Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: Hammy on 9 Jan 2010 06:24 On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:24:32 -0500, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:27:45 -0500, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Bill Sloman said >That claim is silly enough that you could be an economist. Your right or GDP is currently 1.4 Trillion US dollars I doubt we even do 100 billion dollars trade with the EU. In the scheme of things chump change. >Since Canada started off as French and British colonies, it wouldn't >exist without the EU. I can see how some Canadians might harbour >resentment under the circumstances. Yes we did if you read your history we defeated the French and became independent from the UK after WW1. The UK gave us independence as a reward for bailing them out from the Kaiser in WW1 we would have took it anyways. This trend continued for WW2. We had no reliance on either though if that's what your insinuating quite the contrary they both had dependence on us for our natural resources this continues to this day. You have nothing we need but I guarantee we have things you need. The EU never existed at this time so your point is moot.
From: Baron on 9 Jan 2010 06:59 ehsjr Inscribed thus: > There was a small segment on the late news last nite here in > NY about, get this, iguanas falling out of trees down your way, > due to the cold. Apparently they pass out in the cold temperatures. > The announcer said iguanas aren't native to Florida, but have > established themselves there, having been bought as pets and > then escaped or been released. > > Obviously, the iguanas didn't know that "global warming" was > gonna make them freeze their asses off. > > Ed Yes ! There was a short film clip on UK TV National News, showing one about 2 feet long, loosing its grip on the branch it was hanging on to, and somersaulting as it fell to the ground. Apparently they go into a hibernation mode at low temperatures. -- Best Regards: Baron.
From: Bill Sloman on 9 Jan 2010 13:15 On Jan 9, 11:22 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:36:07 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > SNIP > > >> And with extreme cold in Southern England thousands of homes were > >> without power. Which of course means no heating. And gas supplies are > >> now being cut off to industry to protect domestic users. > > >In hot weather, the power demand from air-conditioning systems can > >also sky-rocket. > > >> The UK government has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker. So now > >> the use of salt and grit to make the roads safe is being cut by 25%. B > >> all gas reserves. Hey we don't need to plan for cold the planet is > >> getting warmer. Bloody alarmist socialist idiots. This government > >> needs to be treated like their idols such as Mussolini or Ceausescu. > > >If the UK is like the Netherlands, the use of salt and grit on the > >roads has been cut because the unexpected cold spell used up most of a > >stock that had been expected to last the winter. > > >Gas reserves will have been calculated on the basis of the same > >statistical model. Any time now, some statisticians is going to tell > >us that this has been a once in 10,000 year fluke. > > >Statistics doesn't tell you which year in the 10,000 is going to win > >the national lottery. > > >The statistician won't have figured in any anthropogenic global > >warming - statisticians don't think like that. And the socialist > >government you dislike so much won't have argued with his statistics. > >The conservative idiots who hope to replace them won't do any better. > > But some weather forecasters predicted this well in advance, Piers > Corbyn, for example. And some didn't. The ones that happened to be right get the publicity. Has Corbyn made a habit of being right, or is this just a lucky coincidence? > What does he know that the Met Office doesn't? It's the sun stupid. An attractive theory. Serious scientific investigation suggests that there is less there than meets the eye. > Other forecasters as well such as The Weather Outlook, Accuweather, > netweather. Out of how many? > Cold last year, cold this year and a solar minimum. Must be a Hale > winter. Funnily enough Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for this. They > happen every 2 solar cycles, and 1940, 1963, 1985 were cold winters. > 1963 was the coldest in the UK for a 200 year period. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/05/coldest-winters-britain-snow The Independent had the story you want to tell us, back in 2007 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ray-of-hope-can-the-sun-save-us-from-global-warming-762878.html It's a pity that the Solar cyces are sufficiently irregular that the correlation is only obvious after the event. And it is still just a correlation - attempts to postulate causation don't seem to do well. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 9 Jan 2010 14:01 On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:58:23 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jan 9, 1:16�am, Mark <makol...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple, >> > isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required >> > to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me. >> >> > Thanks for the entertainment. >> >> > -- >> >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen >> >> Yes, �as a matter of fact... >> >> my experience simulating �"simple" electronic systems �gives me enough >> knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the >> global climate cannot �be trusted with sufficient �confidence �that >> the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions. > >Right. And you'd take a climatologist's word on the effectiveness of >Spice in simulating electronic circuits. When engineers simulate circuits, they usually follow up by actually building them and making them work. A few years of doing this gives some serious loop-closing to our judgement of how far to trust simulation. Climatologists can't do this; all they can say is that their simulations are practically useless over observable time frames... which somehow gives some of them confidence that their sims are accurate over non-observable time frames. Lots of opamp and voltage regulators and such have behavioral models that are OK for the obvious stuff and truly terrible for things like PSRR, clamping/saturation, ESD diodes, power rail currents, all sorts of things. One learns about such limitations mostly by experience with real parts. Fortunately, the time lag between simulation and experiment can be literally minutes, and we can compare numbers and waveforms between sim and circuit to many digits of precision. The feedback is unforgiving of bad simulation. Pardon the thread drift in the direction of on-topic. John
From: Michael A. Terrell on 9 Jan 2010 19:09
John Larkin wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:58:23 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >On Jan 9, 1:16 am, Mark <makol...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple, > >> > isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required > >> > to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me. > >> > >> > Thanks for the entertainment. > >> > >> > -- > >> >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > >> > >> Yes, as a matter of fact... > >> > >> my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough > >> knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the > >> global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that > >> the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions. > > > >Right. And you'd take a climatologist's word on the effectiveness of > >Spice in simulating electronic circuits. > > When engineers simulate circuits, they usually follow up by actually > building them and making them work. A few years of doing this gives > some serious loop-closing to our judgement of how far to trust > simulation. Climatologists can't do this; all they can say is that > their simulations are practically useless over observable time > frames... which somehow gives some of them confidence that their sims > are accurate over non-observable time frames. There is more data availible to predict the path of a hurricane, and they are rarely even close. They have worked on those models for decades. > Lots of opamp and voltage regulators and such have behavioral models > that are OK for the obvious stuff and truly terrible for things like > PSRR, clamping/saturation, ESD diodes, power rail currents, all sorts > of things. One learns about such limitations mostly by experience with > real parts. Fortunately, the time lag between simulation and > experiment can be literally minutes, and we can compare numbers and > waveforms between sim and circuit to many digits of precision. The > feedback is unforgiving of bad simulation. > > Pardon the thread drift in the direction of on-topic. > > John -- Greed is the root of all eBay. |