From: John K Clark (johnkclark@fastmail.fm)
Date: Mon Feb 23 2009 - 14:20:27 MST
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 "Johnicholas Hines"
<johnicholas.hines@gmail.com> said:
> My claim is I think we should consider the expert
> opinion that "there's no weather underneath" as relevant
I agree, except that you don’t need to be an expert to know that both
simulations stink. The first one makes clouds that are too blurry, and
clouds are already pretty damn blurry; and your second simulation
doesn’t even understand the concept of temperature. Yes, you are right,
there is no weather underneath, in fact there is no "there" there. You
have categorically proven with absolutely no doubt that lousy
simulations are, well, lousy. There is simply no doubt about it.
Congratulations.
John K Clark
--
John K Clark
johnkclark@fastmail.fm
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
wherever you are
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT