Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Jan 2010 20:52 On Jan 9, 1:30 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:16:07 -0800 (PST), 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. > > >Mark > > Agreed. The planet's climate is a massively complex nonlinear system > whose dynamics and forcings are only guessed at [1]. We know that > "weather" is chaotic over all time scales that it's been observed > over. It's absurd to think that "climate" is predictable. merely > because the time horizon exceeds observability. Since the time horizon doesn't exceed observability, I don't need to point out the other absurdities of your claim. > Weather does couple into climate. One can't just wave hands and mumble > about lowpass filtering. This ain't a linear system. You've got your opinion, and von Neumann had his http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm My money is on von Neumann. The US governement has spent - and is still spending - a lot of money on backing his opinion. They may be wrong, and you may be right, but I wouldn't bet on it. > Que more ponderous Sloman insults: John Larkin holds forth on a subject he knows little about, and feels insulted when it is pointed out that he does happen to be talking nonsense. If he's such a sensitive fellow, why does he persist in producing opinions about subjects that he knows very little about? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Jan 2010 20:57 On Jan 8, 10:56 pm, 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. > > > (which are susceptible to the butterfly > > effect) and climate models (which are deliberately onstructed so that > > they aren't). > > What construction, and how does it guarantee that? Diagrams, please. Ask your own tame expert. You won't understand her answer, but if she is any good she should be able to give you a better answer than I could, and with a lot less effort. Or do some reading here - searching on the name von Neumann will get you to the interesting bits fairly quickly. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Jan 2010 20:58 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. -- Bil Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Hammy on 8 Jan 2010 21:11 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 > >>Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange >>rate is truly irrelevant. > >I would consider anything less then 10% GDP irrelevant. > >>Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was >>unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality. > >You seem to be a cherry picker as well as blind I said we had a >recession not that we were unaffected the whole world was. In >comparison to most developed Countries we got off lightly considering. > >>That was then. This is now. The USA - your major trading partner - has >>been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was >>president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything, >{snip} > >In a nut shell we could easily live without the EU the EU couldn't >live without us. As a matter of fact the EU wouldn't even exist >without us. I notice a few people here seem to hold a grudge against >North Americans is it because you know you owe us something you know >you could never repay. I can see how someone might harbour resentment >under the circumstances. [Disclaimer] All of my comments were directed towards Sloman and his kind and weren't meant to insult any sane EU people.;) Goodnight
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Jan 2010 21:19
On Jan 9, 2:24 am, 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 > > >Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange > >rate is truly irrelevant. > > I would consider anything less then 10% GDP irrelevant. That claim is silly enough that you could be an economist. > >Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was > >unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality. > > You seem to be a cherry picker as well as blind I said we had a > recession not that we were unaffected the whole world was. In > comparison to most developed countries we got off lightly considering. So what? > >That was then. This is now. The USA - your major trading partner - has > >been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was > >president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything, > > {snip} > > In a nut shell we could easily live without the EU the EU couldn't > live without us. As a matter of fact the EU wouldn't even exist > without us. I notice a few people here seem to hold a grudge against > North Americans is it because you know you owe us something you know > you could never repay. I can see how someone might harbour resentment > under the circumstances. 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. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |