Your posts provide evidence that you appear to be a troll, while your description of another as scientifically illiterate is your opinion.  If I call you stupid, that is an epithet.  If I comment that your IQ test shows you fit in the psychological category of moron, that is just a statement based on evidence.

Occam

Occam. - 05 November 2012 11:45 AM

Your posts provide evidence that you appear to be a troll, while your description of another as scientifically illiterate is your opinion.  If I call you stupid, that is an epithet.  If I comment that your IQ test shows you fit in the psychological category of moron, that is just a statement based on evidence.

Occam

A troll is someone who posts inflammatory messages with the sole intention of causing disorder. You have no evidence that my intention is merely to create disorder as opposed to simply trying to get people to think by issuing statements that you don’t like. So you have an opinion or belief with absolutely no supporting evidence. As such you are engaging in name calling not merely issuing evidence based statements.

Scientific illiteracy involves among other things, holding beliefs despite having absolutely no evidence to support these beliefs. So if I refer to someone who believes things without having supporting evidence as being a science illiterate that is an accurate negative characterization not an epithet or name calling.

Michael, I suggest you read the forum rules and pay particular attention to 3e and 3f.

Also, as a general point, telling forum moderators they do not know what they are talking about is a bad idea.

This 9/11 business is rather curious in its resemblance to the Anthropogenic Climate Change debate.  Lots of people seem to believe either way but it can be hard to tell if they believe what they do for rational reasons.  The difference is that the majority of climate experts seem to be reasonably vocal and in agreement but on 9/11 Affair the majority of people who should be experts are remaining silent.

But another factor in the issue is the computer models.

Climate Modeling 101 - Grid Resolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz2YZoRLIs

These are the grid sizes mentioned in the video:

1980s   40*96
1990s   80*192
2004   200*360   24up 50down
2009   1070*1440

I did this calculation:

200×360×24×30 = 51,840,000

1,070*1,440×24×30 = 1,109,376,000

I used 30 down for the oceans on the 2004 numbers since the majority of the planet is ocean but not all of it.

This is probably more accurate:

0.25×200×360×24+0.75×200×360×24×50 = 65,232,000

or

0.30×200×360×24+0.70×200×360×24×50 = 60,998,400

In any case the calculations must be done on tens of millions of temperature regions each of which contacts 6 other regions.

The heart of NCCS is the “Discover” supercomputer. In 2009, NCCS added more than 8,000 computer processors to Discover, for a total of nearly 15,000 processors.  The new processors are from Intel’s latest Xeon 5500 series, which uses the Nehalem architecture introduced in spring 2009.  Discover-hosted simulations span time scales from days (weather prediction) to seasons and years (short-term climate prediction) to decades and centuries (climate change projection).

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate-sim-center.html

The expansion added 4,128 computer processors to Goddard’s Discover high-end computing system. The IBM iDataPlex “scalable unit” uses Intel’s newest Xeon 5500 series processors, which are based on the Nehalem architecture introduced in spring 2009.

Discover will be hosting climate simulations for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City and Goddard’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO). Stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will enable installation of another 4,128 Nehalem processors this fall, bringing Discover to 15,160 processors.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/climate_computing.html

Climate modelers and software engineers now expect that on a somewhat faster machine, such as a Cray T3E1200 with 256 processors, one year of simulation with the full Parallel Climate Model will take only about 1.5 hour of wall-clock time. The same holds for newer 128-processor IBM and SGI machines.

http://www.cparity.com/projects/AcmClassification/samples/332077.pdf

to be continued…

In 2012, DOE granted Washington’s team and their project, the Climate End Station, a total of 86 million processor hours through the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment program. The team has 56 million processor hours on Jaguar and 30 million processor hours on Argonne National Laboratory’s supercomputer to generate climate simulations. This is equivalent to the power of 28 million dualcore laptops for one hour. However, unlike millions of separate laptops, Jaguar’s massive array of parallel processors are interconnected, allowing them to perform millions of calculations simultaneously and making more complex simulations possible.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v45_3_12/article08.shtml

For example, our team’s first baseline experiment will require a total of 200 simulated years. For such a simulation to occur within the timeframe of a single supercomputer resource allocation (typically one year), an integration rate of multiple
simulated years per day is required. A high-resolution, century-long climate experiment of the type contemplated here requires enormous amounts of computer time – on the order of 8 million CPU-hours per simulated century.

https://cug.org/5-publications/proceedings_attendee_lists/CUG09CD/S09_Proceedings/pages/authors/01-5Monday/4C-Loft/loft-paper.pdf

“8 million CPU-hours per simulated century”

But how does that compare to modeling the north tower crash into the World Trade Center?

100 hours, 8 processors, 0.5 sec
30 hours, 16 processors, 0.37 sec

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

800 CPU-hours and 480 CPU-hours

It took about 80 hours using a high-performance computer containing 16 processors to produce the first simulation

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/2006/060911.Sozen.WTC.html

1280 CPU-hours

Computational Issues
Impact simulations were performed using the nonlinear finite-element-based dynamic analysis software LS-DYNA [version 970 r5434a SMP] (LSTC 2005) on the IBM multi-processor nanoregatta computer system at Purdue University. Typically, we simulated the first 0.5 second of the time after impact and used adaptive incremental approach resulting in an average of 1.0x10-6 sec time-steps.

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/distribution/PapersChron/WTC_I_Engineering_Perspective.pdf

Simulating the collapse of a WTC tower should be relatively trivial compared to a climate simulation.  There were 2,800 perimeter panels from the 9th floor to the top and fewer than 2,000 column sections in the core.  There were probably about 9,000 horizontal beams in the core.  So 50,000 components would probably be enough for a good WTC simulation so there should not be a problem with having to do it well in the last 10 years.  It is not much compared to a climate simulation with millions of cells.

How much computing power was needed to design the WTC?  It was done in the early 60s.  The SR-71 Blackbird was flying at 2,000 mph in 1964.  That is more impressive than a skyscraper.  The groundbreaking for the WTC was in 1966.  So the computing power available at the time was not too impressive compared to the 1980s when some early climate models were done, but the buildings stood for 28 years and withstood 100 mph winds on several occasions.  I have not heard about the Empire State Building or any other skyscrapers failing because of Sandy’s fury.

So it is certainly curious that with the computing power available almost 40 years after completion of the towers we can’t get a good computer simulation of the supposed collapses with publicly available data, human readable, and yet people who believe that good climate simulations are possible do not have a problem with a lack of satisfactory building collapse models.

So with global warming we are dealing with a huge object with lots of unknowns that have yet to be resolved.  But with the 9/11 problem we have a man made object of the kind of which hundreds have been built around the world and yet everyone cannot concede that we should have information as simple as the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.  The steel had a kind of feedback loop.  The more steel put near the top meant it had to be supported from below by more steel.

9/11 is a scientific farce.  It is hardly sophisticated enough to be dignified with being called a fraud.

[5706]
psik

So what is the story with Fullerton?  His profile says this:

The following errors were encountered

  The member profile you requested is currently not available

psik

psikeyhackr - 06 November 2012 06:42 AM

9/11 is a scientific farce.  It is hardly sophisticated enough to be dignified with being called a fraud.

The only farce here is your blindingly obvious ignorance of the square cube function of scaling, hence your completely flawed arguments and hilariously pathetic Youtube ‘model’ of the WTF tower.

Robert Walper - 07 November 2012 09:38 PM

psikeyhackr - 06 November 2012 06:42 AM

9/11 is a scientific farce.  It is hardly sophisticated enough to be dignified with being called a fraud.

The only farce here is your blindingly obvious ignorance of the square cube function of scaling, hence your completely flawed arguments and hilariously pathetic Youtube ‘model’ of the WTF tower.

You have talked this BS before and I responded before:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/169825/

I am deliberately using a weaker material than the WTC to compensate for scale.

[5882]
psik

psikeyhackr - 08 November 2012 08:23 AM

You have talked this BS before and I responded before:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/169825/

I am deliberately using a weaker material than the WTC to compensate for scale.

[5882]
psik

Further proving you are completely ignorant of the issue. A paper airplane can survive a high fall with very little structural damage, while a full scale plane built of much stronger materials falling from an relatively equivalent height would be completely destroyed.

Your ignorance is appalling and I seriously question your honesty if you think your argument has any validity whatsoever.

Tell me psik, if I throw a paper airplane off of the roof of a building and it lands uncontrolled with little damage, do you conclude that vastly larger full scale planes crashing and being destroyed from relatively similar heights is proof of ‘something else going on’? After all, said paper airplane was made of much weaker material, just like your WTC ‘model’.

Robert, you can argue against them, but while a number of us disagree with Psikeyhackr’s views, he does have the right to state them without being insulted.  You may want to read the Forum Rules, and as DarronS pointed out, particularly 3e and 3f.  Continued insults are considered banning offenses.

Occam

Robert Walper - 08 November 2012 09:48 AM

Further proving you are completely ignorant of the issue. A paper airplane can survive a high fall with very little structural damage, while a full scale plane built of much stronger materials falling from an relatively equivalent height would be completely destroyed.

You just demonstrated your ignorance of the issue.

A paper airplane could not fly holding my washers.

You have changed the subject from scaling to the material involved.  A paper airplane would involve air resistance relative to the weight.  That has nothing to do with my collapse model.

psik

To the mods & admins: If we ever make my When Will it End? forum, dump all this 9/11 conspiracy garbage in it too.

  And don’t forget the free will and coins in envelopes ones. 

Occam

psikeyhackr - 06 November 2012 06:42 AM

In 2012, DOE granted Washington’s team and their project, the Climate End Station, a total of 86 million processor hours through the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment program. The team has 56 million processor hours on Jaguar and 30 million processor hours on Argonne National Laboratory’s supercomputer to generate climate simulations. This is equivalent to the power of 28 million dualcore laptops for one hour. However, unlike millions of separate laptops, Jaguar’s massive array of parallel processors are interconnected, allowing them to perform millions of calculations simultaneously and making more complex simulations possible.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v45_3_12/article08.shtml

For example, our team’s first baseline experiment will require a total of 200 simulated years. For such a simulation to occur within the timeframe of a single supercomputer resource allocation (typically one year), an integration rate of multiple
simulated years per day is required. A high-resolution, century-long climate experiment of the type contemplated here requires enormous amounts of computer time – on the order of 8 million CPU-hours per simulated century.

https://cug.org/5-publications/proceedings_attendee_lists/CUG09CD/S09_Proceedings/pages/authors/01-5Monday/4C-Loft/loft-paper.pdf

“8 million CPU-hours per simulated century”

But how does that compare to modeling the north tower crash into the World Trade Center?

LL.  Neither you nor anyone else has shown evidence of some other scenario regarding the WTC.  All you do is criticize the computer models and generally accepted explanations.  You offer no rational alternative explanation.  Those who try to offer absolutely no evidence for their speculations.  There may be some flaws in the computer models or accepted explanations but they have scientific probability on their side.  Deniers have not a scintilla of evidence on theirs. You find flaws in the computer models buy fail to realize that your own scenarios are not just flawed but irrational on their face.  You don’t even have a rational explanation as to what you think actually happened if the computer models are wrong.  All anyone has to offer are unlikely or downright impossible scenarios.  You’d be better off writing science fiction and calling it that upfront.  Maybe you could actually get it published and have it read. 

....

100 hours, 8 processors, 0.5 sec
30 hours, 16 processors, 0.37 sec

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

800 CPU-hours and 480 CPU-hours

It took about 80 hours using a high-performance computer containing 16 processors to produce the first simulation

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/2006/060911.Sozen.WTC.html

1280 CPU-hours

Computational Issues
Impact simulations were performed using the nonlinear finite-element-based dynamic analysis software LS-DYNA [version 970 r5434a SMP] (LSTC 2005) on the IBM multi-processor nanoregatta computer system at Purdue University. Typically, we simulated the first 0.5 second of the time after impact and used adaptive incremental approach resulting in an average of 1.0x10-6 sec time-steps.

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/distribution/PapersChron/WTC_I_Engineering_Perspective.pdf

Simulating the collapse of a WTC tower should be relatively trivial compared to a climate simulation.  There were 2,800 perimeter panels from the 9th floor to the top and fewer than 2,000 column sections in the core.  There were probably about 9,000 horizontal beams in the core.  So 50,000 components would probably be enough for a good WTC simulation so there should not be a problem with having to do it well in the last 10 years.  It is not much compared to a climate simulation with millions of cells.

How much computing power was needed to design the WTC?  It was done in the early 60s.  The SR-71 Blackbird was flying at 2,000 mph in 1964.  That is more impressive than a skyscraper.  The groundbreaking for the WTC was in 1966.  So the computing power available at the time was not too impressive compared to the 1980s when some early climate models were done, but the buildings stood for 28 years and withstood 100 mph winds on several occasions.  I have not heard about the Empire State Building or any other skyscrapers failing because of Sandy’s fury.

So it is certainly curious that with the computing power available almost 40 years after completion of the towers we can’t get a good computer simulation of the supposed collapses with publicly available data, human readable, and yet people who believe that good climate simulations are possible do not have a problem with a lack of satisfactory building collapse models.

So with global warming we are dealing with a huge object with lots of unknowns that have yet to be resolved.  But with the 9/11 problem we have a man made object of the kind of which hundreds have been built around the world and yet everyone cannot concede that we should have information as simple as the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.  The steel had a kind of feedback loop.  The more steel put near the top meant it had to be supported from below by more steel.

9/11 is a scientific farce.  It is hardly sophisticated enough to be dignified with being called a fraud.

[5706]
psik

My previous post seems to have not come out the way I intended and got lost in the middle of the post I was responding to. Eeven though I deliberately wrote my comments at the very end of the quoted material, somehow they wound up in the middle of it.

Here’s what I wrote:

  Neither you nor anyone else has shown evidence of some other scenario regarding the WTC.  All you do is criticize the computer models and generally accepted explanations.  You offer no rational alternative explanation.  Those who try to offer absolutely no evidence for their speculations.  There may be some flaws in the computer models or accepted explanations but they have scientific probability on their side.  Deniers have not a scintilla of evidence on theirs. You find flaws in the computer models buy fail to realize that your own scenarios are not just flawed but irrational on their face.  You don’t even have a rational explanation as to what you think actually happened if the computer models are wrong.  All anyone has to offer are unlikely or downright impossible scenarios.  You’d be better off writing science fiction and calling it that upfront.  Maybe you could actually get it published and have it read.