Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: invalid on 9 Jan 2010 19:26 On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:09:15 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >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 -- THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
From: Raveninghorde on 9 Jan 2010 19:36 On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:15:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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? > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/a-frozen-britain-turns-the-hea.shtml /quote One long range forecaster I spoke to this autumn was convinced that this winter was going to be cold. His name is Joe Bastardi at Accuweather.com. Joe has a common sense approach to long range forecasting, an old fashioned style that has almost gone out of fashion in a meteorological world so dominated by powerful computers. He has an analytical mind second to none, and when I spoke to him he told me he was convinced that the weather patterns that we were having at the time reminded him of those which in the past had been followed by cold winters. He even went on to say that not only could this winter be cold across the USA and Europe, but it could be similar to those we used to experience in the 1970's. And this was way back in September. /end quote >> 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? It appears that the profit making private sector got it right and the alarmist state controlled government forecasters such as the Met Office and NOAA got it wrong. http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather /quote But hopefully this winter will wake people up to the EXTREME position that has been taken by climate scientists on the global warming issue. For I must point out to you that the forecasts for cold winters came from people that A) are predominately private forecasters and b) have been at this competitive situation so long, that they are well aware of the practical aspects of the climate. I am not talking about ivory tower dictating from above, but instead the ditchdiggers that do this every day of their life out of love of subject. The goal is not to "save the planet" but to nail the forecast. /end quote > >> 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.
From: Bill Sloman on 9 Jan 2010 19:44 On Jan 9, 12:24 pm, Hammy <s...(a)spam.com> wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:24:32 -0500, Hammy <s...(a)spam.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:27:45 -0500, Hammy <s...(a)spam.com> wrote: > > >>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <s...(a)spam.com> wrote: > > Bill Slomansaid > > >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. That wasn't the point. The exchange rates between every major curency interact - via the world trade system and the international money markets - and it simply isn't sensible to ignore this interaction. > >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 A British army (under General Wolfe), captured Quebec and defeated the French in 1759. If there was a Canadian contingent in the victorious army, it's exploits aren't celebrated in non-Canadian history books. > and became independent from the UK after WW1. This isn't true. Canada achieved dominion status within the British Empire in 1867, on the basis of laws enacted, and voted on, in the UK Parliament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_North_America_Act It couldn't agree on a procedure for amending its own constitution until 1949, so until that date it was dependent on the U.K. parliament to enact constituional amendments. >The UK gave us independence as a > reward for bailing them out from the Kaiser in WW1 we would have took > it anyways. As an Australian I was taught about Canada's progression to self- government to illuminate Australia's progression through the same trajectory. I seemed to have learned more about Canada in the process than you managed to absorb. It took you until 1949 to agree on how to manage the last step to independence - not exactly evidence of massive popular pressure. >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. Granting your feeble grasp of history, you probably find any number of points moot. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: invalid on 9 Jan 2010 19:49 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:36:45 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:15:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>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? >> > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/a-frozen-britain-turns-the-hea.shtml > >/quote > >One long range forecaster I spoke to this autumn was convinced that >this winter was going to be cold. His name is Joe Bastardi at >Accuweather.com. Joe has a common sense approach to long range >forecasting, an old fashioned style that has almost gone out of >fashion in a meteorological world so dominated by powerful computers. >He has an analytical mind second to none, and when I spoke to him he >told me he was convinced that the weather patterns that we were having >at the time reminded him of those which in the past had been followed >by cold winters. He even went on to say that not only could this >winter be cold across the USA and Europe, but it could be similar to >those we used to experience in the 1970's. And this was way back in >September. > >/end quote > >>> 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? > >It appears that the profit making private sector got it right and the >alarmist state controlled government forecasters such as the Met >Office and NOAA got it wrong. > >http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather > >/quote > >But hopefully this winter will wake people up to the EXTREME position >that has been taken by climate scientists on the global warming issue. >For I must point out to you that the forecasts for cold winters came >from people that A) are predominately private forecasters and b) have >been at this competitive situation so long, that they are well aware >of the practical aspects of the climate. I am not talking about ivory >tower dictating from above, but instead the ditchdiggers that do this >every day of their life out of love of subject. The goal is not to >"save the planet" but to nail the forecast. > >/end quote > >> >>> 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. -- THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
From: Bill Sloman on 9 Jan 2010 20:14
On Jan 9, 8:01 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:58:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(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. Which works for you in your area of expertise. > 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. And your evidence for this claim is? Climatologists in fact claim that their simulations model the gross behaviour of the atmosphere pretty accurately. Cell sizes are pretty large - around 100km a side - which makes fine detail impossible. http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/climate_modeling.html > 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. Which does make life easier for people like Mike Engelhardt of LTSpice fame. It doesn't say a thing about the way climatologists tackle their problems. > Pardon the thread drift in the direction of on-topic. I'm all in favour of it - when you talk about stuff you know something about, it is actually informative, though if irrelevant to the off- topic of climate simulations that you think you are talking about. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |