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 18:59 On Dec 4, 10:59 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >On 4 dec, 13:43, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: <snipped the usual mindless rubbish> > almost as meaningless as the efforts they are paying you > for to attack AGW skeptics. If only. And you don't know enough to be described as sceptical about anthropogenic global warming - you barely reach the level of opinionated nitwit. Nobody would pay actual money to have your opinions devalued - they really are worthless.
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 19:08 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:00:19 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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. So the answer in practice is "no", you can't. >> > 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. You're the one who can't find a supporting link, not me. Makes you look kind of foolish, don't you think?
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 19:21 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:07:24 +0000, Rich Grise wrote: > 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 About 25 years ago I replaced my S-100 bus Z-80 with a Columbia 8088 PC clone. The first program I wrote on the new powerhouse was a QBasic Mandelbrot set generator. It took 2 days to get a 320 by 200 4 color image of a portion of the set. I was so proud. But I didn't have a color printer. Now you can interactively zoom around in the set.
From: Bill Ward on 4 Dec 2008 19:50 On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:20:34 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > 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> And a lot of other stuff he can't respond to. > 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. As I said, it's all in the time scale. Math is math. > 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). Irrelevant. > 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. It's not a specious argument, it's a mathematically proven fact. In a chaotic system, predictions will exponentially diverge from reality. Here's the quote you had to snip. The context is determining whether a system is deterministic or stochastic(random). Pick two adjacent states, then: "Define the error as the difference between the time evolution of the 'test' state and the time evolution of the nearby state. A deterministic system will have an error that either remains small (stable, regular solution) or increases exponentially with time (chaos). A stochastic system will have a randomly distributed error." It's pretty clear, if it's chaotic, the error will increase exponentially with time. Lorenz found chaos when he tried to do some of the first numerical climate modeling, so it seems pointless to try to deny weather and climate are chaotic. > This kind of fatuous devotion to an unrealistic proposition is usually > described as insane. What is it with you true believers and projection? Is it related to the brainwashing or something?
From: Whata Fool on 4 Dec 2008 19:52
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <null(a)example.net> wrote: >On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:10:53 -0800, Bill Ward wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:51:37 -0800, Martin Brown wrote: >> >>> Chaotic does not mean that it cannot be predicted. You are confusing >>> random with chaotic. I am inclined to believe that this is deliberate >>> misdirection on your part. >> >> Nope. Chaotic means prediction errors accumulate exponentially. >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory> >> >> <begin excerpt> >[excerpt snipped] >> <end excerpt> >> >Education: The process of inserting abstract thoughts into concrete heads. > >Cheers! >Rich There are lots of reasons why the heads are like concrete, stubbornness really isn't one of the main ones. In the case of AGW, the basic premise of a warmer world because of GHGs as discussed more than 100 years ago is accepted apparently without much questioning that premise. The spectra really can't be questioned, the existence and relative abundance of the gases is not in question, and the apparent warming in the 1990s (pretty much _ONLY_ in the 1990s) seems to add confidence in the premise. But yet I question the premise that the atmosphere IS warmer because of greenhouse gases. The absorption and re-radiation by GHGs is not in question, so what possible information could support the fallacy of the premise of the atmosphere being warmer because of greenhouse gases? First, the simple fact that it is GHGs that radiate the thermal energy of the atmosphere to space begs a question, but what is the question? The only question possible is "what would cool the atmosphere of NOT GHGs?". Without GHGs, the atmosphere would consist essentially of only nitrogen and oxygen. It is obvious contact with the surface with 15 PSI pressure would warm the N2 and O2 in contact with the surface. And convection caused by the buoyancy of the warmed air would move the warm air upward to be replaced by cooler air moving down (in daylight). So the N2 and O2 would be warmed without GHGs, possibly contrary to the basic premise of GHG theory. And if there is no process that can cool the N2 and O2 at a rate fast enough, then the N2 and O2 would warm all day, and stay warm at night except for a little cooling of the very bottom few inches or feet near the surface. And that cooling would last at most for 16 hours, only to have the warming begin again with sunrise. This question needs its own thread: , |