Home > Archive > Fortran > September 2004 > Fortran used to predict hurricanes
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Fortran used to predict hurricanes
|
|
| beliavsky@aol.com 2004-09-16, 8:39 pm |
| There is a story from the Associated Press at
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6014028/ and other sites about the use of
Fortran programs to predict hurricanes. Here is an excerpt:
"The programs that model the atmosphere and the high-performance
computers that do this work have revolutionized weather forecasting,
improving our ability to predict the paths of hurricanes and
fluctuations in their intensity.
In fact, the hurricane track error in the National Hurricane Center's
three-day forecasts has been cut in half since 1998, and since last
year the center's meteorologists have been issuing five-day forecasts
with increasing confidence and accuracy.
"It's one of the most remarkable improvements in forecasting that I've
seen in my career," said Russ Elsberry, professor of meteorology at
the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey.
The forecasts aren't perfect, particularly when it comes to long-term
tracking and intensity. A few days ago, Ivan was thought to be headed
for the Florida peninsula. Earlier this month, Hurricane Charley's
intensity unexpectedly jumped just before slamming into Punta Gorda,
Fla.
Still, emergency officials were able to order 2 million people to
evacuate for higher ground once Ivan turned toward the Gulf Coast,
thanks in part to the models run by supercomputers and the confidence
forecasters have in the results.
Improving predictions is not just a matter of buying more hardware,
though that helps. The numerical models themselves undergo continuous
revisions as researchers learn more about the atmosphere and improve
the accuracy of their algorithms.
The models — actually complicated software written in a computer
language called Fortran — attempt to account for everything happening
in the atmosphere on a global basis."
| |
| Janne Blomqvist 2004-09-16, 8:39 pm |
| beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
> There is a story from the Associated Press at
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6014028/ and other sites about the use of
> Fortran programs to predict hurricanes. Here is an excerpt:
It's also on slashdot, the beacon of eternal wisdom.
Some golden nuggets from the comments:
"The models -- actually complicated software written in a computer
language called Fortran -- attempt to account for everything happening
in the atmosphere on a global basis." Now, this is a scary thought why
on earth would they write the applications in Fortran? I would assume
they would want to have this be a scalable and open platform.
...complicated software written in a computer language called Fortran...
Huh. Not Java, or maybe even Ruby [ruby-lang.org]?
Anyway, no need to worry, the situation is not as bad as the comments
above might imply. There's plenty of answers correcting those
misguided souls. ;-)
--
Janne Blomqvist
| |
| Toon Moene 2004-09-16, 8:39 pm |
| beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
> Improving predictions is not just a matter of buying more hardware,
> though that helps. The numerical models themselves undergo continuous
> revisions as researchers learn more about the atmosphere and improve
> the accuracy of their algorithms.
Sure - both causes help. In late 2002, early 2003 I reran our (then
operational) model on the Storm that caused the flood of Feb 1, 1953.
This couldn't have been done earlier, because the observational data
wasn't encoded electronically (and checked, both for "coding" errors and
meteorological inconsistencies).
The end result was that I was able to reliably forecast the storm 42
hours in advance, yielding the correct sea state surge.
In this event, 1835 people died - mostly because the authorities that
could have instigated evacuation weren't "on duty" on Saturday, the 31st
of January, when the warnings from the Dutch Weather Service were coming in.
A 42 hour warning advance would have meant that authorities would have
been able to act during the previous Friday, with much better effect.
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
A maintainer of GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/
| |
| Rich Townsend 2004-09-17, 4:03 am |
| Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> It's also on slashdot, the beacon of eternal wisdom.
>
> Some golden nuggets from the comments:
>
> "The models -- actually complicated software written in a computer
> language called Fortran -- attempt to account for everything happening
> in the atmosphere on a global basis." Now, this is a scary thought why
> on earth would they write the applications in Fortran? I would assume
> they would want to have this be a scalable and open platform.
>
>
> ...complicated software written in a computer language called Fortran...
>
> Huh. Not Java, or maybe even Ruby [ruby-lang.org]?
>
>
>
> Anyway, no need to worry, the situation is not as bad as the comments
> above might imply. There's plenty of answers correcting those
> misguided souls. ;-)
>
Indeedy. I nearly fell off my chair when I saw a post by Richard Maine.
I thought /. was only frequented by pimply-faced youths like myself
(well, not quite, but I've only been using Fortran for about 12 years,
so I count myself as an acolyte).
cheers,
Rich
--
Dr Richard H D Townsend
Bartol Research Institute
University of Delaware
[ Delete VOID for valid email address ]
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-17, 4:03 am |
|
"Toon Moene" <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote in message
news:414a1966$0$3888$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net...
> beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Sure - both causes help. In late 2002, early 2003 I reran our (then
> operational) model on the Storm that caused the flood of Feb 1, 1953.
>
> This couldn't have been done earlier, because the observational data
> wasn't encoded electronically (and checked, both for "coding" errors and
> meteorological inconsistencies).
>
> The end result was that I was able to reliably forecast the storm 42
> hours in advance, yielding the correct sea state surge.
>
Reliably forecast?
> In this event, 1835 people died - mostly because the authorities that
> could have instigated evacuation weren't "on duty" on Saturday, the 31st
> of January, when the warnings from the Dutch Weather Service were coming
in.
>
> A 42 hour warning advance would have meant that authorities would have
> been able to act during the previous Friday, with much better effect.
>
Even if everyone involved had remained sober, you'll never know. Besides,
your retrospective calculation on the 1835 victims is of little solace to
anyone.
Weather happens.
TGF for groundhogs.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Feynman, in The
Pleasure of Finding Things Out.
| |
| Arjen Markus 2004-09-17, 4:03 am |
| Toon Moene wrote:
>
> beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Sure - both causes help. In late 2002, early 2003 I reran our (then
> operational) model on the Storm that caused the flood of Feb 1, 1953.
>
> This couldn't have been done earlier, because the observational data
> wasn't encoded electronically (and checked, both for "coding" errors and
> meteorological inconsistencies).
>
> The end result was that I was able to reliably forecast the storm 42
> hours in advance, yielding the correct sea state surge.
>
> In this event, 1835 people died - mostly because the authorities that
> could have instigated evacuation weren't "on duty" on Saturday, the 31st
> of January, when the warnings from the Dutch Weather Service were coming in.
>
> A 42 hour warning advance would have meant that authorities would have
> been able to act during the previous Friday, with much better effect.
>
That particular and very unfortunate event led to the development of a
lot of
programs (related to both computer (*) and civil engineering) in the
Netherlands.
Come to think of it: it may even be - from far away in history - the
reason
that I am working where I work today ;)
Regards,
Arjen
(*) A lot of these computer programs have been and continue to be
written
in Fortran
| |
| Pterostyrax 2004-09-17, 9:00 pm |
| > Even if everyone involved had remained sober, you'll never know. Besides,
> your retrospective calculation on the 1835 victims is of little solace to
> anyone.
>
It is of GREAT solace to people in the future who will have increased
confidence that the model is actually useful and will respond to
warnings to evacuate. This is EXACTLY how one goes about developing
confidence in a model's ability to accurately reflect what is
occurring in the real world to a sufficient extent that the results
are useful. Go back and take a look at the projected paths of the
hurricanes this season. They were just about spot on with their
projections. I am certain that the death total would have been a
whole lot higher in the absence of computer models of the projected
paths.
| |
| Richard E Maine 2004-09-17, 9:00 pm |
| Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> writes:
> Indeedy. I nearly fell off my chair when I saw a post by Richard
> Maine. I thought /. was only frequented by pimply-faced youths like
> myself (well, not quite, but I've only been using Fortran for about 12
> years, so I count myself as an acolyte).
Hey, I made the /. front page a few years ago with the announcement
of the CD. My son (who is also past the pimply-faced stage, though not
by very many years) said he was going to tell me about the /. posting
on the Fortran standard before he noticed my name on it. :-)
But /. didn't take my later announcement of the FCD; acceptance
is very much a matter of luck and the whims of the editors that
day - that's just the way /. is.
P.S. Yesterday's /. post wasn't probably the top of my form; not that
I'm horribly embarassed by it, but perhaps I'd have done better to just
stay quiet.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
| |
| Steven G. Kargl 2004-09-17, 9:00 pm |
| In article <m1u0twoluf.fsf@mlmce0000l22801.local>,
Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature> writes:
>
> P.S. Yesterday's /. post wasn't probably the top of my form; not that
> I'm horribly embarassed by it, but perhaps I'd have done better to just
> stay quiet.
>
Actually, I found your posts and your questions to be right on target.
I still don't understand the code re-usability argument that OO people
throw out. I've been re-using my and others codes for years.
--
Steve
http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/
| |
| James Giles 2004-09-17, 9:00 pm |
| Steven G. Kargl wrote:
> In article <m1u0twoluf.fsf@mlmce0000l22801.local>,
> Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature> writes:
>
> Actually, I found your posts and your questions to be right on target.
> I still don't understand the code re-usability argument that OO people
> throw out. I've been re-using my and others codes for years.
Especially since there has yet to be any objective evidence that
the OO paradigm make code more re-usable. In fact, all the
survey results I've seen indicate that it tends to be a lot less
re-usable. (Reminds me of my old joke: Paradigms won't
buy a cup of coffee.)
--
J. Giles
"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies." -- C. A. R. Hoare
| |
| Richard E Maine 2004-09-17, 9:00 pm |
| "James Giles" <jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Paradigms won't buy a cup of coffee.
Particularly not at Starbucks. :-)
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-18, 3:57 am |
|
"Pterostyrax" <pterostyrax@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9ce5e122.0409170651.59f32e28@posting.google.com...
Besides,[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
>
> It is of GREAT solace to people in the future who will have increased
> confidence that the model is actually useful and will respond to
> warnings to evacuate. This is EXACTLY how one goes about developing
> confidence in a model's ability to accurately reflect what is
> occurring in the real world to a sufficient extent that the results
> are useful. Go back and take a look at the projected paths of the
> hurricanes this season. They were just about spot on with their
> projections. I am certain that the death total would have been a
> whole lot higher in the absence of computer models of the projected
> paths.
Who knows or cares whether your idle speculations are valid or otherwise?
Post hoc models are entirely nonpredictive. Who underwrites these so-called
models of reality? nobody, and neither should you unless you're an even
bigger dolt than I suspect.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Competent engineers rightly distrust all numerical computations and s
corroboration from alternative numerical methods, from scale models, from
prototypes, from experience... ." -- William V. Kahan.
| |
| Rich Townsend 2004-09-18, 3:58 pm |
| Gerry Thomas wrote:
> "Pterostyrax" <pterostyrax@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9ce5e122.0409170651.59f32e28@posting.google.com...
>
>
> Besides,
>
>
> to
>
>
>
> Who knows or cares whether your idle speculations are valid or otherwise?
> Post hoc models are entirely nonpredictive. Who underwrites these so-called
> models of reality? nobody, and neither should you unless you're an even
> bigger dolt than I suspect.
>
But he was talking about the *predicted* paths of hurricanes *this
season*. How in any way is this "post hoc"? You're becoming like a stuck
record, Gerry; every time you open your gob, you end up hoist on your
own petard.
--
Dr Richard H D Townsend
Bartol Research Institute
University of Delaware
[ Delete VOID for valid email address ]
| |
| James Giles 2004-09-18, 3:58 pm |
| Gerry Thomas wrote:
....
> Who knows or cares whether your idle speculations are valid or otherwise?
> Post hoc models are entirely nonpredictive. Who underwrites these so-called
> models of reality? nobody, and neither should you unless you're an even
> bigger dolt than I suspect.
>
> --
> You're Welcome,
> Gerry T.
> ______
> "Competent engineers rightly distrust all numerical computations and s
> corroboration from alternative numerical methods, from scale models, from
> prototypes, from experience... ." -- William V. Kahan.
For the first time ever, Gerry Thomas has said something funny.
He first denies that testing models against experience is useful
and then quotes Kahan: the very quotation which advocates
corroboration from experience! Get a clue Gerry: *EVERY*
method of modelling empirical phenomena refines those models
by testing them against *past* empirical observations. It's a
plentiful supply of data that you don't have to wait until tomorrow
to acquire.
--
--
J. Giles
"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies." -- C. A. R. Hoare
| |
| Gib Bogle 2004-09-18, 8:56 pm |
| Gerry Thomas wrote:
> "Pterostyrax" <pterostyrax@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9ce5e122.0409170651.59f32e28@posting.google.com...
>
>
> Besides,
>
>
> to
>
>
>
> Who knows or cares whether your idle speculations are valid or otherwise?
> Post hoc models are entirely nonpredictive. Who underwrites these so-called
> models of reality? nobody, and neither should you unless you're an even
> bigger dolt than I suspect.
Therapy.
| |
| Gary L. Scott 2004-09-18, 8:56 pm |
| Gib Bogle wrote:
> Gerry Thomas wrote:
>
>
>
> Therapy.
It's way beyond that...
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garyscott@ev1.net
Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html
Why are there two? God only knows.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep, voting on what to eat for dinner...
Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote. - Thomas Jefferson
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-19, 3:56 am |
|
"Gib Bogle" <bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ciie43$vp1$6@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Gerry Thomas wrote:
>
otherwise?[color=darkred]
so-called[color=darkred]
>
> Therapy.
Here you go
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ence_therapy_dc
Now get back into your pamper.
Good luck,
Gerry T.
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-19, 3:56 am |
|
"Gary L. Scott" <garyscott@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10kph1qhkpt0eed@corp.supernews.com...
> Gib Bogle wrote:
solace[color=darkred]
otherwise?[color=darkred]
even[color=darkred]
>
> It's way beyond that...
Sorry to hear that your pooch has been acting out again. The best therapy
is to give it a good kick in the ass but I guess you do that so often that
it's efficacy has shrunk to naught. So shaft the little bugger if you
haven't already done so.
--
HTH,
Gerry T.
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-19, 3:56 am |
|
"Rich Townsend" <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:cihocu$psa$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu...
> Gerry Thomas wrote:
otherwise?[color=darkred]
so-called[color=darkred]
>
> But he was talking about the *predicted* paths of hurricanes *this
> season*.
Mr. Rich:
My c.l.f. post was specific to the Dutchman's claim that ca. 50 years after
the event he claimed to have 'predicted' anything of any importance to
anyone other than himself. Most rational beings would rightly scoff at this
unscientific pretentious claim, the contempt of the weather man being
universally acclaimed. How this prompted one "Pterostyrax" to consult his
crystal balls to apply it prospectively boggles; only the irrational would
do so.
> How in any way is this "post hoc"?
The commonly accepted meaning of "post hoc" is the fallacy in believing
that temporal succession implies a causal relation. The Dutchman's dilatory
modeling of the past, no matter how accurate it might be (here I'm giving
him the benefit of the doubt), doesn't imply that it's even remotely
applicable to the next fs. Ergo.
As for hurricane projected paths, they're in the same league as NASA
artistic impressions of the far side of the universe. At this point, who
cares? I certainly don't.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"I believe that in all its branches, physics is still an experimental
science." -- Philip Anderson.
| |
| Toon Moene 2004-09-19, 9:01 am |
| Gerry Thomas wrote:
> The commonly accepted meaning of "post hoc" is the fallacy in believing
> that temporal succession implies a causal relation. The Dutchman's dilatory
> modeling of the past, no matter how accurate it might be (here I'm giving
> him the benefit of the doubt), doesn't imply that it's even remotely
> applicable to the next fs. Ergo.
Ah, I see your point - perhaps I didn't explain the reason for the rerun
well enough (other than that the data became available).
From the point of view of the Dutch Weather Service (founded in 1854 by
Buys Ballot), the forecast of the storm of Feb. 1, 1953 was a good one -
it was accurate and timely according to the state of the art at that time.
Nowadays, we routinely forecast such storms 36 to 48 hours in advance;
the obvious (scientific) question is: Was that possible with the storm
of 1953, too ?
My rerun proved that we can nowadays forecast this exact storm just as
well as others that we have to cope with in 2004.
This *is* a remarkable conclusion, because 1953 was in the pre-satellite
era and other (classical) observations were fewer, too.
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
A maintainer of GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/
| |
| Dan Tex1 2004-09-19, 8:58 pm |
| From: Gib Bogle bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz
>Gerry Thomas wrote:
>
Lot's deleted here
>
>Therapy.
Therapy doesn't work on trolls. To get therapy, they'd have to leave their
computers and venture into the real world for a period of time. That doesn't
appear to happen too often. In the real world, they'd get stomped and kicked
and beat down constantly for acting like trolls.
Although, I've heard that some trolls are actually chameleons. When at home,
safe in front of their computers they become brave little obnoxious trolls ( I
should emphasise the word "little" ). But... when out in the real world,
they're usually just little, frail, gy people who are afraid of their own
shadows.
Dan :-)
| |
| Aardpig 2004-09-19, 8:58 pm |
| Dan Tex1 wrote:
> From: Gib Bogle bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz
>
>
>
>
> Lot's deleted here
>
>
>
>
> Therapy doesn't work on trolls. To get therapy, they'd have to leave their
> computers and venture into the real world for a period of time. That doesn't
> appear to happen too often. In the real world, they'd get stomped and kicked
> and beat down constantly for acting like trolls.
> Although, I've heard that some trolls are actually chameleons. When at home,
> safe in front of their computers they become brave little obnoxious trolls ( I
> should emphasise the word "little" ). But... when out in the real world,
> they're usually just little, frail, gy people who are afraid of their own
> shadows.
That's interesting -- I'd always imagined Gerry Thomas as more the wife
beater sort -- if not physically, at least psychologically. But maybe
that's what you're saying -- he only abuses those who can't touch him back.
Aardpig
| |
| beliavsky@aol.com 2004-09-20, 4:02 pm |
| Janne Blomqvist <jblomqvi@roskaposti.invalid> wrote in message news:<slrnckjkgg.t64.jblomqvi@vipunen.hut.fi>...
> beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
>
> It's also on slashdot, the beacon of eternal wisdom.
>
> Some golden nuggets from the comments:
>
> "The models -- actually complicated software written in a computer
> language called Fortran -- attempt to account for everything happening
> in the atmosphere on a global basis." Now, this is a scary thought why
> on earth would they write the applications in Fortran? I would assume
> they would want to have this be a scalable and open platform.
>
>
> ...complicated software written in a computer language called Fortran...
>
> Huh. Not Java, or maybe even Ruby [ruby-lang.org]?
>
>
>
> Anyway, no need to worry, the situation is not as bad as the comments
> above might imply. There's plenty of answers correcting those
> misguided souls. ;-)
On his blog at http://chaoticcoyote.blogspot.com/ Scott Robert Ladd
makes a good case for Fortran 95:
"On a related topic: There's a Slashdot discussion underway, in which
some people express surprise that most hurricane models have been
written in Fortran. It seems that Fortran is still considered "old
fashioned" by many programmers raised on C and Java.
Fortran 95 offers a number of facilities unavailable in C, C++, or
most other languages. This includes some built-in support for
parallelism, simplified and powerful array processing, and a lack of
aliasing problems. Fortran 95 is structured and modular, and can take
advantage of a vast Fortran library comprised of tested, certified,
and trusted numerical code.
It's a matter of using the right tool for the job -- and understanding
the limitations and strengths of your tools in light of the problem
being solved."
| |
| Jim Andrews 2004-09-20, 4:02 pm |
| "Gerry Thomas" <gfthomas@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<VsR2d.16746$lb5.1387298@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> "Pterostyrax" <pterostyrax@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9ce5e122.0409170651.59f32e28@posting.google.com...
> Besides,
> to
>
> Who knows or cares whether your idle speculations are valid or otherwise?
> Post hoc models are entirely nonpredictive. Who underwrites these so-called
> models of reality? nobody, and neither should you unless you're an even
> bigger dolt than I suspect.
I've been a gongoozler on these forums long enough. Now you've
stepped into a territory that you clearly have no earthly clue as to
what you are talking about, which also shows that you don't have any
idea how science works. We are going to find out who the jobbernowl
on c.l.f. really is. I suspect it will be you, as you are the premier
atrabilious purveyor of mundungus on this forum. Listen up closely.
I'm going to give you a lesson in how science works. You just might
have a chance of filling up what might clearly become a large portion
of your brain with some useful knowledge. Based on your history of
posts, I suspect your highest level of knowledge consists more of
metoposcopy, podomancy, chiromancy, astrology, numerology, and
creation science rather than anything remotely related to science.
Here is how science works. One observes the behavior in the world
around us. One sees a pattern. One hypothesizes how that pattern
might come about. If one is really clever, one casts their hypothesis
of this behavior in terms of a mathematical formulation, or "model" if
you will. All well and good, but so far, this is nothing more than,
in your words, idle speculation. Until one compares it with data or
real world observations, it is nothing more than a philosphy, which is
how knowledge progressed for milennia. This hypothesis or philosophy
may or may not have anything to do with reality.
So, once one has developed a mathematical model of some real world
behavior, one has to compare it to actual observations, which are by
definition, in the past, in order to determine if one has actually hit
upon something useful, or if one is really are as full of shit as you
so eloquently show that you are nearly everytime you engage in
floccinaucinihilipilification and jactitation with your clinquant,
gallimaufric, etaoin shrdlu posts on this forum. If one doesn't
compare theory to observations, then all one has put forth is a
philosophy, which may end up of some value, but patently has nothing
to do with science. I assume from your rodomontade posts that you
might be familiar with this concept, but I'm probably wrong.
This is why it is not only useful, but ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to compare
model results with observations, which, again, by DEFINITION, have
occurred in the past. How far in the past is irrelevant, a term with
which you are clearly familiar with. The more one does this, the more
confidence one gains in having developed something that is useful.
This is what separates science from all other human endeavors that
attempt to make sense out of the apparent chaos swirling all around
us. One compares theory with observed data in the scientific world.
To deem any of these comparisons as irrelevant is conclusive proof
that you should go join one of the many pseudoscience newsgroups where
I am certain you will be welcomed with open arms, if not possibly a
savior to all of the minions enamored with pseudoscience.
Suspecting that you are not capable of wrapping your brain around the
above concept of how science really works, I will try to put it in
terms you might have a chance of grasping by giving you a concrete
example. Sir Isaac Newton, a chap who I suspect you are not familiar
with but nevertheless invented calculus among other things, used
science to develop his theory of how matter behaves in motion. He
found that every time he made measurements, or observations, that
matter did indeed behave as his mathematical postulations proposed
they would behave. Others also found out that every time they made
measurements on matter in motion, that they obeyed Newton's
mathematical formulations. Eventually, they became Laws, but, and
this is the important but, they never would have become Laws without
comparisons to observed data. They would have been philosophical
musings and nothing more.
You may now continue with your ultracrepidarion, sciolist musings, as
I am certain you are incapable of acknowledging your severe
limitations in the scientific arena, which you have so vaingloriously
proved with your previous posts on this topic.
Have a nice day.
| |
| Kevin G. Rhoads 2004-09-20, 4:02 pm |
| >Go back and take a look at the projected paths of the
>hurricanes this season. They were just about spot on with their
>projections.
Objective evidence is believeable only when it conforms to prejudice.
Experimental error, chance, accident, forgery, hoax, even swamp gas ;-)
anything and everything will be invoked to "prove" why the evidence
is false...
I wish it weren't so, but ...
| |
| Dr Chaos 2004-09-20, 4:02 pm |
| Gerry Thomas wrote:
> "Rich Townsend" <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:cihocu$psa$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu...
>
>
> otherwise?
>
>
> so-called
>
>
>
> Mr. Rich:
>
> My c.l.f. post was specific to the Dutchman's claim that ca. 50 years after
> the event he claimed to have 'predicted' anything of any importance to
> anyone other than himself. Most rational beings would rightly scoff at this
> unscientific pretentious claim, the contempt of the weather man being
> universally acclaimed. How this prompted one "Pterostyrax" to consult his
> crystal balls to apply it prospectively boggles; only the irrational would
> do so.
>
>
>
>
> The commonly accepted meaning of "post hoc" is the fallacy in believing
> that temporal succession implies a causal relation. The Dutchman's dilatory
> modeling of the past, no matter how accurate it might be (here I'm giving
> him the benefit of the doubt), doesn't imply that it's even remotely
> applicable to the next fs. Ergo.
>
> As for hurricane projected paths, they're in the same league as NASA
> artistic impressions of the far side of the universe. At this point, who
> cares? I certainly don't.
As I had a friend in Florida, I took particular interest in this and
looked frequently at the model forecasts. For the last two major
storms, the GFDL model was bang-on.
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-21, 4:00 am |
|
"Toon Moene" <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote in message
news:414d7250$0$3889$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net...
> Gerry Thomas wrote:
>
dilatory[color=darkred]
giving[color=darkred]
>
> Ah, I see your point - perhaps I didn't explain the reason for the rerun
> well enough (other than that the data became available).
Well thank you that you're not bullssitting like the run-of-the-mill
FORTRAN gombeen.
>
> From the point of view of the Dutch Weather Service (founded in 1854 by
> Buys Ballot), the forecast of the storm of Feb. 1, 1953 was a good one -
> it was accurate and timely according to the state of the art at that
time.
>
> Nowadays, we routinely forecast such storms 36 to 48 hours in advance;
> the obvious (scientific) question is: Was that possible with the storm
> of 1953, too ?
>
> My rerun proved that we can nowadays forecast this exact storm just as
> well as others that we have to cope with in 2004.
>
> This *is* a remarkable conclusion, because 1953 was in the pre-satellite
> era and other (classical) observations were fewer, too.
>
Thanks for your rational contribution to this thread, apart from my own:
the abortive thrust of others seems to have surpassed even the usual
baloney that is customary of c.l.f. unintelligencia. BTW, say Hi to Peter
Lynch when you next see him and that I liked his recent article on a
swirling pendulum in Proc. Roy. Soc., or whereever, brought back old
memories.
--
Ciao,
Gerry T.
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-21, 4:00 am |
|
"Aardpig" <aardpig@nospam> wrote in message
news:4pmdnRou0sEijtPcRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> Dan Tex1 wrote:
otherwise?[color=darkred]
so-called[color=darkred]
even[color=darkred]
their[color=darkred]
doesn't[color=darkred]
kicked[color=darkred]
at home,[color=darkred]
trolls ( I[color=darkred]
world,[color=darkred]
their own[color=darkred]
>
> That's interesting -- I'd always imagined Gerry Thomas as more the wife
> beater sort -- if not physically, at least psychologically. But maybe
> that's what you're saying -- he only abuses those who can't touch him
back.
>
> Aardpig
My wife is an MD, FRCP, with a certification in psychiatry. I regularly
discuss c.l.f. kooks with her and right now you're a high value entity, so
keep it coming.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Don't play dumb! You're not as good at it as I am!" -- Col Sam Flagg,
ICORPS dropin to the 4077th M*A*S*H
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-21, 4:00 am |
|
"Dan Tex1" <dantex1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040919175050.21374.00000698@mb-m15.aol.com...
Dim Dan:
You still don't understand that you're as dumb as ditch water and you
likely never will!
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Don't play dumb! You're not as good at it as I am!" -- Col Sam Flagg,
ICORPS dropin to the 4077th M*A*S*H
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-21, 4:00 am |
|
"Jim Andrews" <colet@eas.pdx.edu> wrote in message
news:6e1c07a4.0409200829.4637553@posting.google.com...
You're the biggest bullshitter since George Bush or John Kerry. Either way,
you loose, but you're used to that.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Ah, Klinger, my constant reminder that Darwin was right!." -- Maj Charles
Winchester III, the 4077th M*A*S*H
| |
| Gareth Owen 2004-09-21, 9:04 am |
| "Gerry Thomas" <gfthomas@sympatico.ca> writes:
> My wife is an MD, FRCP, with a certification in psychiatry.
How did you meet?
--
Gareth Owen
Bleeding Ponytail (n):
An elderly sold-out baby boomer who pines for hippie or pre-sellout days.
| |
| John B. Coarsey, P.E. 2004-09-21, 9:04 am |
|
"Gerry Thomas" <gfthomas@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:axO3d.12983$pA.791960@news20.bellglobal.com...[color=darkred]
>
> "Toon Moene" <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote in message
> news:414d7250$0$3889$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net...
<<bs snipped>>
pack up and leave!
| |
| John B. Coarsey, P.E. 2004-09-21, 9:04 am |
|
"Gerry Thomas" <gfthomas@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:VLO3d.12985$pA.794332@news20.bellglobal.com...[color=darkred]
>
> "Aardpig" <aardpig@nospam> wrote in message
> news:4pmdnRou0sEijtPcRVn-gw@comcast.com...
<<bs snipped>>
pack up and leave!!
| |
| Gary L. Scott 2004-09-21, 9:04 am |
| Gerry Thomas wrote:
> "Gary L. Scott" <garyscott@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10kph1qhkpt0eed@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> solace
>
>
> otherwise?
>
>
> even
>
>
>
> Sorry to hear that your pooch has been acting out again. The best therapy
> is to give it a good kick in the ass but I guess you do that so often that
> it's efficacy has shrunk to naught. So shaft the little bugger if you
> haven't already done so.
>
>
I seem to have missed this one. Thanks so much for the concern for my
pet. She's much better now.
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garyscott@ev1.net
Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html
Why are there two? God only knows.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep, voting on what to eat for dinner...
Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote. - Thomas Jefferson
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-21, 8:57 pm |
|
"Gareth Owen" <usenet@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r5illf4huxp.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk...
> "Gerry Thomas" <gfthomas@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>
> How did you meet?
At the Golf & Country Club. Do we have here a little naughty voyeur?
Now naff off.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"I'm a life long Anglophile. England is still the only place I know where
any young man can grow up to be the Queen." -- Capt Hawkeye Pierce, the
4077th M*A*S*H
> --
> Gareth Owen
> Bleeding Ponytail (n):
> An elderly sold-out baby boomer who pines for hippie or pre-sellout
days.
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-21, 8:57 pm |
|
"John B. Coarsey, P.E. @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
news:2rahedF17foc1U1@uni-berlin.de...
New fodder, for you I'll make an exception and stay.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Ah, Klinger, my constant reminder that Darwin was right!." -- Maj Charles
Winchester III, the 4077th M*A*S*H
| |
| Gib Bogle 2004-09-22, 3:58 am |
| Gerry Thomas wrote:
> "Jim Andrews" <colet@eas.pdx.edu> wrote in message
> news:6e1c07a4.0409200829.4637553@posting.google.com...
>
> You're the biggest bullshitter since George Bush or John Kerry. Either way,
> you loose, but you're used to that.
I think you mean "you lose", unless you are using some street lingo.
"Loose" means "not tight".
Hope that helps
Gib
| |
| Dan Tex1 2004-09-22, 3:58 am |
| >From: "Gerry Thomas" gfthomas@sympatico.ca
>Date: 9/20/2004 10:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3QO3d.12987$pA.794843@news20.bellglobal.com>
>
>
>"Dan Tex1" <dantex1@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040919175050.21374.00000698@mb-m15.aol.com...
>
>Dim Dan:
>
>You still don't understand that you're as dumb as ditch water and you
>likely never will!
And yet.... I'm still smarter than you are. And... you're still just a
dirty smudge on an otherwise shiny and clean glob of sludge.
Dan :-)
| |
| Rich Townsend 2004-09-22, 3:58 am |
| Gib Bogle wrote:
> Gerry Thomas wrote:
>
>
>
> I think you mean "you lose", unless you are using some street lingo.
> "Loose" means "not tight".
>
> Hope that helps
> Gib
>
Classic G.T -- delusions of adequacy, all the while posting messages
that are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors.
--
Dr Richard H D Townsend
Bartol Research Institute
University of Delaware
[ Delete VOID for valid email address ]
| |
|
| On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 at 01:13 GMT, Rich Townsend (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Classic G.T -- delusions of adequacy, all the while posting messages
> that are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors.
Come, people. Just killfile the bloke. Unless you really do enjoy
bashing little puppies with a spoon.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
"These people [spam fighters] will go to the lowest depths,"
-- Tom Cowles, spammer and convicted thief.
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-25, 9:00 am |
|
"Dan Tex1" <dantex1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040921205517.23043.00000921@mb-m12.aol.com...
>
> And yet.... I'm still smarter than you are. And... you're still just
a
> dirty smudge on an otherwise shiny and clean glob of sludge.
Dim Dan:
You'll forever be an insignificant turd in the cesspool of organic gung,
but everyone already nose (especially the Andy Capp of c.l.f.) that, so
wats els is knew?
E&OE, and fook yu Andy Capp (sic mr rich townesended, U of HPaware or is it
Dell?)
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Don't play dumb! You're not as good at it as I am!" -- Col Sam Flagg,
ICORPS dropin to the 4077th M*A*S*H
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-25, 9:00 am |
|
"Gib Bogle" <g.bogle@nospam.auckland.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:4150cd27$1@news.auckland.ac.nz...
> Gerry Thomas wrote:
way,[color=darkred]
>
> I think you mean "you lose", unless you are using some street lingo.
> "Loose" means "not tight".
>
> Hope that helps
> Gib
>
Actually no, it doesn't help. As applied to faggots, "Loose" means "not
tight", but then you clearly new dat like others of your ilk, eh!
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Ah, Klinger, my constant reminder that Darwin was right!." -- Maj Charles
Winchester III, the 4077th M*A*S*H
| |
| Gerry Thomas 2004-09-29, 5:00 am |
|
"James Giles" <jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:yZF2d.602025$Gx4.417477@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Said nothing, but what else is new?
> Especially since there has yet to be any objective evidence that
> the OO paradigm make code more re-usable.
Beats me how you got it into your numbskull that OO is supposed to make
code re-usable. Often it does but consider that as a bonus.
My money is on Koller's demonstration that Bayesian networks -
computational devices for reasoning based on uncertain information - can be
organized in OO networks
http://www.macfound.org/programs/fe...ller_daphne.htm
..
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea which could only
have originated in California." -- E. Dijkstra.
|
|
|
|
|