home page
Posts by solskinn

Posts by solskinn

1) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 63215)
Posted 29 Dec 2020 by solskinn

Or maybe immediate condition here, for just only a thing happening at once, and next also fast.

So think I only was "excrutiatingly slow", and next also that of such a thing for only writing.

Or maybe excruciatingly here instead, and needs a translation just here.

The Truth for only answer, is that you could not make it any fast for just only immediate it perhaps could be either.

If only a condition for that of set or determined, I could be still only choosing between the fast, and also ever lasting, for only the long time it could be.

So next, for only how long a thing could last for only duration, seems only meaningless just for me, in the way you only could determine or calculate.

Could any fast be interpreted for only the better it perhaps could be, and perhaps only no, for also the more it could be here as well.

We could here think that "of course" for just only included, should perhaps be or mean that of completeness, or perhaps not here instead.

Here we make it completeness for just only included, and next also add everything into it for only the practice, or "of course" you could make it.

Because of that, we do not see or make such a thing as completeness for only its own thing, for only the independence it could be, and not related to any other, for only subject.

Here you only categorize, for only making it all for that of included, for not any excluded here instead.

Next Roger Dangerfield, for still thinking that we could believe for that of completeness, and not any opposite, for only excluding a couple of things or factors instead.
2) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : And already logged in for that of a page, and next only sticky. (Message 63213)
Posted 29 Dec 2020 by solskinn
Just try it yourself, for only being logged in on your account, for that of home.php, or something like that, when next returning back for that of a page.

Next give me a laugh, for only a fix needed here instead, because here not aren't or "aint working".

3) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 63212)
Posted 29 Dec 2020 by solskinn
Just said, and next we only could be making it Religion, for only the other word just said here.

Next, drifting to the right a little for only that of a consequence, and next also an absolute of nature it perhaps also should be.

So, proving for that of this or that, and it becomes that of etcetera only for the same, for not any nothing else here instead.

Meaning that inconclusiveness should be a lack of Conclusion, for not being able to do such a thing.

But next we also were assuming that any arbitrariness of nature, perhaps should not mean any completion just either,

So here only translating for perhaps only a Regulation, for not any "in the name of" it should be for only a Commandment here instead.

Could I perhaps be presuming nature for only its completeness, for only such a thing it could be?

If I only assumed more for just the better it could be, next also a Conclusion it could be for the same.

But rather that assumed for only nature for a readily Fact, when also true for that of certain, for also that of embodiment here as well.

So you could conclude nature for only the readily Fact it could be, for also absolute as well, for only the meaning you could be "adapting" or weighing it.

Next you could be thinking for only a guess, for not any "situation" I could be in here just either, for only present, because here realization of Facts instead.

But when only doing so, that of circumstance only pops up for only a word, for not any circumstantial here instead, except also that of left.

So, you next think that Proof should be for only an absolute meaning, and not any true versus false (and once again only left for that of such).

Here only Certainty goes for the meaning it only should be when that of true versus false, for still not any Proof here instead.

Or so does it for only goes, when still not any included here instead, when also that of remaining.

Beware the wolf, for still not any in between the lines, for only the meaning it perhaps could be, for only the thing just explained instead.
4) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 63211)
Posted 29 Dec 2020 by solskinn
You know, but such a thing as making it Laws, should be unncessary to say, for only just told before, or at the start.

So if we could think that it could be still only unambiguous or unilateral, for not any unique instead, also the Premise it could be for that of a meaning.

Next that of Logical here of course or once again, because it became that of "both" just included, for only the false versus true I could make it.

Are those things still only single for also tantamount for only the thing we could make it, or should it rather be "both" for that of Arithmetic here instead?

But next I made a reference to only the traveling salesman here, for still not any included, for also "all and everything" I could be making it for that of nature.

Suppose it could be only so, for that of a reference, because next I could only believe for just a meaning, for still not any proving here instead.

Here we also have the word "Consequence" for only a realization of Fact, for not any "excluded" it could be instead, and next also that of arbitrariness.

So here we know, that completeness could be for only nature just defined, for not any other answer or specific meaning here instead.

For that you make it completeness of nature for just only being specific, when next also that of infallible for just the other thing here instead.

Again that it spells infallibility here perhaps, except not any proving for science here instead, and next only asking for the bit more.

So, is the Logical Fallacy or Premise just meant, that of offered for such a thing for still only given, when also meant?

Could we be left to assume nature for only its answer, when also Fallacy, for not any science here instead?

What if a complete answer became just one for not the other or another, for just only meant to be?

If so, could you make it true for still only a Premise meant, for not any false here instead?

Only just wondering here of course, for still only the answer it could be, for also the thing being meant.
5) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 63210)
Posted 29 Dec 2020 by solskinn
Or maybe just a little song perhaps, like a blue bird straight through the window?

What if it rather became an asteroid impact instead, and I could be having the tools at my disposal, for only deflecting or rejecting such a thing?

Next, I could be in charge, for only just the leader, because the other possibility could be that of hopelessness, for that of making it only in vain.

But if you still ask me to be a leader, for only being in charge, should such a thing also be the Hypothesis I also could make, for not any presuming or guess?

You know, but I could be still asking for nature only just meant, for not any "whatever" it could be for just anything.

Only that you make it readily for only just a book, and next a chapter, for only following such a thing, for not any nature for its Uncertainty, for also the Premise it could be.

Here also that of excluding, when that of a Logical exclusion, for that of Atomism here, for still only just meant, for perhaps also the thing I thought, or could be thinking of.

Does any Imagination make for any wrong for just thinking, or should it be only Certainty for that of true here instead, when only that of Truth?

So, believe it or not, but I could be making it nature for only just whatever it could be, for not any Principle just of meaning either, for still only that of being.

Does a Premise go for any validness for only made when also set, or could I rather believe for the impossible, only because it should not be still any valid?

If nature could be just weird, also it could go wrong, except only believing for perhaps only the better, when also proving for the same.

You know, but people could be still making it only wrong, for that of insanity, and not any readily Fact we could be making of nature for still only Proof instead.
6) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 63209)
Posted 29 Dec 2020 by solskinn
And remember in the same way, that things could only go wrong, for only the awry it perhaps could be.

But next if it perhaps is so, that you only could be making it an excuse for only a remorse, when still not any significant, for just only more or better, for that of a meaning.

Did I next ask for only making it a meaning, for not any speculate just either, in that I could be making it Proof for only that of speculate, when still not any answer instead?

So here I am recognizing for just only a Fact, when next also a Proof, when only the perhaps it could be, and next only leaving me stilll only speculating.

Next I did it so, and only answer for meaning, except not any in between the lines for just only above either.

In the same way, I only made it just yes for an answer when still not any no, for only the true versus false it could be instead.

Like that of it going both ways for that of an answer for still only "yes" versus "no", and it could be only a Premise here at first (tentatively).

Oh, so fast when just only blowing the mind, for not any prematurely just either, for only just on my lips, for only the initially it could be.

Just in the meantime only here perhaps, for still only having me excused, for not any temporarily just either.

Here I know that both an Ambiguity or Contradiction should be for only the opposite next for only word, but next not the one just thinking of above either.

Getting back at it as just said, but next perhaps not making it any disproof or counterproof for only the thing we could not prove just either.

Only a readily Fact, for still only the thing we could assume, and next also a presumption for such a thing, when still not any guess.

So, many people just think it could be proving for science, and not proving for Religion instead, and it only becomes proving for that of Logic.

Next, do the "dirty tricks", for not any Atomism here, because here still only believing for a single meaning, when also tantamount, for not any "consummation" instead.

If we could think that a thing could be only unilateral for also single, also the way nature could be making it, and next only funny for that of similar way, or just the same.

Did I miss just a thing, for only making it infallible or infallibility here instead, for only nature being that of the same, for also Principle?

Only with respect to or with, and it becomes still only infinity here next for the same, for only the Concept or Construct it perhaps could be.

Surprise, but only for just thinking of it myself, it only ends back at Null hypothesis here, for perhaps only mentioned before.

But if nature was or became an excuse for only the certain meaning it could be, what else for perhaps only proving instead?

Remember that we made it both the quark here, for also clusters of galaxies, and next also making it a Reason, for only asking for such a thing.

Next also Truth versus deed, for not any recognition instead, because such a recognition could be only about Facts for only meaning, for not any "Belief" it could be instead.
7) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 63208)
Posted 29 Dec 2020 by solskinn
So, dinner served, and I could be only thinking for the results being made, and not any inbox here instead.

Here we perhaps do not make it any Logical exclusion, for only a way to exclude, because here only having a bit of trouble with such a thing.

But only that we exclude for only that of differentiate or separate, when still not any include for only making it completeness of nature instead.

Here only for that of a key or search result, and should tell that I am not into any such thing for the other projects just either.

But only that the Laws of physics also reminds me of the Laws of Newton, for only such a thing we could be making it.

Here we perhaps make it a GUT (or Grand Unified Theory) for only a single Principle, except also that of incompatible or incompatibility, for just another word.

But rather that two things could not any unite for only a mismatch, when still not any single, unilateral, or tantamount, for only a specific meaning.

Here also should tell that the word "unique" perhaps should go for only that of beauty or magnificence just instead, for not any unilateral here instead.

This because marvelous could be still only pretty, for still only the lovely or beautiful we could make it, for not any single Principle instead.

And that is for only that of respective for still only doing it, when only the trapdoor instead for just only falling, and not any climbing of the ladder here instead.

Next so silly I was for only believing for an excuse, when still not any little, less, or least, for only more, or most instead, when also that of much more, for still only that of completeness.

But if rather that of unilateral here, for only that of unambiguous or unique, for still only tantamount, next only the single thing or meaning it could be for that of Principle.

Remember that it could be still weak versus strong, for also the hammer and feather we could make it, when still only the weather for only explaining it instead.

So here that of conclusive, in some way, goes for that of reason I also could make it, in that a thing also could be inconclusive.

And here with respect for only the infallible you perhaps could make it, only Uncertain here instead, and it becomes a Logical or Formal Fallacy.

Meaning that it should be still not any determinate for nature in any way, but only the indeterminate or undefined it could be instead.

So here also thinking that it could be just factors for only left deciding, and still only the weather, for not any determinate or conclusive we could be making it instead.

Or maybe just funny, for still only sitting here and enjoying with the beer.
8) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 63207)
Posted 29 Dec 2020 by solskinn
Thanks for the email just received in my inbox.

And magnitude here, for not any magitude, because that error skipped me just altogether, and next only apologize.

But like also that of death, only the certain meaning we could make it, except an outcome for that of result, and here also making it Premise versus Formal Fallacy for the other project here as well.

So here just thinking that it perhaps could only be a way of doing it, for perhaps only believing for only a certain reason, for also the Premise it could be.

Like just behalf of or behalf on, it also becomes that of respective, and next you only could believe in God for that of certain, also because it could be that of an absolute.

Rather perhaps a nature defined for only a reason for just only meant, and next only making it intentional, for not any Premise it could be instead.

If the reason for not believing in any God for just only doing it, should the answer be no or NOT here, only because a Fallacy also could mean Logic?

Here you make it such a Premise for only a Logical answer, except only nature here instead, for only the infallible Principle it perhaps could be.

Sorry, wrong thread, but I could be having some credit with two other projects here, under BOINC.
9) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 63206)
Posted 28 Dec 2020 by solskinn
So wait until I am finished, for only the better posting it perhaps could be.

Thank you for your answer, but perhaps Einstein made it such an Argument for still only raising, and for not any climbing just a mountain top instead.

Here perhaps the same recognition upon Fact he perhaps made it for only "God is not playing with any dices", for also not making it any time here just either.

As you know, he was an Atheist, and therefore not any God coming for just a visit, except that such a thing as c could be assumed to be for the notion of death, for only its part,
or the respect we only could be making for such a thing.

One thing is making it still only infallible for only the outcome or result it could be, except also such a thing for not any predictable just either.

But here he only knew that time was only a constant, for perhaps not any Construct, for only the meaning of life we perhaps could define, for also death.

This is the reason I only made it that of completeness just here, because such a thing should be for only nature just meant, and for the other things still only included.

For that, just every aspect I could be making it for just only the weather and also climate, when still not any reason for any death just here either.

We know that Christmas could be a time to celebrate, but also a time for that of sorrow and pain to some people, for only a bit of suffering, when still not any expectancies just either.

So here only hard at times, for still only brutal, when that of suffering, for not any light versus hope it should be instead, for only a given feather.

Those parts we still could be making separate just for a meaning, should next be a part for only a single or unilateral thing for just only mentioned, because they could
be included for still only the separate thing it could be, next for that of completeness for just only included.

Therefore, all roads could be still leading to Rome, for not any unspecified or unspecific it could be, when not having the answer.

But again that single or unique, for only the unambiguous or unilateral, for also tantamount, could be only the single thing here for that of just telling,
when still only randomness and Chaos for only the nature we could make.

Therefore, order for a given magnitude, which we still could be making for that of completeness, except also everything included for just the same.

Here for only the terse subject you perhaps already know about, but should tell that I was just in the middle of the dinner here, for only being distracted.
10) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 63204)
Posted 28 Dec 2020 by solskinn
Before I go, the same scientists still chose to make it both unambiguous or unique for also the unilateral it could be, when also that of single or tantamount for the same.

This for only such a thing of given look at nature for only the thing it could be, except still also precise or exact for only its presence.

But for still only the random it could be, when only that of Chaos, for both that of Turbulence and Viscocity, we could be making it still arbitrariness for the same,
for not any order of magitude it could be instead, for only a solid foundation, when still that of precise or exact.

More that completeness makes it for still towards the way of inifinity it should go, for only that of counting or Enumeration for such a thing.

So more that of basic Principle here for rather a solid foundation, because you could be at least having legs for just standing, and next also making it a Premise.

But here it only becomes that of factors for only just deciding, when still only parts, for that of such a thing for only predicting about the weather, for also possible earthquakes.

Here as I mentioned, that the Laws of physics could be still indeterminate for only just its parts when that of Chaos, for not any order of magnitude for only making it perfectness instead.

Einstein here make it relative, as you may know, and for just the other thing, when perhaps the subject of death, for not any notion of time, it should be infallible instead.

So, in respect of nature, for that of its given thing, and here still not any believing for only a subject either, except only makiing it a notion of time for still only part of completeness.

And for that, also the conclusive versus inconclusive it could be, when not any certain just either, for only the predicting of the weather, for not any future instead.

Honestly, and next perhaps only true, when still only proving for the recognition it could be, except only Fact instead, when that of death for only taking place or happening.

For that, you only put it just in your mouth, for still not any hand, for only a recognition just meant, for not any infallible it should be for nature, but only another subject.

So here time versus space for still only meaning, and I next could only believe for that of subject when also meant to be, for not any passing away instead.
11) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 63203)
Posted 28 Dec 2020 by solskinn
My big fault is that I am running only one project right now, for that of PrimeGrid running 100/100 for that of resource share.

Therefore not any just said for only just could, when perhaps making it this project once again, for also Rosetta@home just instead.

Only that we know that both these projects could be beneficial here for only that of use, when still only results for the same, for only being returned.

Here we are supposed to be hit by only a tornado, for not any wiped out by an asteroid impact for only slim chance for such, except only the same Probability or likelihood.

But rather that we know that just a vaccination could be effiecient for only just a cure, when still not any benefitting mankind for only the relief it could only be.

So here rather now stimulus for only a package, and it becomes a program for having people vaccinated, for still not any last day of Earth, for only an asteroid impact.

Next only tell me which chance I have for living when still only survival, and next only likelihood for just only Probability, when not any slim chance.

Does any such a thing as Probability make it possible to decide for just only an outcome, or should it only be an Event happening for just such a thing instead?

Here I also know that we could be making it an estimate for a couple of things when next for only a given measure, when still not predicting any future with Certainty.

Just think of it for only making it Chaos earlier on or at the start, for not any Certainty here instead, for only making us able to perhaps conclude for only a meaning.

Any Truth for just answer, is that we could be making it the tools of nature at our disposal for only the use or usage it could be, except still only predicting for the weather.

If I know that an answer is only uncertain for only being in the cards, also the same outcome it could be for that of result, when also interpreted.

Rather proving nature for that of its conclusiveness, it becomes that of Certainty here for more that of absolute, for still only the thing you could be proving.

Just thinking that nature should be for only a single thing, next only the absolute it could be, for not any diverse or separate, when it could be only two things or more.

Or perhaps the other way, namely that for not any diverse or separate, we could think that nature is only crucial or absolute for still only specific meaning for just only meant.

But next only so sad for perhaps only another subject here for which we still do not know the way it could go, for just only an infallible outcome or meaning, when still only nature.

Here life makes for still only a beginning, for only the early start it could be, and in the same way ending up with a demise or destiny, for only leaving us to speculate.

Only with respect to nature for that of such a thing, we do still not know any result for only precise for only the outcome it could be, when perhaps also final.

But more perhaps that of a clock versus time here for still only exact, when also an ultimate moment for just only defined in the same way.

Next turn off your eyes for only going to sleep, because you could be waking up for another morning by still only opening for just only the same, when still only just again.

More that you rather could be still only waking up here for that of opening your eyes, and next you could be closing for that of going to sleep, except not any final moment.

Did it next only happen, and next only a moment still here for that of such a thing, for only taking place.
12) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 63202)
Posted 28 Dec 2020 by solskinn
And not doing this thing for just the other here instead.

But here should tell that for the one big result once finished and next uploaded, it became a big hole in my computer, which had to be plugged.

Therefore also my interest in the subject of pure randomness and Chaos, for only the disorder it still should be.

But only for a nature just coming out of nowhere for just only made or created, we perhaps could think it is only such a thing as Chaos, for only the thing it became.

Perhaps only a finite moment for only such a thing still meant to be or happening, but rather we make it infinite for just the other thing instead.

So here everything out of Physics, for more what it just belongs, is the part of nature for still making it Chaos, for also just the weather, when also earthquakes.

Next thinking that you perhaps could be making a model by predicting the future, and perhaps still only the weather here instead.

So here supposedly only a guess or assumption, for also a presumption for still only such a thing it could be, for not making it any Laws of nature instead.

If I only could think about a given nature, it also should be so, except only a guess here instead, when still not any Premise for only making it Laws instead.

Rather you only make it models for still only the thing it could be, and next predicting about the future, when still only the weather.

Do we next think that any Laws of physics are absolute for a meaning, only because they could be explained?

Again that such Laws of physics, are next only part of it here still, for only versus the other meaning, which perhaps could be that of infinity for a subject.

But here you also make it Chaos, for still only a couple of things mixed or intertwined for that of a blend, for also the combined it could be.

Here some people for only scientists, also could think that you could be just adding together for only included, in order to make it a summary for only result.

But here only rain coming down for that of a drizzle, and next finished for only ceasing, when only waiting for the next batch of rain for only coming down.

For this it becomes reapeating, when only a regular pattern, and it happens once again, for only just often, for still not any shift or change taking place.

Here it could be periodic cycles only for such, when still intervals, for only the repeating patterns it still only could be, for that of rain just coming down.

But next only a catastrophic Event, for that of a magnitude, when stilll not any order for such either, but only that it could be making for a possible change.

Once upon a time it became life for only its meaning, except also that it started for only just a beginning, when still not any Dawn of the morning just either.

So next life churning away for still only taking place, except that it could end up being the future we could not any predict just either.

And here for still not any predictable versus unpredictable, you only make it cycles instead, for which there also should be or exist a periodicity for just only found.

Only the Laws of randomness once again, for still only the Chaos it could be, and next you could perhaps be able to determine the future, when still only the Laws of physics.

For that of a couple of other projects here, we made it an indeterminate nature for only a reason for such, when still not any speculating for just the other thing either.

But only that Laws of physics, for still only its own or respective meaning, became that of Chaos for still only understanding meant, for also what we could be interpreting.

For this reason, only such a thing as Chaos for still its respective meaning for the way it only could be explained, when also interpreted just for the same.

So here not any "is " only meant when still only "To be or not to be" for only the reason we could be making it, when still not any order of magnitude just for nature, for only its greatness.

Merry Christmas!
13) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 61519)
Posted 11 Nov 2019 by solskinn
Yes, literally, for just ugly, when perhaps rather nice, but hopefully you understood the point.

If you happen to be into it, also you should know what could be to the point, except not always so,
when still perhaps science.

Perhaps Alchemy could be some form of old fashioned therapy, if not just coming up with products of nature,
but rather that some astronomers could seek understanding Black Holes, for only the Force of gravity,
except not making it any eddies, for just representing a circle.

Just Quant, and perhaps a space station for such, except not any quantum rebate, for only just Sets.

Start digging deeper, and it becomes that of Quantum mechanics instead, where we could end up making it
Laws of nature, for also Equations, when also still that of Proof needed, for just the same thing.

My guess is that some weathermen could still make it only a low for that of a pressure system,
except not any direction of wind making for where such a system could end, or perhaps go.

Do you next add, or make it one factor, only because it could be proper, or could it rather be just another thing,
for not being any important at all?

Here for example, it could be at least a Mathematical model, but perhaps not anything related with the weather.

If perhaps so, it could still be the definition here for what Prediction perhaps means, except not any dark ages either.

There could perhaps some people just thinking that a couple of things could be just naive, for only based upon such a thing,
but if perhaps making it time, it could also be that of divination, or fortune telling, where it also could be that of a Prophet for such.

So therefore always ugly, when at least one point of view, except for not always the whole truth either.

Here just thinking that if you could be making it the present, for also future, it should also be past, for that of history.

Here keying the word "annual" for just once a year, if not any repeating event which could take place almost all the time,
because for that, also the Almanac, which could be keeping a track of both sunrise and sunset.

So here perhaps the watchmaker again, for only the clock, except not any oscillations either, when it also could be
similar fluctuations.

I get to it here, that oscillations could be more or less repetitive, for also being recurrent, while a fluctuation,
could be a thing which could perhaps differ, for just only vary.

For that not any regular, for also periodicity, when it also could be intervals, if not making it any synchronization either.

Any such for that of a clock, could perhaps be analog, for that of frequency, except not making it any digital instead.

So, if a thing could perhaps change over time, it could be the weather, and for that those elements making it up, when also being a part.

If not wrong, it became that of variables earlier on, when it also could be Elements as well, when perhaps also those
hugely complex expressions, for only making it numerical for such a thing.

If perhaps not just numbers either, we could still make it Sets at times, except for also making it Algorithms, for just the same.

Why do we make it both variables, for also constants, when just having it present?

Could you make it any single hurricane a driving force for that of a change of weather, or could it rather be a pattern instead?

Or could rather any change happening, be the result of other factors instead, including the notion of time?

If a thing is perhaps changing, it could also differ, but next it could only become that of subtraction for such.

But could it perhaps be just so, that a change of temperature, could be a result of the different seasons making up each year,
except still not any annual for such, making for that of single period?

There could be some people around perhaps thinking that not all answers could be found, because of an Uncertainty
which could perhaps be "inherited", for just built in, or coming along, for just the Laws given.

So here perhaps a tell-tale story at times, for a couple of things which could end up being predicted, except perhaps not making it
any weather either, for only the way it could get hot one day, for just cold once again, the following, or next day.
14) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 61515)
Posted 10 Nov 2019 by solskinn
Never going to be perfect, I think, because here perhaps making it a variable instead, for only a more general sense.

Also that barometric pressure should rather be isobars instead, except perhaps only different wording for the same.
15) Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question (Message 61514)
Posted 10 Nov 2019 by solskinn
Is it still supposed to be the weather?

Just checking in, because I am not doing this thing, except for still quite an interest in the whole subject,
for only where I am living.

I happen to do two other projects, but both technical problems, and also health, ended me up in a chair,
together with a laptop.

Here something rounding the southern part of Greenland right now, for apparently becoming an active winter storm.

So if perhaps not any ugly for such a thing, at least it could be a pattern, for which there also could be regular intervals,
also when making it the seasons of the year, for that of changing temperature.

My guess is possible weather of the future, could be predicted by means of climate models, except also the usual data,
which should be about the weather for today.

Here it became that of keying in a couple of search terms during the day, except not knowing where it should go.

Here the ones I chose among others, for only making it Property first, for also the disambiguation page.

Perhaps it should not be any Philosophy either, but except for that, you could still make it a rainy day.

But while not making it any sunshine either, for only the sun, also the ice ages should not be forgotten either,
for only making it even colder.

So it perhaps rain is still coming down, if not any important either, also temperature, for also barometric pressure,
which could be that of a low, making for yet another storm.

But next, simple as that, for only just thinking that it could be hot one day, for next cold the other,
except for also wintry, when pouring rain could rather be sheets of ice, if not any hail either.

So, is any predicting the same as guessing, or could it rather be still models for such giving any possible answer?

The Earth could perhaps be a water planet, for only its oceans, except also sandstorms in the desert, but perhaps it could be
the wind also being a factor, only because it could be blowing?

Perhaps not any attribute either, for just everything, but you also could make it both Turbulence and Viscocity,
for those elements making up a couple of things, when also that of Equations for such a thing, just from single numbers.

Except for also not forgetting the rotating Earth, for only its spinning axis, and next also the same for that of the sun,
for just orbiting it each and every year.

But still that just freezing fingers could make for a bit of cold, and you could need gloves, for also wishing for the hot fireplace.

Any more to it, and I would be happy to know, for only that of a discussion, because I am not keeping up here.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Credits. (Message 50883)
Posted 25 Nov 2014 by solskinn

17) Message boards : Number crunching : Error while downloading. (Message 46226)
Posted 15 May 2013 by solskinn
Apparently error while downloading.

If I can have this task, I will give it a try.

18) Questions and Answers : Windows : Models are crashing. (Message 30449)
Posted 9 Sep 2007 by solskinn
There has been a little while since I have been
running the ClimatePrediction model because of technical problems with my PC. However I do have returned a number of results in the past.

I do notice from the results page on the server that most of my models has crashed before finishing up.

Since I am running a PC with an Intel 3.4 GHz processor, I certainly contribute to the project.

I would be happy if someone could tell me that my results have been of any help. If not, my PC may be running software or otherwise being not fit to run the ClimatePrediction models.

Thanks in advance !

solskinn, Norway
Account number 96823