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 4 Dec 2008 18:00 On Dec 4, 6:21 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:28:38 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 4 dec, 03:22, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:14:08 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> > On 3 dec, 19:12, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> 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: <snip> > > I think you will find that the stock market isn't chaotic in the narrow > > mathematical sense. > > Can you post a link that shows why you think that? In theory. In practice, why should I bother? It wouldn't persuade you that you were wrong. > > Public relations puffs aren't all that reliable on > > this kind of point. > > So show a more authoritative one. You can start here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory Since when is Wikipedia authoritative? I can't see anything wrong with the data presented - Wikipedia is usually pretty reliable - but it is still an article written for popular consumption, and is anything but mathematically rigorous. > There are many more references showing markets are chaotic in nature. At the level of superficial analogy, which does seem to be your preferred mode of argument. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Rich Grise on 4 Dec 2008 18:07 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:08:29 +0000, Eeyore wrote: > Bill Ward wrote: > >> In fact the more we learn about chaos the more closely it seems >> to be bound up with nature. Fractal structures seem to be everywhere we >> look: in ferns, cauliflowers, the coral reef, kidneys > > See the pics I posted in > Please find a website. For very many of us, there is no alt.binaries.schematics.electronic. And you/ve forgotten the brain, circulatory system, evolutional(evolutionary?) diversity, whole forests, and so on. >:-> See if you can view this thing: It's fascinating! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fractals/design.html Cheers! Rich
From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian on 4 Dec 2008 18:16 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:51:37 -0800, Martin Brown wrote: > On Dec 4, 3:04�am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:28:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> > Sure it's interesting. It's also totally irrelevant to climate >> > modelling over the period in which we (and the IPCC) are interested. >> >> Chaos theory is relevant in that it proves mathematically that you can't >> predict climate with any model, no matter how much history you have. >> �The prediction will soon rapidly diverge from the signal. > > That isn't what chaos theory says at all. The heart beat and solar system > planetary orbits are both formally chaotic systems but they are also quasi > periodic with a very high degree of long term reproducibility. You are > deliberately confusing "random" with chaotic. > I'm not sure it's "deliberate" - this would impliy that he has made his conclusion with deliberation: Definitions of deliberation on the Web: (usually plural) discussion of all sides of a question; "the deliberations of the jury" careful consideration; "a little deliberation would have deterred them" calculation: planning something carefully and intentionally; "it was the deliberation of his act that was insulting" slowness: a rate demonstrating an absence of haste or hurry the trait of thoughtfulness in action or decision; "he was a man of judicial deliberation" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn None of these I've ever seen BS actually perform (except, possibly, "slowness") before shrieking his pronouncements from the rooftops. He's nothing but another warmingist. Cheers! Rich
From: bill.sloman on 4 Dec 2008 18:20 On Dec 4, 7:10 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:51:37 -0800, Martin Brown wrote: > > On Dec 4, 3:04 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:28:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > >> > Sure it's interesting. It's also totally irrelevant to climate > >> > modelling over the period in which we (and the IPCC) are interested. > > >> Chaos theory is relevant in that it proves mathematically that you can't > >> predict climate with any model, no matter how much history you have. > >> The prediction will soon rapidly diverge from the signal. > > > That isn't what chaos theory says at all. The heart beat and solar system > > planetary orbits are both formally chaotic systems but they are also quasi > > periodic with a very high degree of long term reproducibility. You are > > deliberately confusing "random" with chaotic. > > > Typical chaotic systems for modest amounts of non-linear feedback tend to > > gryrate around a limit cycle centred on one or more stable attractors with > > some kind of roughly periodic behaviour but never returning to exactly the > > same state. They only become random and in effect totally unpredictable > > for the more extreme cases. Weather is hard to predict but long term > > climate can smooth this out well enough to extract any systematic trends. > > Nope. Read the wiki below. Attractors may be limited to specific regions > in phase space, but that doesn't make them predictable. Look closer at > the dimensions of phase space. <snipped the irrelevant wiki> You really are incorrigible. You live in the solar system on a planet whose orbital path is described by system of equations which is chaotic, and you calmly claim that chaotic systems are unpredictable. If you want to predict events around 100 million year ahead (some twenty time longer than the solar system has existed so far) the chaotic nature of the system of equations does make life difficult, but for all practical purposes you can set your clock by this "unpredictable" system (and we did just that until quite recently). You are using the same specious argument to claim that climate is unpredictable, despite the fact that we have roughly half a million years of climate date (from the Vostock ice cores) and the patterns look depressingly regular, more or less synchronised to orbital forcing. This kind of fatuous devotion to an unrealistic proposition is usually described as insane. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Whata Fool on 4 Dec 2008 18:20
Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:07:46 +0000, Eeyore wrote: > >> >> >> Bill Ward wrote: >> >>> The CO2 lags the temperature. >> >> Easily provable using a bottle of carbonated drink and warming it. >> >> Graham > >Afterward, you can easily prove a saturated solution of CO2 is non-toxic. >And refreshing. Actually, it should be easy to prove how much energy each GHG can radiate (emit) per unit of time (and accept that all gases radiate the same as each absorbs. Just heat the gas and see how fast it cools. As a first test, if quantity of energy transfer per unit of mass or volume at a given temperature each gas is difficult to measure, then the various gases could be compared by testing a given volume and mass at some given temperature. Dry nitrogen is readily available commercially, and any failure to test nitrogen and oxygen in addition to the known GHGs would have to be considered an attempt to hide facts by omission. |