[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.sdk

CodeDOM?

Pham Minh Tuan

7/2/2003 2:17:00 AM

Please,tell me more about CodeDOM!
I read in MSDN but I didn't understand it.
Please give me a sample.
Thanks a lot.
3 Answers

Surfer

12/1/2010 4:11:00 PM

0

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:41:39 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

>
>Is there a
>climate model which successfully predicts the temperature changes in the
>second half of the 19th century....
>

Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE
http://arxiv.org/abs/physi...

Peter Webb

12/1/2010 11:24:00 PM

0


"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:fijcf69a7fbedgatnt0a27qen7busf28te@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 18:05:57 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> And we should compare temperature with CO2 concentration, rather than
>>> with emissions.
>>>
>>> This graph does that and correlation of the two can be seen.
>>> http://zfacts.com/...
>>>
>>
>>No, it doesn't do that. It runs from 1880, not 1850, and so leaves off the
>>period with the lowest CO2 concentrations.
>>
>>It shows temperature decreasing from 1880 to 1910, whereas CO2
>>concentrations increased. How do you explain that?
>>
> To me it looks like a natural temperature fluctuation like those seen
> elsewhere on the graph.
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>And why don't the chnages in the early 20th century also look like
>>"natural
>>fluctuations" to you as well?
>>
> Well the changes in the early 20th century that are natural looking,
> do look natural to me.
>
>>
>>How about the decrese in temperatures from 1940 to 1970? Is this AGW or
>>"natural fluctuations"?
>>
> Clearly not AGW, since CO2 concentration is smoothly increasing.
>
>>
>>Which changes in the graph were due to natural fluctuations, and which due
>>to climate change?
>>
> As a crude technique, since the increase in CO2 concentration is
> smooth, one could draw a smooth curve through the data to estimate the
> increase in temperature due to CO2.
>
> One could then subtract the estimated increase in temperature due to
> CO2 to get the natural fluctuations.
>
> But there is a more sophisticated approach here.
>
> Separating Natural from Anthropogenic Influences in Twentieth Century
> Climate Data Records
> December 2008
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/de...
>

Doesn't even provide a graph of "natural fluctuations".

If our climate is composed of AGW and "natural fluctuations", how come
nobody has produced a graph which shows "natural fluctuations" and AGW
components to temperature?


>>
>>And if you think the temperatures in the 19th century are caused by
>>"natural
>>fluctuations", why did you claim they were due to anthropogenic CO2 right
>>up
>>until you actually saw what the changes were?
>>
> Not sure to what you are referring.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Is there a
>>>>climate model which successfully predicts the temperature changes in the
>>>>second half of the 19th century
>>>
>>> I found this:
>>> http://www.grist.org/article/Looking-for-...
>>> ".....we could compare the last 150 years of observations to climate
>>> model runs for that same period. This has been done, and the models do
>>> a pretty good job...."
>>
>>
>>ROFL.
>>
>>You mean that the best you could find was a comment that somebody had done
>>it and it was OK?
>>
>
> Well, I have now found a graph showing such a comparison from 1880 to
> about 2010.
> http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mo...
>
> It looks very good.
>
>

Except it shows temperatures increasing from 1960 to 1980. The other
temperature graphs show cooling over this period.

Fpr example, why does this show a different temperature record from the one
given by CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/inf...

If we used the temperature record provided by the CRU, it wouldn't look
similar at all.

Somebody has modified the temperature record in your graph to make it look
like there is a correlation when none exists.

Naughty, naughty, naughty.






>
>

kym

12/5/2010 9:05:00 PM

0

On Nov 30, 4:15 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:03:10 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >Different AGW models predictwarming, cooling and no change to
temperatures
> >in the UK, so whatever happens, AGW will be provided correct, right?
> AGW means AnthropogenicGLOBALWarming.
> So the theory will be proved correct if averageGLOBALtemperature
> increases in response to increasingCO2levels.
> What happens locally in the UK won't prove or disprove AGW.


This is the record from the Vostok ice cores appended to the data from
Maunaloa. Quite a little CO2 impulse.

<http://www.kymhorsell.com/graphs/vostok+maunal...

--
Ever seen film of the Polar bear bashing through the ice to get seal
cubs? Less ice more food for the Polar Bear
-- george <gblack@hnpl.net>, 27 Oct 2010 15:55:37 -0700