The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: bill.sloman on 26 Nov 2008 07:13 On 26 nov, 06:22, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > I certainly don't command the computing capacity required to run that > > kind of model > > Wouldn't matter if you did. The models are FUCKED ! You may think so, but - as you demonstrate below - you don't know anything about mathematical modelling either. > Forget where I heard it but to model climate accurately you need something like 150 > variables and the IPCC is using only about 90. The 90 they like. Granting the shallowness of your understanding, this just means that you've got something else wrong. > Besides, models only model LINEAR systems ! Oh really? Then the Spice models of transistors (which exhibit an expotential - not linear - relationship between base voltage and collector current) don't exist. Back in 1969 I was modelling a second order chemical reaction (the thermal decompostion of NOBr, in which the rate is proportional to the square of the concentration of NOBr) - including its self-cooling for my Ph.D.project. Would you like to think that one out again? > Climate is CHAOTIC. Weather is chaotic. Climate is rather more predictable - a fact that farmers have been relying on for several millenia now. Jesus Wept. You do go out of your way to make it clear that you don't know what you are talking about. You would actually need to do some quite intensive studying to get yourself into a postion where you could be aware how thoroughly pig-ignorant you are. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 26 Nov 2008 07:43 On 26 nov, 06:57, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:15:34 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > On 25 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:42:55 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> > On 25 nov, 17:50, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:14:09 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> >> > On 25 nov, 09:47, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: <snip> > > The issues that you seem to be wanting to raise are the heat transfer > > through the lower atmosphere by convection and by evaporation and > > condensation, which are interesting enough - here's the abstract of a 1960 > > paper on the subject > > >http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113519112/abstract?CRETRY=.... > > > but you'd need to have access to a univerity libary to be able to read the > > full paper (and it's numerous successors) for nothing. > > For a 48 year old paper? Yeah, right. It's successors might be more interesting - the computers available in 1960 weren't all that impressive. I wrote my first program in 1965 for Melbourne University's IBM 7040/44 which had 32k of 36bit words of core memory, and relied on magnetic tape for mass storage, and cost the university a million dollars. > You don't show much promise. All you seem to be able to do is posture, > bluff, and hope nobody calls you on it. Can you explain as I asked > above or not? > > I'm betting not. In theory, I could produce an explanation - I did elementary versions of this sort of modelling for my Ph.D. project back in the late 1960's, so it ought to be a practicable project. It certainly wouldn't be a practical project, and there's no way in which I would waste my time re-inventing the wheel, when the climatologists have been working on exactly that project for the last forty-odd years. The IPCC exists to provide exactly that kind of explanation, and they got to share a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore precisely because the Nobel Prize committe thought that they had made a good job of it. If you seriously thought that it would be worth my time getting into the public education business in competition with them, you'd have to be as far out of touch with reality as Jim Thompson and Eeyore. That requires remarkably extensive ignorance, so my betting is that you are more likely to be trying to score some kind of recherché debating point. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 26 Nov 2008 08:50 On 26 nov, 07:49, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Bill Ward wrote: > > bill.sloman wrote: > > > > I work in NMR, FTMS, atom probing, various TOF technologies, and of > > > course electronic spectroscopy. > > > Actually, you build instruments for the physicists who do the work. > > You can't do that without having some grasp of what is going on, but > > your implicit claim that your practice of electronic spectroscopy > > gives you some insight into optical spectroscopy makes it pretty clear > > how superfical this grasp actually is. > > Actually he doesn't WORK ! > > He's been unemployed for years. He blames it on his age. I blame it on his attitude. > > Graham
From: bill.sloman on 26 Nov 2008 08:56 On 26 nov, 06:18, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Bill Ward wrote: > > You didn't address any of the issues I raised. Are you unable, or do you > > just know better than to try?# > > Of course he didn't. AGWists never do, they just repeat their propaganda. > Goebbels would have been proud of them. > > The fact that REAL DATA totally undermines their case is of no interest to > them. Graham's idea of "real data" is what he's spoon-fed on Exxon-Mobil funded web-sites. It looks as if it is a good deal easier to construct a plausible story if you aren't constrained by inconvenient facts. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2008 09:04
bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > On 26 nov, 06:22, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > I certainly don't command the computing capacity required to run that > > > kind of model > > > > Wouldn't matter if you did. The models are FUCKED ! > > You may think so, but - as you demonstrate below - you don't know > anything about mathematical modelling either. I was using mathematical modelling software 20 years ago. MathCad for DOS ! Graham |