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 5 Dec 2008 08:59 On 5 dec, 01:08, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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. Possibly. But since I won't, we aren't going to find out. > >> > 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? Not half as foolish as I'd look if I bothered to take you seriously. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Martin Brown on 5 Dec 2008 09:06 On Dec 4, 9:21 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:24:14 -0800, Martin Brown wrote: > > Bill Ward wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:14:23 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >>>>> They emit and absorb in the infra-red just like water and carbon > >>>>> dioxide; because they are symmetrical molecules the transitions are > >>>>> forbidden, but pressure broadening/intermolecular collisions means > >>>>> that the transitions happen anyway, albeit much less often than with > >>>>> asymmetrical molecules. > > >>>> I think we need a link for that. It would mean N2 and O2 are GHGs.. > > > Very weak ones. Their absorption of IR radiation is measurable with modern > > equipment ... but they are to a very good approximation transparent to IR > > at STP and lower pressures. > > > N2 transparent enough in the IR to be used as a cheap carrier gas for some > > experiments. > > Then how can it be significant as a GHG? It isn't. But it is still a gas and as such has various properties like forming an atmosphere and wind circulation driven by temperature differentials on the planets surface. It isn't even remotely significant as a GHG unless there is absolutely nothing else. The IR absorbtion of N2 is miniscule but it is not quite zero at certain wavelengths. To a very good approximation it is transparent in the IR waveband. > >>> I suspect to some extremely slight extent they actually are. > > >> Can you tell us why you suspect that? Perhaps a link to some data? > > > OK and this link dates back to military research in the early 70's long > > before AGW was thought to be a potential problem. It is left as an > > excercise to the reader to work out why they might be interested. > > > It was declassified in 1981. > > >http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD882876&Location=U2&doc=GetT... > > > Incidentally you would also have ozone O3, nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 > > formed in your initially pure N2 O2 atmosphere before too long since UV > > photons from the nearest star will facilitate the relevant reactions > > albeit slowly in a pure gas atmosphere. And they are all GHG through being > > poly atomic or having an asymmetric dipole moment. > > > A pure argon atmosphere would behave as close as possible to the > > theoretical ideal gas solution - monatomic with no molecular bonds (and a > > high enough molecular weight that a terrestrial sized planet could hold > > onto it). > > > BTW If you are interested in the science rather than in trying to pretend > > that AGW does not exist. You might find it interesting and helpful to read > > the IPCC scientific reports which deal with quite a lot of the questions > > you have been asking and the relative certainties and uncertainties that > > exist within the present models. > > I don't think the IPCC reports are relevant. They start with the > conclusion and work backwards. Not at all. They describe the science with copious references and in reasonable detail that leads to the conclusions and recommendations of the IPPC. You can even download it free online from the IPCC site. Or you could as seems more likely given your posts here chose to remain wilfully ignorant. > > Altering surface IR emissivity to trap long wave radiation and heat > > inside a space is used in much less controversial settings such as InO > > coatings on some types of lamp and Pilkingtons Low-E glazing for > > instance. > > Did anyone question that? The principle is also used on solar collectors. "What a Fool" insists that GHG can only cool the atmosphere - see above. I believe he is on his own with that one. But his posts appear to have confused you. Regards, Martin Brown
From: bill.sloman on 5 Dec 2008 09:20 On 5 dec, 01:50, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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. Not can't - won't. Bill Ward has this delusion that people should take him seriously, when he persistently ignores the great gaping holes that other people tear in his arguments. > > 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. But your grasp of the significance of time scales is - to put it kindly - fragile. > > 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. Because it doesn't support your - totally fatuous - argument? Grow up. > > 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. For the solar system it takes about 100 million years before the divergence is perceptible. The climate - as recorded by the Vostok ice- core data - doesn't look chaotic over half a million years, so your objection is purely theoretical (and you don't seem to understand the ory all that well either). > 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. In the cases we are interested in here, the error starts out negligible and will expontially increased to something much bigger - but still negligible around about the time we could be expected to disappear as a species. > 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. You are confusing weather where the error builds up to significant levels within about a week, with climate where the evidence suggests you have to wait longer than half a million years. This may not make any difference to the theoretical position, but it does have practical implications. > > 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? I do admit to having been exposed to a tertiary education in science, which does seem to have implanted a coherent set of beliefs. If this is brain-washing, your own brain would seem to be overdue for a trip to the laundry - the only coherent idea that I can find in your posts is that your own intuitions can be relied on, whch does happen to represent a serious disconnection from reality. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 5 Dec 2008 09:38 On 5 dec, 01:52, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...(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. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read the history. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ It may save you from making idiotic claims in future. > 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. That's because you haven't got a clue about the physics involved. > 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?". The answer is that the surface of the earth would to the radiating, and the temperature of the atmosphere would be set by conductive and convective heat transfer from the ground (no greenhouse gases means no water and no oceans). > 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. There's nothing in greenhouse gas theory that contradicts that. > 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. I don't think you understand conductive heat transfer all that well. > 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: Why? Who cares what a hypothetical atmosphere would look like on a planet that would not support life. You may find the question interesting as a route to learning a little elementary physics, but if you wnat to learn elementary physics, buy a test-book or go to school - this user-group may give incidental lessons in advanced electronics, but the usergroup that you need would be called sci.physics.for-ninnies, not sci.electronics.design. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 5 Dec 2008 09:48
On 5 dec, 02:02, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:31:41 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On Dec 4, 6:40 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:38:38 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> > On 4 dec, 04:04, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:28:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> >> > On 3 dec, 21:14, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:01:02 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> >> >> > On 3 dec, 19:22, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:25:06 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> >> >> >> > On 2 dec, 02:54, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> > >> >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:40:46 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:31:17 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: > > > <snip> > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> > You can't see 1/f noise when it is swamped by good old white noise, > >> >> > right down to the 1/f noise corner frequency. In the solar system > >> >> > everything looks like clockwork for the first few tens of millions > >> >> > of years. > > >> >> You still can't seem to keep your stories straight. Above you > >> >> complained I was "ignoring the obvious fact that the solar system is > >> >> chaotic", now you seem to be denying it. It is, has always been, and > >> >> always will be, chaotic. So is weather and climate. The time scales > >> >> are different, which you don't seem to understand. > > >> > What you don't seem to understand that is that identifying a system as > >> > chaotic doesn't of itself prove that it is unpredictable and not > >> > susceptible to computer modelling. > > >> Actually, it does. It just depends on the time scale. Weather is short > >> (hrs), climate is long (decades), the solar system really long (Gyr). > > > Your times scales are a bit off. Weather isn't quite that bad - forecasts > > are good four or five days in advance. The Vostok ice- coreclimate data > > doesn't look chaotic over half a million years, which is rather more than > > decades, and the solar system looks as if chaos becomes obvious over about > > 100 million years, so you are only out by one order of magnitude there. > > Whatever floats your boat. You can pretend those are serious errors, if > you like. They aren't. The serious error is that you don't understand what the time scales mean about the short term predictability of chaotic systems. > >> > The solar system is a particularly obvious counter-example, and the > >> > climate - despite your fautous claims - is another. > > >> >> > The climate records over the last million years also look pretty > >> >> > regular - Milankovich cycles don't look like a drunkards walk or > >> >> > 1/f noise - and your invocation of chaos still looks exactly like > >> >> > a loser retreating in a cloud of obfustication. > > >> >> The Milankovich cycles are part of the solar system, chaotic on very > >> >> long time scales. Weather is chaotic, with a much shorter time > >> >> scale. The M cycles modulate the weather, and the result can be > >> >> lowpassed down to "climate" to ignore the short time fluctuations, > >> >> but it's still chaotic and can't be predicted. > > >> > This may be true over a sufficiently long time scale, but is utterly > >> > false for the time periods we happen to be interested in, as you > >> > should have the wit to realise. > > >> Weather (climate) was one of the first examples of chaos studied. See > >> Lorenz. > > >> >> Trends mean nothing in chaotic systems. All you can know is that > >> >> the signal will change slope, not when or how much. > > >> > The solar system is chaotic, so we don't know where all the planets > >> > are going to be for the next few million years? > > >> No, not exactly. The prediction error accumulates. More dramatically > >> so for asteroids and comets, but for planets also. It's the differing > >> time scale that's apparently throwing you off. Chaos is chaos > >> regardless of time scale. Unfortunately for your argument, the chaotic behaviour looks - as is - regular and predictable over shorter time scales. > >> > Do try and engage your brain before you start typing. > > >> Read some chaos theory. > > > Very possibly, but weather and climate do seem to be rather less tightly > > coupled than suits your argument. > > Exactly what is climate, if not low-passed weather? Tightly constained weather that is low-pass filtered in time and space. The Vostok ice-core data does show that climate isn't chaotic over a period of half a million years, which is long enough that we can expect computer modeling to work over the next century or so, unless we allow global temperatures to change dramatically. > > But you are the last person to let inconvenient facts stand in your way.. > > Projection. Clown. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |