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: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2008 16:45 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > I think you will find that the stock market isn't chaotic in the > narrow mathematical sense. The stock market is more like casino with loaded dice. Graham
From: bill.sloman on 5 Dec 2008 18:14 On 5 dec, 00:16, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...(a)example.net> 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. > > 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. Since you are being rude about a paragraph that Martin Brown wrote - one that struck me as a remarkably clear exposition of why Bill Ward had got it wrong - your own capacity for delibration would seem to be questionable. Your capacity for recognising it in other people isn't all that well-developed either. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 5 Dec 2008 18:53 On 4 dec, 21:03, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:32:26 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 4 dec, 09:03, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:45:45 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> > In article <pan.2008.11.30.21.41.11.102...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, > >> > Bill Ward wrote: > >> >>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > >> >>> On 29 nov, 21:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:58:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> >>>> > On 28 nov, 16:55, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> > >> >>>> > wrote: > >> > <SNIP deeper levels of quotation> > >> >>>> >> That needs a little explanation. Â CO2 gas is not a BB > >> >>>> >> radiator. Â At the temperatures in question, the 15u band > >> >>>> >> should be the only radiation it can absorb or emit. Â How do > >> >>>> >> you come to the conclusion it emits in a -55C BB spectrum? > >> >>>> >> Â Do you have a link supporting that? > > >> >>>> > I didn't say that it emitted a black body spectrum. It emits the > >> >>>> > same spectrum as any volume of carbon dioxide at 218K would, > >> >>>> > which is different from the spectrum emitted by warmer carbon > >> >>>> > dioxide. > > >> >>> What I should have said here is that the radiation it does emit has > >> >>> the same intensity as a blackbody radiator would emit at that > >> >>> temperature. > > >> >>> This follows from the second law of thermodydnamics - if it wasn't > >> >>> so a blob of CO2 surrounded by a blackbody would end up at a > >> >>> temperature other than that of the blackbody. > > >> >>>> You said, "a spectrum that matches the roughly -55C temperature of > >> >>>> the bulk of the stratosphere", not a "218K CO2 spectrum". > > >> >>> Same thing. > > >> >>Isn't the CO2 absorption/emission spectrum a band, not a BB > >> >>distribution? In part of your previous post (which you snipped) you > >> >>linked to this: > > >> >>http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif > > >> > That appears to be a sampling of a layer of CO2 representing less > >> > CO2 than one has to pass through from surface to outer space. > > >> > Another version of CO2 IR spectrum is at: > > >> >http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif > >> >http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html > > >> >>It doesn't look like a BB to me. Are you having trouble keeping your > >> >>stories straight again? > > >> > But CO2 is close to blackbody within some range of wavelengths > >> > where emission is close to peak of a 218 K blackbody. And the range > >> > does widen somewhat when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. > > >> Look at this graph: > > >>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transm.... > > >> Now please tell me if you think the CO2 absorption spectrum (3rd graph) > >> is similar to the 210K blackbody emission spectrum line in the top > >> graph. Assuming you agree they are different, please explain how CO2 > >> bonds could emit in wavelengths they can't absorb. > > >> >>>> > This follows from the second law of thermodynamics. The fact that > >> >>>> > the 218K spectrum is going to be different from the spectrum > >> >>>> > emitted by a warmer lump of gas depends on the proposition that > >> >>>> > the numbers of molecules occupying higher energy vibrational and > >> >>>> > rotational quantum states changes with temperature, and it is > >> >>>> > this distribution across the accessible quantised energy levels > >> >>>> > that dictates the shape of the emission spectrum. > > >> >>The "lump" would need to absorb and emit just enough to stay in > >> >>thermal equilibrium. Why would the general spectrum suddenly change? > >> >> What you are saying doesn't make sense to me. Please explain. > > >> >>>> Outside the 15u band? Â How much difference is there between the > >> >>>> energy in the spectra at the two temperatures? > > >> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body > > >> >>> work it out for yourself. > > >> >>Let me rephrase: I don't think there's a significant difference. > >> >> Show why you think there is. Start by showing why you think it's a > >> >>BB distribution. > > >> > CO2 acts fairly like a blackbody at wavelengths within the 15 um > >> > band. 15 um is a wavelength where a blackbody has spectral power > >> > distribution about 96% of peak. > > >> It appears to me both tails of a 210K blackbody spectrum are missing > >> (looks like about half the total area). Cold CO2 is not a black body - > >> it's a narrowband source. > > > As I've been telling you in successive posts for several days now. > > I don't think so. Give us a quote where you think you said that. At one > point you even complained about my referring to the tails of a > distribution being too "technical". Are you projecting your poseurhood? Here we go again - you seem to have been taking lessons from Karl Rove. You squeezed the phrase "tail of a distribution" into a discussion of spectral energy distribution in a context where it didn't make sense. It is a phrase that comes up a lot in stastics so it sounds good, and made your fatuous "argument" look a little more technical. It was just one more of your specious debating tricks, and I called you on it, and now you want to claim that I was complaining about you being "too technical"? Nice try, but no cigar. <snip> > You should have noticed by now that intimidation doesn't work. Nor rational argument. > If you can't coherently explain what you mean, you don't really understand what > you think you know. My explanations are coherent enough. They aren't telling you want you want to hear, so you respond to the argument that you would have liked me to have made. You've read enough that your "counter-arguments" contain familiar phrases in more or less the right places, but they don't actually have any content. This makes you a sophist. > The context is cooling of the stratosphere by CO2. Explain the > significance of your comment. Churn out some more fodder for your silly games? Forget it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Ward on 5 Dec 2008 19:48 On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:53:02 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 4 dec, 21:03, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:32:26 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> > On 4 dec, 09:03, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:45:45 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> >> > In article >> >> > <pan.2008.11.30.21.41.11.102...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> >> > wrote: >> >> >>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 29 nov, 21:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:58:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> >>>> > On 28 nov, 16:55, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >> >> >>>> > wrote: >> >> > <SNIP deeper levels of quotation> >> >> >>>> >> That needs a little explanation. Â CO2 gas is not a BB >> >> >>>> >> radiator. Â At the temperatures in question, the 15u band >> >> >>>> >> should be the only radiation it can absorb or emit. Â How >> >> >>>> >> do you come to the conclusion it emits in a -55C BB spectrum? >> >> >>>> >> Â Do you have a link supporting that? >> >> >> >>>> > I didn't say that it emitted a black body spectrum. It emits >> >> >>>> > the same spectrum as any volume of carbon dioxide at 218K >> >> >>>> > would, which is different from the spectrum emitted by warmer >> >> >>>> > carbon dioxide. >> >> >> >>> What I should have said here is that the radiation it does emit >> >> >>> has the same intensity as a blackbody radiator would emit at that >> >> >>> temperature. >> >> >> >>> This follows from the second law of thermodydnamics - if it >> >> >>> wasn't so a blob of CO2 surrounded by a blackbody would end up at >> >> >>> a temperature other than that of the blackbody. >> >> >> >>>> You said, "a spectrum that matches the roughly -55C temperature >> >> >>>> of the bulk of the stratosphere", not a "218K CO2 spectrum". >> >> >> >>> Same thing. >> >> >> >>Isn't the CO2 absorption/emission spectrum a band, not a BB >> >> >>distribution? In part of your previous post (which you snipped) you >> >> >>linked to this: >> >> >> >>http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif >> >> >> > That appears to be a sampling of a layer of CO2 representing >> >> > less CO2 than one has to pass through from surface to outer space. >> >> >> > Another version of CO2 IR spectrum is at: >> >> >> >http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif >> >> >http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html >> >> >> >>It doesn't look like a BB to me. Are you having trouble keeping >> >> >>your stories straight again? >> >> >> > But CO2 is close to blackbody within some range of wavelengths >> >> > where emission is close to peak of a 218 K blackbody. And the >> >> > range does widen somewhat when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. >> >> >> Look at this graph: >> >> >>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transm... >> >> >> Now please tell me if you think the CO2 absorption spectrum (3rd >> >> graph) is similar to the 210K blackbody emission spectrum line in the >> >> top graph. Assuming you agree they are different, please explain how >> >> CO2 bonds could emit in wavelengths they can't absorb. >> >> >> >>>> > This follows from the second law of thermodynamics. The fact >> >> >>>> > that the 218K spectrum is going to be different from the >> >> >>>> > spectrum emitted by a warmer lump of gas depends on the >> >> >>>> > proposition that the numbers of molecules occupying higher >> >> >>>> > energy vibrational and rotational quantum states changes with >> >> >>>> > temperature, and it is this distribution across the accessible >> >> >>>> > quantised energy levels that dictates the shape of the >> >> >>>> > emission spectrum. >> >> >> >>The "lump" would need to absorb and emit just enough to stay in >> >> >>thermal equilibrium. Why would the general spectrum suddenly >> >> >>change? What you are saying doesn't make sense to me. Please >> >> >>explain. >> >> >> >>>> Outside the 15u band? Â How much difference is there between >> >> >>>> the energy in the spectra at the two temperatures? >> >> >> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body >> >> >> >>> work it out for yourself. >> >> >> >>Let me rephrase: I don't think there's a significant difference. >> >> >> Show why you think there is. Start by showing why you think >> >> >>it's a BB distribution. >> >> >> > CO2 acts fairly like a blackbody at wavelengths within the 15 um >> >> > band. 15 um is a wavelength where a blackbody has spectral power >> >> > distribution about 96% of peak. >> >> >> It appears to me both tails of a 210K blackbody spectrum are missing >> >> (looks like about half the total area). Cold CO2 is not a black body >> >> - it's a narrowband source. >> >> > As I've been telling you in successive posts for several days now. >> >> I don't think so. Give us a quote where you think you said that. At >> one point you even complained about my referring to the tails of a >> distribution being too "technical". Are you projecting your >> poseurhood? > > Here we go again - you seem to have been taking lessons from Karl Rove. > You squeezed the phrase "tail of a distribution" into a discussion of > spectral energy distribution in a context where it didn't make sense. It > is a phrase that comes up a lot in stastics so it sounds good, and made > your fatuous "argument" look a little more technical. You didn't post the quote I asked for above. Instead you go off into complaining about my description. Couldn't you understand what the tails of a BB spectrum are? Surely you're not that thick. Since you didn't show the quote, the easy assumption is that you know you are not telling the truth. Where did you admit it was a narrowband source, not a blackbody? I'm calling your bluff, now show your quote. > It was just one more of your specious debating tricks, and I called you > on it, and now you want to claim that I was complaining about you being > "too technical"? Nice try, but no cigar. > > <snip> > >> You should have noticed by now that intimidation doesn't work. > > Nor rational argument. > >> If you can't coherently explain what you mean, you don't really >>understand what you think you know. > > My explanations are coherent enough. They aren't telling you want you > want to hear, so you respond to the argument that you would have liked > me to have made. You've read enough that your "counter-arguments" > contain familiar phrases in more or less the right places, but they > don't actually have any content. That tells us more about you than me. > This makes you a sophist. > >> The context is cooling of the stratosphere by CO2. Explain the >> significance of your comment. > > Churn out some more fodder for your silly games? Forget it. People may notice you never actually answered my point - you just pretended you don't know what the "tails" on a distribution are, or how they might apply to the graph I linked to: <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png> You need to actually explain yourself, not just call names and pout, if you expect to be taken seriously by anyone.
From: John M. on 6 Dec 2008 05:03
On Dec 5, 5:39 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:59:35 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > 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. > > Do you really think that fools anyone? You bluffed, I called, showed my > cards, and you folded. That means you're wrong and you know it. So does > everyone else. > > Save it for poker. It doesn't work in science. Silly person, the deluded Bill Ward. |