Posts by Tomas

log in
1) Message boards : Science : Global Warming - Moved (Message 104726)
Posted 12 Jun 2010 by Tomas
Does that mean he got the Nobel Prize for nothing?

Alas, he has been misunderstood - alot of people think he knows something about the topics upon which he speaks. He got the Nobel Peace Prize ( which isn't a science prize ) which you can get these days for something you are going to do : rather than for something one has already done. As Tullio points out, this is why we await data from reality rather than commercial and political hubris.


Whit this in mind I'm just wondering 'which' side you think are representing the commercial and political hubris? ;)
2) Message boards : Science : Global Warming - Moved (Message 104439)
Posted 6 Jun 2010 by Tomas
So while Al Gore says that the Greenland ice sheet is a key indicator of warming, he didn't complete the sentence by mentioning that it's over 1 metre thicker and several thousand square km's broader than ~ 20yrs ago. Oh, and by the way - he is carbon credit broker.
Does that mean he got the Nobel Prize for nothing?


No. You have to be a loyer to cal an ice lost of 195 cubic kilometers per year
an indication of global cooling ;)

The folowing is taken from Wikipedia

"
The area of the sheet that experiences melting has increased about 16% from 1979 (when measurements started) to 2002 (most recent data). The area of melting in 2002 broke all previous records.[4] The number of glacial earthquakes at the Helheim Glacier and the northwest Greenland glaciers increased substantially between 1993 and 2005.[5] In 2006, estimated monthly changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet suggest that it is melting at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometers (57 cu mi) per year. A more recent study, based on reprocessed and improved data between 2003 and 2008, reports an average trend of 195 cubic kilometers (47 cu mi) per year.[6] These measurements came from the US space agency's GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite, launched in 2002, as reported by BBC.[7] Using data from two ground-observing satellites, ICESAT and ASTER, a study published in Geophysical Research Letters (September 2008) shows that nearly 75 percent of the loss of Greenland's ice can be traced back to small coastal glaciers.[8]
"
3) Message boards : Science : Global Warming - Moved (Message 104317)
Posted 30 May 2010 by Tomas
Rewriting The Science

An old but intresting story from the land of the free mind ;)
4) Message boards : Science : Global Warming - Moved (Message 100620)
Posted 22 Nov 2009 by Tomas
I would say that the people of Africa will pay the highest prize in this case
It's a question of what you value most, the freedom of driving your SUV
or the value of other peoples life.
5) Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : Wrong information in the Server Status page? (Message 100001)
Posted 14 Oct 2009 by Tomas
Thank you Bernd.
So "S5R5 search progress" is actuallt "Work creation progress"
6) Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : Wrong information in the Server Status page? (Message 99996)
Posted 14 Oct 2009 by Tomas
According to the Server Status page all the wu's are
crunched so the question is why can I still download
S5R5 wu's? Is there some kind of beta test going on?


S5R5 search progress
Total needed Already done Work still remaining
10,949,633 units 10,949,633 units 0 units
100 % 100.000 % 0.000 %
273.9 days 273.9 days 0.0 days (estimated)
7) Message boards : Science : Global Warming - Moved (Message 99893)
Posted 10 Oct 2009 by Tomas
Nice one! Poor chap will probably be labelled a 'denier' now! No wonder people don't trust scientists any more - after the Cold War, Y2K, black holes at the LHC ....



Maybe it is the same people that
regard 'The Economist' as a scientific source ;)
8) Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : ATI or Nvidia, any guesses for GPU? (Message 99393)
Posted 12 Sep 2009 by Tomas
Thank you Bikeman.
I have to take a deeper look in how
the detector actually works.
9) Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : ATI or Nvidia, any guesses for GPU? (Message 99390)
Posted 12 Sep 2009 by Tomas
I just speculating here but I could imagine that a double precision based calculation will translate in a higher resolution of the wavelength that are being analyzed so I wonder what the precision of the GW detector is when it measure the wavelength of the light?
10) Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : ATI or Nvidia, any guesses for GPU? (Message 98789)
Posted 11 Aug 2009 by Tomas

Cuda__ Schmooda

Einstein @ home will never get any real work done until
they create and release an ATI app.

ATI cards are much more powerful than nvidia in double
precision crunching.

But, they won’t (anytime soon anyway)__ Why? You might ask.




Does Einstein@home use double precision crunching?
If not the double precision crunching in hadware capability
of the ATI card will have no advantage.
11) Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : Is there a GPU version of the app in the works? (Message 98713)
Posted 9 Aug 2009 by Tomas
Thank you Mike!
I take that as Einsteing@home gpu app's will be close to 1:1
compered to the CPU applications.
12) Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : Is there a GPU version of the app in the works? (Message 98705)
Posted 9 Aug 2009 by Tomas
Hi Mike!

I believe you have said in an other tread that the Einstein@home app's was purely an linear process that would not take benefit of the parallel processing capabilities of the GPU and yet they have develop one, What have change that suddenly make the effort worth doing?

Tomas
13) Message boards : Science : Global Warming - Moved (Message 97700)
Posted 18 Jun 2009 by Tomas
Hi Mike!

I was too brusque with you and I apologize. It's just that I'm

kind of wild at hart when it comes to GW and in this case i do not mean Gravity waves. :)

14) Message boards : Science : Global Warming - Moved (Message 97694)
Posted 18 Jun 2009 by Tomas
Have a nice summer\winter guy's depending on the side of the equator :)

Tomas
15) Message boards : Science : Global Warming - Moved (Message 97690)
Posted 18 Jun 2009 by Tomas
Not GHG drives the climate. It was forever the sun and the next centuries it will be forever the sun together with the cosmic ray flux.



Nir , __Thank You for that excellent article on sciencebits.com

BTW.

The IPCC that comes up with all these facts and figures
(mostly pulled from their nether regions)

Is not scientific at all, but Governmental__ It actually stands for
Intergovernmental for Planetary Climate Change.

This “ Should ” clue anyone in that can add 2 and 2 together,
That they have a POLITICAL Agenda.

Their Agenda, may have very little to do with saving us all from
GHGs, and more to do with Control of the Serfs. Us.

Bill




IPCC are just collecting information from today's science and make an opinion based on that.

So basically their report is based on what the vast majority of scientist have published.

The oil lobby on the other hand..... ;)

I believe that you can not deny that IPCC are right and that there is real threat, both for life and for economy.

So what harm could it possibly have to be preventive and try to cut down on the greenhouse gases?

16) Message boards : Science : Global Warming - Moved (Message 97689)
Posted 18 Jun 2009 by Tomas
Furthermore. What wee discus here ......

Tomas, he/she is allowed to disagree! :-)

In science the test is the data. That means if you want to know what the world is up to, you go and look at it. Discussion about what the data means or implies is a subsequent issue.

Squashing of dissent ( or pretending it doesn't exist ) is the core problem with the global warming debate - which is largely why it is disbelieved by many. Or they no longer care, which is even worse. People are generally suspicious if it appears that secrets are kept ( they deduce that it is not to their advantage ). The environmental movement(s) have suffered from the very lack of transparency that they criticise in others, alas ....

Cheers, Mike.



Hi Mike.
I see. Squashing the information gathered by the IPCC and Al Gore is fine but not you favorites George Bush and the oil lobby, now I understand the rouls in this messabe board an I will aply to them from now on.

Would you say that there is anyting in the data known today that supports
that the currently incresed global tempereture of the Earth has anyting else
than a fraction to do withe the solar activity?

And plees refere to a reserch done by well-known university for the source.
17) Message boards : Science : Global Warming - Moved (Message 97679)
Posted 17 Jun 2009 by Tomas
Apparently that is nonsense.

I have no idea of who you are or your knowledge in this mather but I do know
What Stanford University are and here is something for you which by the way is from 2008.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html


Furthermore. What wee discus here is the currently global warming and it's cause and whether it is possible and desirable to do something about it and thank God has the USA gov. finally start to take this matter seriously.
18) Message boards : Science : S5 early results paper (Message 97600)
Posted 14 Jun 2009 by Tomas
I see. Thank you Bikeman.

Maybe you could considere to get a machine like this :)
19) Message boards : Science : S5 early results paper (Message 97597)
Posted 14 Jun 2009 by Tomas
So even with the new more sensitive detector you will only be able
to detect the strongest signal you are counting fore.

That's make me wonder why you built the first detector at all or have something
change during the time of the experiment?
20) Message boards : Science : S5 early results paper (Message 97592)
Posted 14 Jun 2009 by Tomas
Yes, and no respectively. The interferometers are working at their design specifications and are correctly reporting no detections above a certain level. It is operating just above the threshold of detection of the most 'obvious' or 'best case' continuous waves from the rotating neutron stars ( at the specified frequencies ). There is confidence in the data analysis, specifically :

Cheers, Mike.


Thank you Mike!
So the lack of signals could just be that they are to faint to be detected.



Next 20

Home · Your account · Message boards

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grants PHY-1104902, PHY-1104617 and PHY-1105572 and by the Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the investigators and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the MPG.

Copyright © 2016 Bruce Allen