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 3 Dec 2008 07:32 On 3 dec, 00:47, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >On 2 dec, 04:10, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> As if a mere 388 parts per million could make a big difference. > > >Get an education - 388ppm may not look like much, but without it the > >surface of the earth would be quite a bit cooler. > > I am afraid that is wrong, but very few people have enough > of an open mind to discuss it intelligently, only in your case, > the added burden of a suffering ego makes it worse. You show no signs of being able to follow intelligent discussion. Pointing out that you are both dim and ill-informed isn't egotistical, though you may find it damaging to your ego. > Your statement above mentions the surface, which on the real > Earth is mostly water, but not much data exists for temperatures of > the land surfaces. Oh? Really? > It would seem reasonable to expect that trained climatologists > (which you ain't one) mean the "surface" when they say surface, but > temperature measurements (the ones you refer to) are taken in the air > about 2 meters above the surface. Which happens to give the most stable and consistent results. This goes back to the time of Buys Ballot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._H._D._Buys_Ballot but you want to re-invent the wheel (or rather replace it with your preferred form of sled). > > And to with the present real Earth but with no CO2, the "surface" > temperature would not be "a lot cooler", it might be a couple of degrees > warmer (or cooler), which is not "quite a bit). And the evdience for you claim is? > But to since the usual line expressed in GreenHouse Gas theory > is "without GreenHouse Gases the Earth's surface would be a lot cooler". > > So apparently some brainwashing has caused CO2 to be considered > the only GreenHouse Gas, have you been to the planet Algore? See http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php for the answer to this (and a number of other) foolish arguments. Knocking out all the CO2 in our atmosphere would reduce the greenhouse warming by 9%, from the current 33C to 30C, which would cool the surface by 3C in the first instance, which would lower the partial pressure of water vapour in the atmosphere (giving futher cooling) but enven on its own it would be enough to restore the snow cover of the northern hemisphere and bring on another glaciation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png > Without any GHGs, meaning no water or water vapor (the others, > including carbon dioxide have too little effect to matter much), the > surface of Earth would get very hot in daytime, and cool some at night, > but would NOT have temperatures identical to the moon, for several > very good reasons. None of which you can actually produce, which is a pity, since I'd have fun knocking them down > So it is abundantly clear you are just repeating the gossip > jargon, and making mistakes, you should have said "GreenHouse Gases" > instead of CO2 if you want stars on your paper. It may be clear to you. To the better-informed rest of the world, you are merely a posturing ignoramus who has been taken in by Exxon-Mobil- funded propaganda. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 3 Dec 2008 07:43 On 2 dec, 05:14, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:19:20 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > > In <4af7b00c-7776-415a-bf71-f008a2e38...(a)j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > >>On 23 nov, 16:47, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:03:45 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >>> > On 23 nov, 05:33, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > <SNIP to edit for space> > > >>> Wrong fiasco. =A0I meant this one: > > >>>http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm > > >>Scarcely. The cooling was real enough, if insignificant - and probably > >>had something to do with sulphur-dioxide-generated haze, which went away > >>when we tackled acid rain. > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png > > > Some of the up-and-down looks to me like being in a 60 year cycle - > > maybe the Multidecadal Oscillation. > > Could be. Or just a mind seeing pattern where there is none. It's > chaotic. There is no pattern. This is an article of faith with you? The solar system is chaotic. Everybody else can still see patterns, but you are surprised when spring follows winter and gives way to summer and totally shocked when autumn then sets in, and bewail our ill-luck when autumn falls off into winter. You must live an exciting life. Working out when to planet bulbs in the garden must be really difficult for you. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Eeyore on 3 Dec 2008 08:04 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > The solar system is chaotic. Everybody else can still see patterns, > but you are surprised when spring follows winter and gives way to > summer and totally shocked when autumn then sets in, and bewail our > ill-luck when autumn falls off into winter. You must live an exciting > life. Working out when to planet bulbs in the garden must be really > difficult for you. You say the stupidest things Bill. Ever noticed how those plants grow and bloom at fifferent times of the year ? Graham
From: John M. on 3 Dec 2008 10:50 On Dec 3, 12:08 pm, bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > Waving your magic wand and cyring "chaotic"doesn't actually invalidate > modern climatology - though it does tend to invalide any claim you > might kmake to know something about it. Bilbo has always found problems getting his head around the difference between 'random' and 'chaotic'. Or perhaps he is disguising his real knowledge. The mantra "climate is chaotic" has served him well in the past - as a way out of debates he's lost.
From: Bill Ward on 3 Dec 2008 13:12
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:08:12 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 1 dec, 10:55, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:43:58 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> > In article <492FF152.3ED3E...(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote: >> >> >>z wrote: >> >> >>> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> >>> > > > > 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. >> >> >>> > > That IS a linear system as we describe them now. >> >> >>> > This is a minority opinion. Any student sharing it with their >> >>> > examiner would fail that aspect of their exam, but since you >> >>> > clearly exercise your mind by believing six impossible things >> >>> > before breakfast I suppose we can write this off as part of the >> >>> > price you pay to maintain your genius-level IQ. >> >> >>> well to be fair, he only said "linear"; could be he didn't mean the >> >>> usual sense of "straight line" >> >> >>Quite so. A LINEAR equation can contain power, log, exp terms etc. >> >> >>But it CANNOT model CHAOS. And that's what weather and climate are. >> >> > Chaos is in weather, not in climate. >> >> Climate is low-passed (averaged) weather. Filters cannot remove >> chaos. Therefore climate is chaotic. Chaos is unpredictable. >> >> > And I would call El Ninos, La Ninas, oceanic Rossby waves and the >> > surges and ebbs of the North Atlantic and Arctic "oscillations" to be >> > weather phenomena, even though the longer term ones are oceanic in >> > origin - chaotic deviations from the much nicer longer term trends >> > that are climate. >> >> They are still chaotic, no matter how low the filter corner frequency >> is. > > The planetary orbits in the solar system are chaotic, but they look pretty > regular over periods of a few million years, and low-pass filtering works > fine there. The human heart rate is also chaotic, but - with a healthy > heart - it looks pretty regular (at least until you get into the fine > detail and find out that stroboscopic imaging of the heart doesn't work > too well) and low pass fitlering works fine. > > Waving your magic wand and cyring "chaotic"doesn't actually invalidate > modern climatology - though it does tend to invalide any claim you might > kmake to know something about it. So math is a magic wand to you. I think I see your problem. If you really believe what you say, you should make a fortune in the chaotic stock market. Let us know how that goes. |