No, I've never had any problems with mine. I'm sure some are better than others. I wouldn't know about non-account holders but the couple of times I've needed to do banking away from home I was able to accomplish it through another CU that's in the same network as mine without undue problems. I've got my house and car paid off so about the weirdest thing I do is ask for rolls of dollar coins when making a withdrawal. I haven't seen a WheresGeorge bill in 2 or 3 years but maybe that's because I use $1 coins instead of bills.
Yes, maybe it was 2005 when they discovered it. But maybe they didn't know the orbital parameters all that well until recently. I can't imagine it taking less than 2 or 3 years to put something like that together. The Earth is a much bigger target than the Moon.
Wow, if I understand that animation correctly it appears the asteroids orbit is nearly perpendicular to the Earth's orbit around the Sun (at least in the plane shown).
Yeah, we duck your sick(ness) by modding you to oblivion. Sometimes I wish there was a rule on/. that if you get enough troll mods (like 10) that your post is deleted and everyone who downmodded you gets their points back. I'm sad I wasted this much time responding to your sick(ness).
I believe the Model E was based on Model C (or maybe Model D which was based on Model C). Never the less there were 3 different scenarios in Hansen's Model C run and the link I cited discusses the issues with that 1988 projection. It would certainly be possible to start a Model E run under similar conditions to the Model C run and get results so I'm not sure it matters so much how old a model is.
Ok, I've made an error like that before. Never the less, GISS is up the the Model E now which is part of the ensemble referred to in the link I cited. There is a commentary on Hansen's 1988 projections here. Considering the relative primitiveness of the Model C it didn't do that bad.
This could be old enough that you don't respond but I've been doing a little research and sought some help about precision in statistics to answer your assertion that you can't have greater precision than the measuring instrument.
First, an example: The baseball player, Ted Williams's lifetime batting average was 0.344. But the hits are measured as integers, you either get a hit (1) or you don' t (0). So by your logic you would have to say his batting average is 0 since that's the closest integer value to 0.344.
Second to quote from someone who knows statistics that answered me:
It is basic statistics that when you have a lot of measurements, the standard error generally scales down by the square root of the number of measurements. Lots of measurements together can therefore give much greater accuracy than any individual measurement.
Here is a very simple example. Suppose we have N pairs of numbers, x[i] and y[i]. Conceptually you can think of them as a reading of a temperature in two different years. Suppose there’s a normally distributed error in each value, with standard deviation S. The standard error in x[i]-y[i] is sqrt(2)*S.
Then add all the pairs of differences. Sum(i=1..N) (x[i]-y[i]).
The standard error is now sqrt(2N)*S.
To get the average difference, you divide this sum by N. The standard error in your result is S*sqrt(2N)/N, or S*sqrt(2/N).
If N is around 20000, you get an error of S/100. That means the “global anomaly” in this simple case has two additional figures of accuracy over the individual measurements.
He goes on to talk about the complexities of calculating a global average but you get the point. I don't particularly expect you to accept this explanation but thank you for forcing me to think about it and learn something.
The "millimeters per year" was just a wild ass guess on my part thinking about the time periods involved. I knew it had to be in error. Again, I did some research and calculated a more realistic number. Of course 12.995 meters isn't exactly right either, just closer. The rate of tilt varies a little over time and the surface of the Earth isn't a perfect sphere so the distance in a degree of latitude varies a bit from the equator to the pole. It would be relatively easy to measure a distance in the 13 meter range and therefore one of the circles down to millimeter or better accuracy. And we do have instruments capable of millimeter accuracy over thousands of kilometers. The GRACE satellites use a microwave ranging system to measure the distance between the two to an accuracy of 10 micrometers (0.01 millimeters). The two satellites orbit about 220 kilometers apart. (There's a cool animation of the gravity anomaly over the years on the GRACE page I cited.)
It makes sense the difference between 1.3 and 1.30 would cause problems. IIRC it was an issue in the FORTRAN programs I was writing in 1969 (just high school stuff, we had a 160 baud acoustic modem and a teletype machine with a paper tape reader with 5 minute of computer time to access the big CDC 7600 computer over at Oregon State University).
An honest debate is not a waste of time but at some point the returns start to diminish and it's time to move on. I have been known to insist on getting the last word in from time to time though.
No, you could run the current models on your PC. All you have to do is increase the grid size enough to reduce the number of calculations to a practical level. The main thing they do when they get a faster computer is reduce the grid size so they can get a finer detail. The CRU's GCM is a physical model as well. Statistical models don't do well on that large a scale. Here are a couple of FAQ's on climate models from the guys that write them:
Are you Antique Geekmeister replying as AC? Just curious.
An asteroid strike of any size would punch through the ocean, hit the bottom and still put lots of dust in the air. A climatologist once calculated what would happen if you removed 100% of the water vapor from the air and it only takes around 60 days for water vapor levels to return to normal. It would take a similar amount of time if you set the relative humidity to 100%, no more than 3 months for water vapor levels to return to normal. There may be other effects of that but it would take less than a year for cloud cover to return to normal. Now, if you put a lot of (non-water) aerosols into the air that will have an effect for several years but excess water vapor (and therefore excess clouds) can't remain in the atmosphere for any length of time. It's built into the physics of water.
Yes they do and it precipitates back out rather quickly. You can throw all the water vapor you want into the atmosphere and once you stop it will all be gone and things will be back to normal in at most a few weeks. The main control of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is air temperature.
As I understand it a typical model run takes around a month on the GISS's supercomputer. And the data (that is temperature data) doesn't really matter to climate models except as something to compare your results to. The models are physical in nature and will converge on the models projected reality regardless of the starting point. The only data you might use would be actual changes in GHG levels and insolation and major volcanic eruptions to model the real world more closely.
The Sun's output is increasing... quite a bit too.
LOL. How is it then that the satellites we specifically put in orbit to monitor the Sun are unable to detect this increase in the Sun's output? I agree that long term the Sun's output is increasing but it's so slow that it's practically undetectable in a century. It took 3 billion years for the output to rise 25%. That's 8.333e-11 percent per year.
It's a pretty simplistic assumption that the cause of temperature changes on other planets is caused by the same thing as on Earth. For instance I have not heard of any temperature changes on Mercury or Venus and they're even closer to the Sun than we are. The temperature changes on Pluto are easily explained by the eccentricity of its orbit.
The only scientific solution is to quit increasing the level of CO2 (and other GHG's of human origin) in the atmosphere . Please give me your solution to that that doesn't as you put it "dovetail with existing leftist goals". I'll be happy to listen.
... and we're still not seeing massively off the scale warming...
Be glad we're not seeing massively off the scale warming because if we were we'd be well and truly screwed and there wouldn't be a goddamned thing we could do about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I know the commercial banks lobby pretty hard against credit unions. They hate them. I guess they represent a loss in profit potential.
No, I've never had any problems with mine. I'm sure some are better than others. I wouldn't know about non-account holders but the couple of times I've needed to do banking away from home I was able to accomplish it through another CU that's in the same network as mine without undue problems. I've got my house and car paid off so about the weirdest thing I do is ask for rolls of dollar coins when making a withdrawal. I haven't seen a WheresGeorge bill in 2 or 3 years but maybe that's because I use $1 coins instead of bills.
My CU is open on Saturdays (9AM-2PM).
Someone once said, "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money."
That would be the late Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL). Although he apparently never uttered those exact words.
I have no problem using the ATM's at other credit unions nationally that are part of the network.
I moved to a credit union 15 years ago and never looked back. Good service and no ridiculous fees.
Massey Energy is non-union (and rabidly so). If you compare union and non-union mines the difference in safety records is rather stark.
Yes, maybe it was 2005 when they discovered it. But maybe they didn't know the orbital parameters all that well until recently. I can't imagine it taking less than 2 or 3 years to put something like that together. The Earth is a much bigger target than the Moon.
Let's see, 6 days from now to launch and get it out to nearly the Moon's orbit. Not going to happen. But it would be interesting if we could.
Wow, if I understand that animation correctly it appears the asteroids orbit is nearly perpendicular to the Earth's orbit around the Sun (at least in the plane shown).
You forgot economics.
Have you seen his mother? They call her the deboner.
Yeah, we duck your sick(ness) by modding you to oblivion. Sometimes I wish there was a rule on /. that if you get enough troll mods (like 10) that your post is deleted and everyone who downmodded you gets their points back. I'm sad I wasted this much time responding to your sick(ness).
Ever ate a pound of prunes?
I believe the Model E was based on Model C (or maybe Model D which was based on Model C). Never the less there were 3 different scenarios in Hansen's Model C run and the link I cited discusses the issues with that 1988 projection. It would certainly be possible to start a Model E run under similar conditions to the Model C run and get results so I'm not sure it matters so much how old a model is.
Ok, I've made an error like that before. Never the less, GISS is up the the Model E now which is part of the ensemble referred to in the link I cited. There is a commentary on Hansen's 1988 projections here. Considering the relative primitiveness of the Model C it didn't do that bad.
This could be old enough that you don't respond but I've been doing a little research and sought some help about precision in statistics to answer your assertion that you can't have greater precision than the measuring instrument.
First, an example: The baseball player, Ted Williams's lifetime batting average was 0.344. But the hits are measured as integers, you either get a hit (1) or you don' t (0). So by your logic you would have to say his batting average is 0 since that's the closest integer value to 0.344.
Second to quote from someone who knows statistics that answered me:
It is basic statistics that when you have a lot of measurements, the standard error generally scales down by the square root of the number of measurements. Lots of measurements together can therefore give much greater accuracy than any individual measurement.
Here is a very simple example. Suppose we have N pairs of numbers, x[i] and y[i]. Conceptually you can think of them as a reading of a temperature in two different years. Suppose there’s a normally distributed error in each value, with standard deviation S. The standard error in x[i]-y[i] is sqrt(2)*S.
Then add all the pairs of differences.
Sum(i=1..N) (x[i]-y[i]).
The standard error is now sqrt(2N)*S.
To get the average difference, you divide this sum by N. The standard error in your result is S*sqrt(2N)/N, or S*sqrt(2/N).
If N is around 20000, you get an error of S/100. That means the “global anomaly” in this simple case has two additional figures of accuracy over the individual measurements.
He goes on to talk about the complexities of calculating a global average but you get the point. I don't particularly expect you to accept this explanation but thank you for forcing me to think about it and learn something.
The "millimeters per year" was just a wild ass guess on my part thinking about the time periods involved. I knew it had to be in error. Again, I did some research and calculated a more realistic number. Of course 12.995 meters isn't exactly right either, just closer. The rate of tilt varies a little over time and the surface of the Earth isn't a perfect sphere so the distance in a degree of latitude varies a bit from the equator to the pole. It would be relatively easy to measure a distance in the 13 meter range and therefore one of the circles down to millimeter or better accuracy. And we do have instruments capable of millimeter accuracy over thousands of kilometers. The GRACE satellites use a microwave ranging system to measure the distance between the two to an accuracy of 10 micrometers (0.01 millimeters). The two satellites orbit about 220 kilometers apart. (There's a cool animation of the gravity anomaly over the years on the GRACE page I cited.)
It makes sense the difference between 1.3 and 1.30 would cause problems. IIRC it was an issue in the FORTRAN programs I was writing in 1969 (just high school stuff, we had a 160 baud acoustic modem and a teletype machine with a paper tape reader with 5 minute of computer time to access the big CDC 7600 computer over at Oregon State University).
An honest debate is not a waste of time but at some point the returns start to diminish and it's time to move on. I have been known to insist on getting the last word in from time to time though.
No, you could run the current models on your PC. All you have to do is increase the grid size enough to reduce the number of calculations to a practical level. The main thing they do when they get a faster computer is reduce the grid size so they can get a finer detail. The CRU's GCM is a physical model as well. Statistical models don't do well on that large a scale. Here are a couple of FAQ's on climate models from the guys that write them:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/
Are you Antique Geekmeister replying as AC? Just curious.
An asteroid strike of any size would punch through the ocean, hit the bottom and still put lots of dust in the air. A climatologist once calculated what would happen if you removed 100% of the water vapor from the air and it only takes around 60 days for water vapor levels to return to normal. It would take a similar amount of time if you set the relative humidity to 100%, no more than 3 months for water vapor levels to return to normal. There may be other effects of that but it would take less than a year for cloud cover to return to normal. Now, if you put a lot of (non-water) aerosols into the air that will have an effect for several years but excess water vapor (and therefore excess clouds) can't remain in the atmosphere for any length of time. It's built into the physics of water.
Yes they do and it precipitates back out rather quickly. You can throw all the water vapor you want into the atmosphere and once you stop it will all be gone and things will be back to normal in at most a few weeks. The main control of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is air temperature.
As I understand it a typical model run takes around a month on the GISS's supercomputer. And the data (that is temperature data) doesn't really matter to climate models except as something to compare your results to. The models are physical in nature and will converge on the models projected reality regardless of the starting point. The only data you might use would be actual changes in GHG levels and insolation and major volcanic eruptions to model the real world more closely.
The Sun's output is increasing... quite a bit too.
LOL. How is it then that the satellites we specifically put in orbit to monitor the Sun are unable to detect this increase in the Sun's output? I agree that long term the Sun's output is increasing but it's so slow that it's practically undetectable in a century. It took 3 billion years for the output to rise 25%. That's 8.333e-11 percent per year.
It's a pretty simplistic assumption that the cause of temperature changes on other planets is caused by the same thing as on Earth. For instance I have not heard of any temperature changes on Mercury or Venus and they're even closer to the Sun than we are. The temperature changes on Pluto are easily explained by the eccentricity of its orbit.
Please point out anything in the "Climategate" emails that is political in nature (other than the internal politics of science).
The only scientific solution is to quit increasing the level of CO2 (and other GHG's of human origin) in the atmosphere . Please give me your solution to that that doesn't as you put it "dovetail with existing leftist goals". I'll be happy to listen.
Be glad we're not seeing massively off the scale warming because if we were we'd be well and truly screwed and there wouldn't be a goddamned thing we could do about it.