Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: Don Klipstein on 10 Jan 2010 01:15 In <162dd441-fab2-4311-94fd-ec46f7c663da(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Bill Sloman wrote: >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 Sorry to upset you here, but Joe Bestardi appears to me to be an "old fart" from the outright-subregion of USA 2nd-worst to do weather forecasting for. That would be the metropolitan area giving USA its first major private weather forecasting company managing to sell to major notable extent by-name-in-weather-forecasts in broadcast news media. The private weather forecasting firm here is "Accu-Weather". IIRC, founded in Philadelphia, notably 2nd-worst "small-region" (almost as small as "metropolitan area") for winter weather forecasting. An earlier big-name in "Accu-Weather" was a major founder of the meteorology club at Philadelphia's "Central High School", the most-academic "high school" in Philadelphia's public education district. I had a bit of membership there shortly following its major contribution to the existence of "Accu-Weather". - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 10 Jan 2010 01:59 In <882c11a0-a68d-4e7e-873b-fd9edf957f2d(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Bill Sloman wrote: <SNIP to here, heavily including stuff said so many times that it would be a big chore to get it requoted as-best-as-possible> >If you think that the case for anthropogenic global warming primarily >depends on weather records from 1850, you don't understand the case, I have noted how you liked to say what happened after 1880. Only one of the "Big 5" global temperature indices goes farther back, and that one goes back to 1850. Keep in mind what atmospheric concentration was in 1850 or 1880, according to youer favored sources - hardly above the "holocene-usual" of 280 PPMV, likely 280-290 or so. >and need to plow through something like the American Institute of >Physics web-site on the subject > >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ > >> I don't think anyone with their head screwed on right would disagree >> that AGW is real. The question is whether it is any more than man >> accelerating the ramp to the next peak. > >What "next peak"? If we didn't have anthropogenic global warming we'd >be expecting the current slow decline in temperature - over the last >8000 years - to accelerate into a decline into the next ice age, as it >has for all the preceding inter-glacials for the last 400,000 years > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png I see that as true - we managed to avert the upcoming ice age, and I expect that in the next couple centuries we well by a small margin set a new global high termperature for Holocene. >> The alarmists have decided >> that this means the end of the world as we know it. Anyone to dares >> to disagree with them is immediately labelled as in denial or having >> been conned by big oil. Ain't so. > >Big oil - and big coal - have certainly spent a lot of money on >weakening the public inpact of teh scie tific case. They seem to have >spent a lot of the moeny with the organisations set up by the tobacco >companies to mitigate the impact of the scientific evidence on the >dangers of smoking > >http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf > >Since the "alarmists" don't present anthropogenic global warming as >meaning the end of life as we know it, you do seem to have been >influenced by denialist propaganda. However, many on the "warmingist side" appear to me to be overblowing the warming to an extent requiring economy-denting solutions that "rogue nations" will violate to their advantage. I only expect their violations to be large factor of global temperature increasing by 2-3 degrees C in the next 2 centuries - and who is more prepared for sea level to rise a meter or two? For that matter, who is in better shape for competitive advantage among nations should we manage to melt Greenlan's icecap and raise sea level by 6-7 meters? (a major upheaval) >For the record, the appropriate response to anthropogenic global >warming is a progressive reduction in our use of fossil carbon as an >energy source, which will probably double the cost of energy vis-a-vis >labour and capital. This won't mean "the end of life as we know it" >but rather a more gradual version of the economic adjustment that >followed the 1973 oil crisis, when the price of oil went up by a >factor of four in a year. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis That part I agree with - but it appears to me that "Hubbert Peak Oil" is very few years from now, and natural gas is 1.5 decades behind oil in peaking, and energy prices will take only a few years from now on their own to force demand to adapt to suplies showing themselves to be limited even without any government intervention. >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen -- Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 10 Jan 2010 02:05 In <rLidnR6YANs2h9TWnZ2dnUVZ_h1i4p2d(a)earthlink.com>, M. A. Terrell 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. <SNIP from here> As it turns out, I have been quite impressed with hurricane forecasts from 2003 and onward, starting with forecasts for Isabelle of September 2003. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 10 Jan 2010 02:26 In article <bujhk5prnbf5gc2i8r23rtpm6si0osot82(a)4ax.com>, 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. > >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. I would like to mention... As a "representative-oversimplified" model to be an analogue to both a "weather model" and a "climate model": A Class D amplifier with all component values modulated to mildly-somewhat significant extent by "white noise". Input is some DC signal changing according to whatever is supposed to change according to whatever is supposed to change global climate. "Weather forecast" here: Prediction of schedule of output switching transistor stage being high or low, or prediction of a schedule of short-term peaks and dips in outputafter the output filter (as well as how far high and low they go should they be on-schedule). "Climate forecast" here: Is the gain of this amplifier correct or how far is it incorrect for changes in signals of change in global climate? That is questionable, but is not credibly questioned much by pointing out how quickly (as expected at Time Zero) the state of the output switching transistors deviates from the "forecast schedule" - that is where this is an analogue of a "weather model". The forecast for duty cycle over millions-plus or billions-plus or trillions-plus cycles of output stage switching is the "climate model". - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Sloman on 10 Jan 2010 02:37
On Jan 10, 7:59 am, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > In <882c11a0-a68d-4e7e-873b-fd9edf957...(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > Bill Slomanwrote: > > <SNIP to here, heavily including stuff said so many times that it would > be a big chore to get it requoted as-best-as-possible> > > >If you think that the case for anthropogenic global warming primarily > >depends on weather records from 1850, you don't understand the case, > > I have noted how you liked to say what happened after 1880. Only one of > the "Big 5" global temperature indices goes farther back, and that one > goes back to 1850. > > Keep in mind what atmospheric concentration was in 1850 or 1880, > according to youer favored sources - hardly above the "holocene-usual" of > 280 PPMV, likely 280-290 or so. > > >and need to plow through something like the American Institute of > >Physics web-site on the subject > > >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ > > >> I don't think anyone with their head screwed on right would disagree > >> that AGW is real. The question is whether it is any more than man > >> accelerating the ramp to the next peak. > > >What "next peak"? If we didn't have anthropogenic global warming we'd > >be expecting the current slow decline in temperature - over the last > >8000 years - to accelerate into a decline into the next ice age, as it > >has for all the preceding inter-glacials for the last 400,000 years > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png > > I see that as true - we managed to avert the upcoming ice age, and I > expect that in the next couple centuries we well by a small margin set a > new global high termperature for Holocene. > > > > > > >> The alarmists have decided > >> that this means the end of the world as we know it. Anyone to dares > >> to disagree with them is immediately labelled as in denial or having > >> been conned by big oil. Ain't so. > > >Big oil - and big coal - have certainly spent a lot of money on > >weakening the public inpact of teh scie tific case. They seem to have > >spent a lot of the moeny with the organisations set up by the tobacco > >companies to mitigate the impact of the scientific evidence on the > >dangers of smoking > > >http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf > > >Since the "alarmists" don't present anthropogenic global warming as > >meaning the end of life as we know it, you do seem to have been > >influenced by denialist propaganda. > > However, many on the "warmingist side" appear to me to be overblowing > the warming to an extent requiring economy-denting solutions that "rogue > nations" will violate to their advantage. > > I only expect their violations to be large factor of global temperature > increasing by 2-3 degrees C in the next 2 centuries - and who is more > prepared for sea level to rise a meter or two? > > For that matter, who is in better shape for competitive advantage among > nations should we manage to melt Greenlan's icecap and raise sea level by > 6-7 meters? (a major upheaval) > > >For the record, the appropriate response to anthropogenic global > >warming is a progressive reduction in our use of fossil carbon as an > >energy source, which will probably double the cost of energy vis-a-vis > >labour and capital. This won't mean "the end of life as we know it" > >but rather a more gradual version of the economic adjustment that > >followed the 1973 oil crisis, when the price of oil went up by a > >factor of four in a year. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis > > That part I agree with - but it appears to me that "Hubbert Peak Oil" > is very few years from now, and natural gas is 1.5 decades behind oil in > peaking, and energy prices will take only a few years from now on their > own to force demand to adapt to suplies showing themselves to be limited > even without any government intervention. Unfortunately, there is still loads of coal. It is a cheaper - if less convenient - energy source than oil or natural gas, and the Fischer- Tropsch process can be used to turn it into oil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process At least the static plant can run with CO2 sequestration and eventual burial, if the "rogue nations" can be coerced into spending the extra money. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |