Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 9 Jan 2010 22:17 On Jan 10, 1:36 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:15:16 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(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-... > > /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 You can always find a forecaster who happend to have predicted the right weather, after the event. Doing it while the prediction is still predicting a future event is a little more difficult. > >> 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=accu.... > > /quote Some of the profit making private sector got it right, this time. Big deal. One of the better scams for making money out of random events is to send out different random predictions to a large number of customers, keep track of the predictions, and only send out follow-ups where the random predictions happen to have been right. The customers that survive a couple of rounds of this are quite impressed by the accuracy of the predictions that they got, and may well be willing to pay for more of the same. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 9 Jan 2010 22:27 On Jan 10, 2:33 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >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.... > > If cell sizes were 1 cubic meter the weather models wouldn't be much > better, ie, still useless over two weeks. This is probably true. > Nor would the climate models. This is probably wrong, if this IEEE Spectrum article is anything to go by http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/a-computer-for-the-clouds Admittedly, this is merely the opinion of someone working in the field, rather than the omniscient opinion of the owner of Highland Technology. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 9 Jan 2010 22:29 On Jan 9, 3:30 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 7:02 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:25:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > >On Jan 7, 11:53 am, John Larkin wrote: > > > > >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex wrote: > > > > > >> >One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data > > > > >> >points. > > > > > >> Well, the alarmists weren't shy about blaming every storm, beach > > > > >> erosion, hot spell, change in butterfly population, or the weigh of a > > > > >> herd of sheep on Global Warming. > > > > > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm > > > > > >> John > > > > > >Not to worry, we're still doomed: > > > > > http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9495864 > > > > > Another Ice Age would be "just a blip in the long-term heating trend." > > > > I think you are letting your over-fertile imagination run away here. > > > > > Just keep extending the definition of "weather" and "climate" as suits > > > > your political needs. > > > > The way you do? You and James Arthur do seem enthusiastic about > > > confusing weather models > > > You're confused--you invented that. > > Credit where credit is due. Sloman invented stupid, and has worked > 60+ years to perfect it. You are too generous. You'd mastered stupid long before I'd completed my Ph.D. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Michael A. Terrell on 9 Jan 2010 23:34 invalid(a)invalid.invalid wrote: > > THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS > WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM? None of yours doe either so 'Bite me, jackass'. -- Greed is the root of all eBay.
From: Don Klipstein on 10 Jan 2010 00:56
In <1a1f3856-e9c5-4a54-a990-28caef7d67d0(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Bill Sloman 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? > >> 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 Sorry to upset you here, but my experience suggests that the solar cycles are less "irregular" than most of the terrestrial oceanic or atmospheric (or combined) phenomena whose "last names" are "oscillation". I expect to be alive and "reasonably sane" long enough to see if UK gets another spectacularly severe winter in the early 2030's. Not that I expect a 22-23 year cycle achieves more than a fraction as much effect on the world or northern hemisphere as Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation achieves, but in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere there may be some bit of truth to this bit of a severe winter or a couple of severe winters notably having positive correlation with every-other solar minimum. If Northern Hemisphere regions having these "Hale winters" have "persistence-based forecast" failing half the time after now, then that merely gets those regions getting cold in 11-year-solar-cycle minima but also having such cold winters more irregularly and randomly. If these regions all maintain "frequency division" much-above-50% (preferably above 70%) through early 2030's or well-above-25% (preferably above 50%) through mid-2050's (when A.M.O. is likely to be on next upswing), then 22-23 year cycle for those regions advances via a test according to "scientific method". Not that I give world-class weight in favor of or against existence or extent of AGW by having this supported or countered by observational evidence to be gained from after now to mid-2050's - I am expecting this to show up strongly only in regions of the globe so small as to make this less significant for periodic components of global temperature than A.M.O. is. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |