iNow
-
Posts
27364 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
251
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by iNow
-
-
These have not been well enough understood to be part of climate models up to the present.
Not true.
The understanding is quite strong, it's just that computers are often not powerful enough to account for all of our knowledge and understanding. However, with new computers, the ability to add our knowledge of more variables into the system dynamics is growing.
EDIT: I knew I'd find the article where I'd recently read about this. Enjoy.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112166&org=olpa&from=news
"The limiting factor to more reliable climate predictions at higher resolution is not scientific ideas, but computational capacity to implement those ideas," said Jay Fein, NSF program director in NSF's Division of Atmospheric Sciences. "This project is an important step forward in providing the most useful scientifically-based climate change information to society for adapting to climate change."Researchers once had assumed that climate can be predicted independently of weather, that is, with weather having no impact on climate prediction. Now they're finding that weather has a profound impact on climate, a result that's integral to the drive to improve weather and climate predictions and climate change projections.With this boost in computing capabilities, research team member Ben Kirtman, a meteorologist at RSMAS, has developed a novel weather and climate modeling strategy, or "interactive ensembles," designed to isolate the interactions between weather and climate.These interactive ensembles for weather and climate modeling are being applied to one of the nation's premier climate change models, NCAR's Community Climate System Model (CCSM), the current operational model used by NOAA's climate forecast system (CFS).The CCSM is also a community model used by hundreds of researchers, and is one of the climate models used in the Nobel Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments.The research serves as a pilot program to prepare for the implementation of more intense computational systems, which currently remain a scientific and engineering challenge."This marks the first time that we will have the computational resources available to address these scientific challenges in a comprehensive manner," said Kirtman. "The information from this project will serve as a cornerstone for petascale computing in our field, and help to advance the study of the interactions between weather and climate phenomena on a global scale."While this research focuses on climate science, he said, by-products of the work are applicable to similar modeling challenges in other science and engineering fields, particularly the geosciences.0 -
imagine, I'm not sure what you posted above is equivalent to the derivative. But rather than throw a bunch of words at each other, a simple test will convince me that you know what you are talking about. Here goes:
What is the derivative of the following?:
[math]x^7[/math]
[math](x+3)^5[/math]
[math]\frac{1}{x^4}[/math]
These are simple enough to do in your head if you studied derivative...
Are you convinced?
0 -
http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2008/09/fannie_mae_and_freddie_mac_rej.html
Why were Fannie and Freddie allowed to operate as private companies with implicit government backing? The history is that Fannie, created as a government agency (the Federal National Mortgage Association) in 1938, was privatized during LBJ's administration to get its debts off the federal government's books. Then Congress created Freddie (originally the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.) so Fannie wouldn't have a monopoly.So basically the motivation behind the creation of these strange public-private entities was an accounting subterfuge. Their debts weren't counted as government debt, but investors assumed that they were guaranteed by the government. In the 1970s Fannie and Freddie were both still reasonably small enterprises, so this wasn't that big a deal. But the collapse of the S&L industry in the 1980s left them the dominant force in the U.S. mortgage market. And until recently they (particularly Fannie) were able to wield their wealth and lobbying prowess to fend off all Congressional attempts to rein them in.From that same article:
"Government support needs to be either explicit or non-existent," Paulson said today. Through the end of 2009, at least, it's going to be explicit. The FHFA has taken over the two companies as a conservator, and Treasury has entered into contracts in which it pledges to keep Fannie and Freddie solvent and they in turn give Treasury the right to acquire up to 79.9% of their common stock for a nominal fee. Treasury also committed to buy lots of the companies' mortgage-backed securities for the next couple of years, which should keep mortgage rates down. Both companies will be getting new CEOs (former Merrill Lyncher and TIAA-CREFer Herb Allison at Fannie and former U.S. Bancorper David Moffett at Freddie) and are suspending all dividend payments, but their common and preferred stock will continue to trade.And yet, just two months ago:
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751139
The authorities are keen to avoid nationalisation, which would bring the whole of Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt onto the federal government’s balance sheet. In terms of book-keeping this would almost double the public debt, but that is rather misleading. It would hardly be like issuing $5.2 trillion of new Treasury bonds, because Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt is backed by real assets. Nevertheless, the fear that the taxpayer may have to absorb the GSEs’ debt pushed Treasury bond yields higher. That suggests yet another irony; the debt of the GSEs has been trading as if it were guaranteed by the American government, but the debt of the government was not trading as if Uncle Sam had guaranteed that of the GSEs.If Congress approves this package, the Fed will have more authority over the agencies. But that will give the central bank another headache. If an institution is struggling, the normal answer is to shrink its activities and wind it down slowly. But that is the last thing that the housing market needs right now.0 -
-
Yawn.
0 -
Links to videos & articles offering evidence beyond eye witness reports that leprechauns are real? I'm calling your bluff. Lets see them
Who's bluffing?
They are NO different than the bigfoot ones. Sorry to that the truth is hard to accept for you, but it's still the truth.
0 -
Democrats already HAVE sunk to the level of Republicans -- for the past eight years they've been behaving exactly like Republicans did during the preceding eight years. Blocking things pointlessly, pounding the podium about Bush, etc etc etc.
That sounds like two wrongs make a right reasoning.
0 -
Ah. More content free a vacuuous nonsense from the Republican side.
Here's a response more people should appreciate:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/lipstick_on_a_pig.php
(specifically, I'm talking about the short video clip)
0 -
Yeah. Just look at politics and our election of the highest office in the land.
0 -
I could share some links and videos about leprechauns if you'd like.
0 -
Pioneer - You should try reading the thread and determining for yourself where you're wrong.
Religion a connection with instinct? Religion the basis of morality? Have you understood ANY of the posts here?
0 -
MIT President calls for an "Energy Manhattan Project."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091002722_pf.html
Today, the United States is tangled in a triple knot: a shaky economy, battered by volatile energy prices; world politics weighed down by issues of energy consumption and security; and mounting evidence of global climate change.Building on the wisdom of Vannevar Bush, I believe we can address all three problems at once with dramatic new federal investment in energy research and development. If one advance could transform America's prospects, it would be ready access, at scale, to a range of affordable, renewable, low-carbon energy technologies -- from large-scale solar and wind energy to safe nuclear power. Only one path will lead to such transformative technologies: research. Yet federal funding for energy research has dwindled to irrelevance. In 1980, 10 percent of federal research dollars went to energy. Today, the share is 2 percent.Research investment by U.S. energy companies has mirrored this drop. In 2004, it stood at $1.2 billion in today's dollars. This might suit a cost-efficient, technologically mature, fossil-fuel-based energy sector, but it is insufficient for any industry that depends on innovation. Pharmaceutical companies invest 18 percent of revenue in R&D. Semiconductor firms invest 16 percent. Energy companies invest less than one-quarter of 1 percent. With this pattern of investment, we cannot expect an energy technology revolution.While industry must support technology development, only government can prime the research pump. Congress must lead.0 -
I've never seen anything like it. Very enlightening!
0 -
I disagree. Religion has no place in an idea which works.
We don't have muslim versus jewish mathematics. Just math.
We don't have Hindi versus buddhist electronics. Just electronics.
We don't have (or shouldn't have) religious specific descriptions of evolutions.
Part of the strength of the ideas is that they work no matter where or who you are. They are consistent. They are fundamental in the good way.
0 -
.
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/09/the_bloodier_the_game_the_more.php
The bloodier the game, the more hostile the gamer0 -
Do you think the journal Science or Nature would accept the presentation of an idea written like you have here in this thread?
What makes you think we should?
Lots of smoke and mirrors, but very little substance.
0 -
Actually, if recent experiences are any indicator, we can get past these sort of economic crises.
I definitely agree that getting past it is possible. I guess I'm skeptical that those we have in place right now making the rules and regulations will ultimately do so properly (like, they could create more problems than they solve, and the cure could be worse than the problem).
The correction has to be done on multiple levels, in multiple contexts, and in parallel with countless other dynamic factors, and right now the ideas being presented to help are nothing more than government bailouts. Not exactly a fully thought plan to restructure the system, eliminate weakness, pump resources into areas where greatest growth is needed, and "shore up" the "leaking dam."
Perhaps I'm just cynical. We just don't seem to handle our financial systems responsibly or intelligently anymore.
It's only just beginning. The bail out is a band-aid, but the source of the bleed remains.
0 -
iNow
You are nit picking. A conditional prediction is still a prediction. A model may say, if condition A is met, then result B will occur. That is still a prediction.
If there was no prediction, then the model would be useless. Just as a hypothesis that does not permit predictions for testing is also useless.
It's not nit picking when I am calling you out for misrepresentations and spinning the facts. However, we've covered this multiple times already in this thread, yet you continue making the same claims as if they were never rebutted.
Since you openly conceded that you didn't read it the first time around, I can understand why you continue making the same mistakes. However, I covered your objections regarding models already here:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=421600#post421600
I then summarized that post into the parts specific to accuracy and repeated it for you again here:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=422371#post422371
0 -
What's the lexicon equivalent of numerology?
0 -
Somebody's been drinking the Republican kool-aid.
You know, the same people lying to you about all of those things are also doing this:
0 -
For the love of Thor, you're a dumbass. You have misrepresented me so horribly that it's no wonder we're arguing. You have no idea what I'm actually talking about.
As a citizen of this country, I can interpret words from our politicians just as any other citizen, regardless if I am religious or not.
My comments on deism regarded the founding fathers, and not my own approach to spirituality.
Her comments about god are representative of larger neuroses, and you couldn't have missed my point more (remember how I kept asking how her religious views are supposed to be any different from Osama bin Laden's?).
Further, you continue to misquote the actual words to which I was responding so as to strawman my actual position.
Finally, despite your opening comment, you did (in fact) continue posting about me instead of issues... like economics, job creation, the environment, foreign policy, the war where we keep sending our kids to die for no good reason, etc.
Pangloss - Would you kindly close this thread? This is just getting worse and worse.
0 -
I understand your points. However, you seem to be assuming a priori that intervention by us will result somehow in a better outcome overall than letting it run its course. If our previous/recent experiences are to serve as any indicator, then this line of reasoning seems to be wishful thinking at best.
I don't know the answers. I don't know how to fix this all. I also don't know what "better" really means in all of this, unless we define "better" as getting past it all indefinitely. I do know, however, that people with real money and wealth who make this all move have their proverbial wallets puckered tighter than the ass of a 17 year old male model who just arrived to prison and dropped his soap in the shower.
<ewww....>
0 -
I didn't realize we were posting in the speculations forum.
Let's see some citations which support your assertions.
</me: Yeah, good luck getting some real science out of pioneer who never supports his conjectures. You should know better by now.>
0 -
I don't usually touch someone's fate until the third or fourth post, so let's see what you got. Welcome to SFN.
Would that be considered 3rd base or 2nd base?
0
Where did Darwin get his ideas?
in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
Posted
<sigh>
The point is that the theory itself is not rhetoric, but is instead a well formulated, well tested, and accurate description of reality, regardless of whatever dipstick religious or political movements have tried using it for their own ends.
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/evosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af12fd84e-253f-46cf-9408-ee579f9a3a0bPost%3af03a66ad-509f-4ba6-9bd6-2e73397573dc