Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

That their perform is uniform? wtf are you talkinig about, What you stupidly describe as uniform is standardisation. So that developers can develop interfacing tech, they design the interface knowing how to inteface, they do not need to know how it was designed or the science behind it

I use software that turns my code into code the processor can understand. I don't need to know how the processor processes the binary code, I don't even need to know binary, I need the data on how much data can be processed and limitations.

There are many different types of processors you dope, each built to a standard for interoperability so as to allow development of accompanying tech. Everyone can't know everything which is why tech is modular, so each part can be developed independently by different developers.

A java developer doesn't need to know how to create an operating system or a processor, he\she only needs to know relevant data about those things, data on performance and features, not the science that created them. You are ****ing hilarious

I am gonna send this link to some of my collleagues for the laugh

 

As for climate change Tobes.

Yes the whole thing is a minefield but only one side is getting air time an the other whitewashed, it's half science.

 

Yeah lad, share with them your complete crank personality, dope habit and mental views on the likes of 9/11.

Top career move

 

But that's my entire point ffs!

You're doing the converse, putting up stats that have been compiled to argue the opposite view to the mainstream scientific opinion on the subject.

You're also only applying a 'half science' to the entire subject, as you've nailed your colours to the mast. What you're doing here is **** all to do with science and everything to do with creating a narrative that justifies your decision

 

Ignore the rest of the post eh, that makes a total mockery of what you say, you are not even close to understanding and the more you try pretend you understand it the more you look like an idiot because of you arrogance.

Here is the meaning of Uniform

identical or consistent, as from example to example, place to place, or moment to moment.

I am not laughing at you because you are incorrect I am laughing at you because you think you are more qualified to tell me what's what in my own field of expertise That is how arrogant and ignorant you are, It explains your really ****ed up view on everything.

 

You really haven't got a clue what I meant have you? Ok love x

 

I have been posting scientific study findings that refute the IPCC. There is to date no evidence CO2 causes climate change, nothing empirical.

I am providing empirical data like ice levels that refute IPCC assertions and predictions. It is enough to throw the claims out of the window.

 

That's your getout clause?

#meltdown

 

I've often wondered if the sun is the source of all the energy in our solar system, and if it is the prime factor in our weather systems on earth. Perhaps nobody else has ever thought this.

 

So as I was saying Tobes, you do not need to know the science to understand data. You need to know the science to produce the data, which is what set you off of this fruitless path where you got mullered.

I can understand temps and create plots in excel and produce data with that data without ever knowing how science prodced the temps, like teh sattelites that collected the temp or the mathematics used to average them, I only need the data that comes out the backend of the process
It's as simple as that my arrogant ignorant friend/.

 

A processor is a machine you ****ing idiot. It's designed to have a defined performance and output.

The Climate cannot be viewed the same way, as it's driven by nature and umpteen variables, we can only guess at climate / weather because of it's complexity.

The stats regarding it are therefore open to interpretation and subjective opinion in many cases. Unlike your ****ing processor analogy.

Welcome to the point

Oh and I wasn't trying to tell you anything about your geeky ****ing profession either, I know jack **** about it and have never professed to. But you don't need to understand binary code to understand that your analogy was a crock of ****, you docile melt.

 

I see what you did there

 

"A processor is a machine you ****ing idiot. It's designed to have a defined performance and output."

No a processor is designed to have a performance range and technologies that certain applications can avail of like special instruction sets to support applications, not all processors have the same features and instruction sets, cache, clock speed and so on.

Intel processors can offer the same features as AMD processors and while supporting features will be a standardised, tech shared the processors will be technically different in fundtion and physically requiring differnt type slots. Two same clock speed processors can perform very differently.

That's why the data from the manufacturer and data you can get yourself from testing, as we do often in IT, is important, all without knowing the underlying science used to create the processor.

We can understand the performance data, without needing to be PhDs in mathematics, and you need your degree in mathematics to be able to design a processor.
You keep reading snippets, you can't learn these things and understand them by your usual jumping on to sites quickly to try grasp what the **** you are talking about.

 

Who said they did?

But a particular model is designed to perform in a certain way ffs, it's hardly bastard rocket science this.

You're either being obtuse or you're trying to over complicate what was a very simple point, in order to try and gain some sort of 'advantage' in your own head.

I'm beyond bored with it.

 

I can't believe I've been talking about processors so much because of cman made climate change. You're ****ing mental Tobes.

SO hell bent on being right It's all some game to you.

 

You fail to understand your own argument.
We are talking about understanding data without understanding the science behind it.

I''ve shown quite clearly in the very first instance where I explained how I can understand temp data, I can know it is averaged with algoriths.
I don't know anythng about the satellites, the algorithms, and methodology used to create the temps, I don't need to know any of this I just know that this data is the result of those processes. That's all I need to use that data to tell IF the average global temp is going up or down.

What you just don't get is you need to be able to understand data to use it, ergo if I can use that data to show a warming or cooling trend in excel that means you must understand the data.

FFS like man let it go, you are on to a no winner here mate

 

please log in to view this image

 

I am trying to educate you here lad, it's a worthy cause
Temperature data is just a set of temperature figures, just ****ing numbers you nut case. Do you think the NASA mathematicians know the science behind the satellites? They don't, yet they take the temperature readings and just like me with excel, they use another tool, mathematics and then produce a new set of numbers or a new whole number.

I then, without out knowing wtf they did, have my set of temps, I understand what they are, recorded temperatures. ****ing numbers man, I put them into spreadsheet, I know what to do with them, and create a trend in the data which is new data.

Do this over and over and create a trend over time.

All of this requires no knowledge on my part about all that billions of $$ worth of science that went on to get me those temperature numbers.

It IS that simple

 

Read that post through if you still don't get it then sweet ****ing jebus!

 

Oh no, you're comparing machines to the climate model again ffs.

I give up

Later.