back up.

> Hey Mr. Racer, I have 1,200 miles so far this year and it is going to rain again next week. What is your mileage?

There's that famous 'focus' again...Not that it has anything to do with anything under discussion here, but Strava shows 700 miles, which isn't too bad considering that I work full time and live in Massachusetts where the weather for the first 3 months of the year isn't conducive to getting outdoors. If I was retired I'd easily have your milage in spite of the weather here. I also have 35 KOMs and 200 top tens for cycling, with 14 CRs and 16 top tens running. How many do you have?

My challenge to you still stands skippy - you post a link to a piece of test equipment designed to use PWM for testing cables or a link to a test method that describes using PWM to test cables, and I'll publish my full name and address and never post in this forum again.

I did the same challenge to the fake-irish troll about his fictional writes forum and he ran off like a cockroach when the lights are turned on.

Your turn....