AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH: Al is missing

[PoppingTom]

Can we still trust the climate change experts or have they been guilty of exaggerating the threat in order to draw attention to their cause?

Yes, off course, the big worldwide climate change conspiracy.

Reads like the big worldwide "earth is a globe"-conspiracy of freaked scientist who don't want to face the truth: earth is a fucking disc, man!

 

[trysail]

Yes, off course, the big worldwide climate change conspiracy.

Reads like the big worldwide "earth is a globe"-conspiracy of freaked scientist who don't want to face the truth: earth is a fucking disc, man!

Temperature records from NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies:

Fort Smith, NWT, Canada
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=403719340000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Coppermine, NWT, Canada
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=403719380005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Anadyr, Siberia, Russia
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=222255630007&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Markovo, Siberia, Russia
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=222255510000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Punta Arenas, Argentina
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=304859340004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

San Antonio, Chile
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=301877840003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Amundsen-Scot, Antarctica
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=700890090008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Davis, Antarctica
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=700895710008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Christchurch, New Zealand
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=507937800000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Hokitika Aero, New Zealand
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=507936150000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

 

[PoppingTom]

I don't see your links self-explaining. That New Zealand, Chile and Argentina show no changes, is possible, but I see changes in temperature in Canada and Siberia.

But maybe I'm too blind to see earth as a disc.

 

[DeeZire]

Just curious here - if all the glaciers melt, would that be considered a weather event, or would that qualify as a climate event?

 

[penandpaper]

Yanno, I'm not a conspiracy theory type but I do worry about data integrity and the exclusion of non-urban weather stations.

When one sees this kind of stuff ( http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm ), it does give one pause for thought.


See also:
http://www.surfacestations.org
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm

Trysail,

I understand you think the data's faulty - and it may be to a point. But, c'mon. Use some common sense. Let's say you're right. The earth isn't warming up. It's cyclical. How does being anti-progress (especially in alternative or cleaner energy) going to help?

That's my question for all the doubters. You post and post and post, yet never offer solutions. Just, look what I can try to disprove. How about this. Come up with a fucking solution. Oops - too late. I did it for you. Free energy.

Y'up think about it. The second you can give free energy to everyone the closer you get to eliminating poverty, hunger, and illiteracy. Unless of course, you are the same people to spout against. The man that keeps you down and spends all your money and taxes you to make sure you don't rise and revolt.

So go ahead - free energy. Come up with something. Anything other than the fucking bitching and constant fake arguments.

 

[TE999]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aetYwnewp2eg

Nuclear Industry Gets Lift, No ‘Renaissance’ From U.S. Loan Aid
By Daniel Whitten

Feb. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Don’t call it a renaissance yet, says John Rowe, who oversees the biggest fleet of nuclear reactors in the U.S.

President Barack Obama’s announcement yesterday that the government will guarantee loans for the country’s first new nuclear plants in 30 years is a necessary move that won’t in itself spur a revival of the dormant industry, said Rowe, chief executive officer of Chicago-based Exelon Corp.

“We may see more and faster development of new plants now,” said Rowe, whose company operates 17 reactors. “We probably won’t see a full-blown nuclear renaissance in the next five to 10 years.”

In the first disbursement from a five-year-old program, Obama said Atlanta-based Southern Co. and partners will receive $8.33 billion in loan guarantees to build two reactors in Georgia, next to two existing ones. The plants would be the first licensed in the U.S. since a partial meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island in 1979.

“It’s gone thirty years in the desert, and it hasn’t even had a cup of water,” Reed Hundt, co-chairman of the Coalition for the Green Bank, a Washington-based group that pushes for federal financing of energy projects, said before yesterday’s announcement. “Nuclear is another one of those activities where if the government doesn’t step in, you’re not going to see anything going on.”

Falling Behind
While the U.S. operates more nuclear plants than any other country, with 104 reactors, it’s playing catch-up in construction. Worldwide, 56 reactors are being built, including 21 in China, nine in Russia, six in South Korea and five in India, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. Only one, the resurrection of a canceled project in Tennessee, is under way in the U.S.

“I think it’s a great step in the right direction,” Southern Co. CEO David Ratcliffe said at a news conference yesterday. “There is a tremendous amount of work that still has to be done in the licensing process and obviously in the construction phase.”

Assuming the licenses are approved, the two reactors would be completed in 2016 and 2017. “No, let’s be reasonable,” Ratcliffe said when asked if several dozen new plants can be built in the next three decades...

...In addition to lingering concerns about safety, the rising cost of reactors to more than $8 billion each and the absence of a plan for disposing of nuclear waste have short-circuited revival initiatives.

‘Essential Transition’
...The U.S. industry has filed applications to build 28 reactors since 2007, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; none, including the Southern plants, has been approved by regulators. Until the government’s loan guarantee, none had a clear line on financing.

“At the moment the capital markets won’t be available simply because nuclear is too untested and too big,” said Aneesh Prabhu, an analyst at Standard and Poor’s in New York.

“You need some kind of seed capital, and in this case the size makes it impossible for a venture capitalist to be funding it -- and that’s where federal support is required,” Prabhu said in a telephone interview.

Market Rejection
Financial markets’ rejection of reactors “is an example of market success, markets properly assessing risk and acting accordingly by refusing to underwrite” new nuclear plants, Mark Cooper, research director at Consumer Federation of America wrote in December in a Vermont Law School report.

The San Antonio city council in October halted a vote on whether to proceed with financing for two reactors in Texas, part of a venture with Princeton, New Jersey-based NRG Energy Inc., after learning the costs could rise to $17 billion from $13 billion.

FPL Group Inc., owner of Florida Power & Light Co., the state’s largest utility, last month suspended $10 billion in investments in the state when regulators approved a $75.5 million rate increase for this year, 8 percent of the amount sought. Among the stalled projects are added nuclear reactors.

In the proposed budget for fiscal 2011, Obama wants to triple the Department of Energy’s loan-guarantee program to $54.5 billion from the $18.5 billion authorized during the George W. Bush administration and not acted on until yesterday.

‘Personal Priority’
“I am frustrated that DOE has still not issued a loan guarantee for nuclear power,” Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, told Energy Secretary Steven Chu at a Feb. 5 hearing.

“It’s been a personal priority of mine to overhaul the loan-guarantee process,” Chu said on a conference call with reporters yesterday. “I’m determined to use this program to help restart America’s nuclear-power industry.”

Chu has said the $54.5 billion in loan guarantees could help fund seven to 10 reactors, laying the groundwork for further expansion.

The industry and its congressional supporters, such as Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, and Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, say the U.S. needs to provide as much as $100 billion.

The loan guarantee is “an important first step for creating large amounts of carbon-free electricity,” Alexander said in an interview in anticipation of yesterday’s announcement.

While the U.S. is “a long way from” a nuclear renaissance, ”I think it’s coming,” Alexander said.

Oh brother! Yet another 'revelation'. Why, nukes may just be the answer to our power problem! Who'da thunk it?

The Bird and Bunny Nuts have done more to hamstring this countrys' economy and progress than any enemy saboteurs ever could. We can't drill for oil, build refineries, build nuke power plants, have dams, farms or developments because of some obscure fish or mammal, have huge chunks of land taken by the government for whatever reason...sheer idiocy.

I don't want oil derricks all over the place or no national parks either, but this whole eco-Nazi crap has gone way out of hand. We wouldn't be in thrall to the Middle East if we could tap and refine our own oil supply...alternative power sources are a long way off from being practical...we need oil and nukes now if we want to compete in the modern world.

Developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia...even post-Communist Russia think we're crazy putting some bird or lizard ahead of our industries...and they're right.

 

[DeeZire]

Developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia...even post-Communist Russia think we're crazy putting some bird or lizard ahead of our industries...and they're right.

It would only take you a couple of days wandering around China to appreciate the environmental regulations we deal with here in the USA. In fact, all you have to do is google "environmental degradation" to find dozens of stories like this one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...environmental-degradation-harms-humanity.html

Do felling forests, slaughtering wildlife, cramming animals into inhuman factory farms, and the general trashing of the natural world make you sick? There's growing evidence that environmental degradation increases the spread of killer diseases and causes new ones.
Indeed, a report concludes that it poses "the greatest public health challenge of the 21st century."

As we approach the end of the first decade, things are already bad. Gro Harlem Brundtland, former director-general of the World Heath Organisation, writing the report's preface, says: "Environment-related illnesses kill the equivalent of a jumbo jet full of children every 30 minutes."

You may think killing children is a small price to pay for the convenience of wasting fossil fuels, but you're in the minority. Environmental issues still resonate with the majority of Americans, so if you're intent on plundering the planet, I'd suggest you'd have better luck if you became a resident of one of the countries you mentioned in your post.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Several years ago my company built an industrial park on re-claimed land inside a small town near here. A railroad crossed the property, and a drainage ditch ran alongside the track. The property had been a dirt mine; we made the pit into a liake.

Anyway, Birdie & Bunny Nutzo, demanded that we make the ditch wildlife habitat, and didnt wanna listen to any of our jabber about the railroad owning the ditch.

 

[trysail]

Trysail,

I understand you think the data's faulty - and it may be to a point. But, c'mon. Use some common sense. Let's say you're right. The earth isn't warming up. It's cyclical.

Anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis— nothing more, nothing less. There has been colossal exaggeration of its certitude and explanatory power by some of its proponents. There has been far too much unquestioning acceptance and promotion of the hypothesis by the credulous and the gullible. The "science" underlying the hypothesis is— at best— weak and, at worst, downright nonexistent. When one of its foremost proponents, Phil Jones, flat out admits, "It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view...," one has to wonder why anybody would give credence to claims that, "The science is settled." Further— based on Jones' statement, a rational person could reasonably conclude that anyone who says, "The science is settled" is a Grade A snake-oil salesperson.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=33324314&postcount=350

How does being anti-progress (especially in alternative or cleaner energy) going to help?

"Anti-progress?" I am very sorry, but you are going to have to define that phrase. The obvious perjorative intent of the phrase tests the limits of my self-control.

That's my question for all the doubters. You post and post and post, yet never offer solutions. Just, look what I can try to disprove. How about this. Come up with a fucking solution. Oops - too late. I did it for you. Free energy.

Y'up think about it. The second you can give free energy to everyone the closer you get to eliminating poverty, hunger, and illiteracy. Unless of course, you are the same people to spout against. The man that keeps you down and spends all your money and taxes you to make sure you don't rise and revolt.

So go ahead - free energy. Come up with something. Anything other than the fucking bitching and constant fake arguments.

The limits of my self-control are rapidly eroding— "Free energy?" Free energy? WTF?

I have a question for you. Have you ever spent time in a third world country? If so, which one and how long?

 

[PoppingTom]

Anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis— nothing more, nothing less. There has been colossal exaggeration of its certitude and explanatory power by some of its proponents. There has been far too much unquestioning acceptance and promotion of the hypothesis by the credulous and the gullible. The "science" underlying the hypothesis is— at best— weak and, at worst, downright nonexistent.

I'm convinced you will say the same thing about Darwin's Evolution theory.

a rational person could reasonably conclude that anyone who says, "The science is settled" is a Grade A snake-oil salesperson.

I agree with that.

Science is something that is rarely "settled", as it changes with every new recognition.

I don't care much if global warming is true or not by any per mille science bullshit. This problem comes, logical, sooner or later, and the question, what we can do about it will become important, don't care how much you ran away from that.

 

[trysail]

I'm convinced you will say the same thing about Darwin's Evolution theory...

Well then..., you'd be wrong.

 

[trysail]

If The Sierra Club and similar loonies got their way, they'd either consciously or unconsciously send humanity back to living in caves.

That's the only possible outcome from their expressed positions. The only benefit of doubt I can give them is that they are well-intentioned but horribly misguided, innumerate idiots.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123274700

Green Groups Oppose Obama On Nuclear Power
by Elizabeth Shogren

February 2, 2010

Building a nuclear plant is a lot like trying to get a mortgage these days to build an expensive house. You might need someone to co-sign your loan.

“Now, they never pay any money, but they're there just in case,” says Jim Connaughton, executive vice president of Constellation Energy.

President Obama this week showed how serious he is about nuclear power by proposing to triple the money available for loan guarantees for nuclear plants for a total of $54 billion. His nuclear overture also sent the message that he is determined to woo supporters for climate change legislation, which is stuck in the Senate.

But environmental and taxpayer groups complain that the proposal would set up Americans for another expensive corporate bail out.

Nuclear plants cost more than $10 billion to build and most companies cannot get financing for them without government loan guarantees.

“We just need the federal backstop in order to attract the private sector investment that will make that possible,” says Connaughton.

Constellation is pursuing loan guarantees to build an additional unit at its nuclear plant in Calvert Cliffs, Md., and hopes to build several more after that.

Congress and President Bush created the loan guarantee program in 2005. Power companies say that the $18 billion already promised would help build a few plants but would not spark the nuclear renaissance they want.

Nuclear Power Helps Obama Meet Climate Goals
The additional $36 billion the president is proposing could do that and help Obama meet his greenhouse gas goals, industry executives say.

“Nuclear is the only generation out there that produces power 24-7 with no carbon emissions at all,” says Tom Williams, a spokesman for Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy.

Wind and solar produce electricity only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. So, nuclear power is needed to help the country cut greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050, which the president and many scientists say is necessary to help avert catastrophic climate change, industry executives say.

The president's nuclear proposal could play another crucial role in helping him address climate change, utility executives and members of Congress say. It could help persuade Republicans and moderate Democrats to support a sweeping global warming law. The House passed a bill last year, but similar legislation is stuck in the Senate.

“There's a lot of support for nuclear from the people who are currently not supporting the climate bill. By offering up this, it should help bridge the gap,” Williams says.


Environmentalists agree that the loan guarantees help the climate bill’s odds.


Environmental Groups Oppose Nuclear Loan Guarantees

“If you offer a bunch of utilities $54 billion in loan guarantees, they will probably round up a few senators to support you. That's correct,” says Carl Pope, executive director, Sierra Club, a large environmental Group. “That's how Washington is working these days. That doesn't mean that I like it.”

Pope and many other environmental activists usually support President Obama, but they oppose his loan guarantee proposal.

They stress that nuclear plants are inherently dangerous because waste from them stays hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. And the country still hasn't come up with a long-term plan to store the stuff.

Plus, they argue that nuclear plants are so expensive to build that they're a bad economic risk for taxpayers.

“They need the loan guarantees because investors are afraid that they'll never finish the plant. Or the plants will cost twice as much as they're supposed to and will never be able to sell affordable electricity,” Pope adds.

Still Pope says loan guarantees for the nuclear industry would not sour environmental groups on a climate bill.

“I don't think these kinds of loan guarantees would push us into opposition to a climate bill that would otherwise save the planet,” he says.

But even if the president's nuclear overture wins over a few Republicans and moderate Democrats, the climate bill still faces a lot of other hurdles.

 

[PoppingTom]

If The Sierra Club and similar loonies got their way, they'd either consciously or unconsciously send humanity back to living in caves.

That's the only possible outcome from their expressed positions. The only benefit of doubt I can give them is that they are well-intentioned but horribly misguided, innumerate idiots.

Yes, off course, and if we go your way, we'll never living anymore. Whatever is best.

What do you wanna tell me? That the nuclear waste problem isn't a problem ? You have really unbelievable trust in your government.

 

[trysail]

Yes, off course, and if we go your way, we'll never living anymore. Whatever is best.

What do you wanna tell me? That the nuclear waste problem isn't a problem ? You have really unbelievable trust in your government.

"A nightmare scenario would be created if alternative energy supplies fail to meet overly optimistic expectations, while traditional energy suppliers scale back investment due to expectations of declining demand for their products.''

-Ali al-Naimi
_______________________


"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house.''

-Robert A. Heinlein
"The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"
Time Enough For Love

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by trysail
If The Sierra Club and similar loonies got their way, they'd either consciously or unconsciously send humanity back to living in caves.

That's the only possible outcome from their expressed positions. The only benefit of doubt I can give them is that they are well-intentioned but horribly misguided, innumerate idiots.

Yes, off course, and if we go your way, we'll never living anymore. Whatever is best.

What do you wanna tell me? That the nuclear waste problem isn't a problem ? You have really unbelievable trust in your government.

I have no trust at all in the government. They are barely able to figure out how to open a door by turning the doorknob. However, I believe the operators of the power plants will be able to figure out something.

 

[PoppingTom]

"A nightmare scenario would be created if alternative energy supplies fail to meet overly optimistic expectations, while traditional energy suppliers scale back investment due to expectations of declining demand for their products.''

OMG.....less profit....America will fall....

Alternative energy supplies aren't an option just to think about. They are a necessity in the future.

"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house.''

Anyone who cannot cope with thoughtful answers relating to the topic is not fully a human. In fact, he is a troll.

 

[PoppingTom]

However, I believe the operators of the power plants will be able to figure out something.

And what is this something ? Where will they store all the burnt fuel assemblies ? In a cave deep in the desert , yes. Imagine, they will lie there for 10 000 years, still being dangerous. Expect, nothing will happen in those 10 000 years - how crowded will that place be with fuel assemblies ?? And don't you think there will never ever be kind of a mistake that could make them explode or melt through ?

Maybe nuke power will become an option when we shoot all the assemblies to the moon.......

.......uhm.....profit?

 

[DeeZire]

And what is this something ? Where will they store all the burnt fuel assemblies ? In a cave deep in the desert , yes. Imagine, they will lie there for 10 000 years, still being dangerous. Expect, nothing will happen in those 10 000 years - how crowded will that place be with fuel assemblies ?? And don't you think there will never ever be kind of a mistake that could make them explode or melt through ?

Maybe nuke power will become an option when we shoot all the assemblies to the moon.......

.......uhm.....profit?

Scientists are claiming that the latest technology for storing nuclear waste - sealing it in little glass balls - is supposed to be safe. Of course, glass is breakable...

They also say nuclear power is the most expensive way to generate electricity, which, one would think, would be less attractive to someone like Trysail, who's very soul is regulated by a cost-benefit analysis.

BTW Trysail - if all the glaciers melt, would that be considered a weather event, or a climate event?

 

[trysail]

"A nightmare scenario would be created if alternative energy supplies fail to meet overly optimistic expectations, while traditional energy suppliers scale back investment due to expectations of declining demand for their products.''

-Ali al-Naimi
_______________________


"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house.''

-Robert A. Heinlein
"The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"
Time Enough For Love

 

[Boxlicker101]

And what is this something ? Where will they store all the burnt fuel assemblies ? In a cave deep in the desert , yes. Imagine, they will lie there for 10 000 years, still being dangerous. Expect, nothing will happen in those 10 000 years - how crowded will that place be with fuel assemblies ?? And don't you think there will never ever be kind of a mistake that could make them explode or melt through ?

Maybe nuke power will become an option when we shoot all the assemblies to the moon.......

.......uhm.....profit?

It would not be my responsibility, coming up with a solution, bnut there may be a way devised to neutralize the radioactivity or they may, as you suggest, be launched onto the moon, or maybe the sun or some uninhabitable planet or just orbiting the Earth.

As I said, Those are possibilities, not suggestions.

 

[PoppingTom]

It would not be my responsibility, coming up with a solution, bnut there may be a way devised to neutralize the radioactivity ....

I had to admit, I wanted to say something stupid now...but in fact, you're right!!

Well...if that works, it would change a lot.

 

[trysail]

...They also say nuclear power is the most expensive way to generate electricity...

...if all the glaciers melt, would that be considered a weather event, or a climate event?

Grade: F
Who is this "they?" Citation? Show all assumptions and calculations.

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.full
http://www.physorg.com/news105888386.html

”We found no evidence for time trends in spring arrival from ground- or model-based data; using an ensemble estimate from two methods that were more closely related to ground observations than other methods, SOS [start of spring] trends could be detected for only 12% of North America and were divided between trends towards both earlier and later spring.”

http://www.eee.columbia.edu/research-projects/water_resources/climate-change-snow-cover/index.html

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Originally Posted by DeeZire
...

...if all the glaciers melt, would that be considered a weather event, or a climate event?

It would be considered as the sun is exploding...time to bend over and kiss you stinky ass goodbye event.

 

[trysail]

Here's what you'be been waiting for. What follows below is the supposed
PROOF OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

So, whaddya think? Does it look reasonable to you? If so, maybe I could interest you in a couple of slightly used mortgage-backed securities or a previously-owned collaterallized debt obligation?



NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Global Climate Model "E"

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelEsrc/
______________________________


PROGRAM GISS_modelE,160
!@sum MAIN GISS modelE main time-stepping routine
!@auth Original Development Team
!@ver 1.0 (Based originally on B399)
USE FILEMANAGER, only : openunit,closeunit
USE TIMINGS, only : ntimemax,ntimeacc,timing,timestr
USE PARAM
USE MODEL_COM
USE DOMAIN_DECOMP, ONLY : init_decomp,grid,finish_decomp
USE DYNAMICS
USE RADNCB, only : dimrad_sv
USE RANDOM

USE DAGCOM, only : oa,monacc,koa
USE SOIL_DRV, only: daily_earth, ground_e
USE SUBDAILY, only : nsubdd,init_subdd,get_subdd,reset_subdd
IMPLICIT NONE

INTEGER K,M,MSTART,MNOW,MODD5D,months,ioerr,Ldate,istart
INTEGER iu_VFLXO,iu_ACC,iu_RSF,iu_ODA
INTEGER :: MDUM = 0
REAL*8, DIMENSION(NTIMEMAX) :: PERCENT
REAL*8 DTIME,TOTALT

CHARACTER aDATE*14
CHARACTER*8 :: flg_go='___GO___' ! green light
external sig_stop_model
C**** Command line options
LOGICAL :: qcrestart=.false.
CHARACTER*32 :: ifile


call init_decomp(grid,im,jm)
call alloc_drv()
C****
C**** Processing command line options
C****
call read_options( qcrestart, ifile )
if ( qcrestart ) then
call print_restart_info
call stop_model("Terminated normally: printed restart info",13)
endif
C****
C**** INITIALIZATIONS
C****
CALL TIMER (MNOW,MDUM)

CALL INPUT (istart,ifile)
C****
C**** If run is already done, just produce diagnostic printout
C****
IF (Itime.GE.ItimeE.and.Kradia.le.0) then ! includes ISTART<1 case
call print_diags(1)
CALL stop_model ('The run has already completed',13)
! no output files are affected
END IF

open(3,file='flagGoStop',form='FORMATTED',status='REPLACE')
write (3,'(A8)') flg_go
close (3)
call sys_signal( 15, sig_stop_model ) ! works only on single CPU
MSTART=MNOW
DO M=1,NTIMEACC
MSTART= MSTART-TIMING(M)
END DO
C**** INITIALIZE TIME PARAMETERS
NSTEP=(Itime-ItimeI)*NIdyn
MODD5K=1000
CALL DAILY(.false.) ! not end_of_day
if (istart.le.9) call reset_diag(0)
if (Kradia.le.0) then
CALL daily_EARTH(.false.) ! not end_of_day
CALL daily_OCEAN(.false.) ! not end_of_day
CALL CALC_AMPK(LS1-1)

if (kradia.le.0) CALL CHECKT ('INPUT ')
end if
CALL UPDTYPE

WRITE (6,'(A,11X,A4,I5,A5,I3,A4,I3,6X,A,I4,I10)')
* '0NASA/GISS Climate Model (re)started',
* 'Year',JYEAR,aMON,JDATE,', Hr',JHOUR,
* 'Internal clock: DTsrc-steps since 1/1/',Iyear1,ITIME
CALL TIMER (MNOW,MELSE)
C****
C**** Open and position output history files if needed
C****
C**** Monthly files
if (Kradia.ne.0) then
write(aDATE(1:7),'(a3,I4.4)') aMON(1:3),Jyear
if (Kradia.gt.0) aDATE(4:7)=' '
call openunit(trim('RAD'//aDATE(1:7)),iu_RAD,.true.,.false.)
if (Kradia.lt.0) call io_POS(iu_RAD,Itime-1,2*dimrad_sv,Nrad)
end if
C**** Files for an accumulation period (1-12 months)
write(aDATE(1:7),'(a3,I4.4)') aMON0(1:3),Jyear0
if (Kvflxo.ne.0) then
call openunit('VFLXO'//aDATE(1:7),iu_VFLXO,.true.,.false.)
call io_POS(iu_VFLXO,Itime,2*im*jm*koa,Nday) ! real*8-dim -> 2*
end if
C**** Initiallise file for sub-daily diagnostics, controlled by
C**** space-seperated string segments in SUBDD & SUBDD1 in the rundeck
call init_subdd(aDATE)

C****
C**** MAIN LOOP
C****
DO WHILE (Itime.lt.ItimeE)

C**** Every Ndisk Time Steps (DTsrc), starting with the first one,
C**** write restart information alternatingly onto 2 disk files
IF (MOD(Itime-ItimeI,Ndisk).eq.0) THEN
CALL RFINAL (IRAND)
call set_param( "IRAND", IRAND, 'o' )
call openunit(rsf_file_name(KDISK),iu_RSF,.true.,.false.)
call io_rsf(iu_RSF,Itime,iowrite,ioerr)
call closeunit(iu_RSF)
WRITE (6,'(A,I1,45X,A4,I5,A5,I3,A4,I3,A,I8)')
* '0Restart file written on fort.',KDISK,'Year',
* JYEAR,aMON,JDATE,', Hr',JHOUR,' Internal clock time:',ITIME
KDISK=3-KDISK
CALL TIMER (MNOW,MELSE)
END IF
C**** THINGS THAT GET DONE AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY DAY
IF (MOD(Itime,NDAY).eq.0) THEN
C**** INITIALIZE SOME DIAG. ARRAYS AT THE BEGINNING OF SPECIFIED DAYS
if (kradia.le.0) call daily_DIAG
C**** THINGS THAT GET DONE AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY MONTH
IF ( JDAY.eq.1+JDendOfM(Jmon-1) ) then
write(aDATE(1:7),'(a3,I4.4)') aMON(1:3),Jyear
if (Kradia.ne.0) then
if (Kradia.gt.0) aDATE(4:7)=' '
call closeunit( iu_RAD )
call openunit(trim('RAD'//aDATE(1:7)),iu_RAD,.true.,.false.)
end if

*****​

return
end subroutine print_restart_info

 

[PoppingTom]

get a job, trysail