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: John M. on 6 Dec 2008 05:12 On Dec 6, 1:48 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > You need to actually explain yourself, not just call names and pout, if > you expect to be taken seriously by anyone. This must surely be the pot calling itself black.
From: bill.sloman on 6 Dec 2008 14:53 On 5 dec, 18:51, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:48:05 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > 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. > > Somehow I'm not surprised you think you can predict chaos. But you can't. > > >> >> > 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. > > So you finally agree. But how do you "tightly constrain" weather? Conservation of energy and mass, in the end. You've only got so much energy coming in from the sun, and it all eventually gets radiated away to outer space. Weather is unpredictable because we can't predict exactly what route the energy is going to follow on it way to outer space. Climate is a lot more predictable because we know that there's only so much energy flowing, and it can only chose between a finite number of possilbe paths. > > The Vostok ice-core data does show that climate isn't chaotic over a > > period of half a million years, > > Show me, don't tell me. What makes you think it's not chaotic? I didn't say that it wasn't chaotic. I did say that it was predictable over long enough periods to justify the effort now being put into computer models. Here's the data - not for the first time http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ You can see the regularities (and they tie up with the Milanlovich cycles). > > 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. > > No way. Chaos is not predictable, no matter how you try to dance around > that fact. Chaotic systems can be very predictable - over limited periods - and your capacity to persistently ignore this point makes it clear that you are - in fact - a computer program that has just failed its Turing test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test You'd be a good deal more powerful than Eliza and Parry, but you share their fundamental weakness, which is that you don't understand the text that you are producing. You might be a human being suffering from paranoid schizophrenia - Parry modelled the characteristic defects of such people, and gave a tolerably convincing imitation of a lunatic, but could be trapped into repetition (which seems to have been designed out of your output at the production level, though it's very noticable at the thematic level. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John M. on 6 Dec 2008 17:08 On Dec 6, 8:53 pm, bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > On 5 dec, 18:51, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:48:05 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > > On 5 dec, 02:02, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: <snip> > > >> Exactly what is climate, if not low-passed weather? > > > > Tightly constained weather that is low-pass filtered in time and space. > > > So you finally agree. But how do you "tightly constrain" weather? > > Conservation of energy and mass, in the end. You've only got so much > energy coming in from the sun, and it all eventually gets radiated > away to outer space. > > Weather is unpredictable because we can't predict exactly what route > the energy is going to follow on it way to outer space. Climate is a > lot more predictable because we know that there's only so much energy > flowing, and it can only chose between a finite number of possilbe > paths. A first-rate, clarifying precis. Thanks, Bill S.
From: Bill Ward on 6 Dec 2008 18:30 On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 11:53:29 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 5 dec, 18:51, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:48:05 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> > 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. >> >> Somehow I'm not surprised you think you can predict chaos. But you >> can't. >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> So you finally agree. But how do you "tightly constrain" weather? > > Conservation of energy and mass, in the end. You've only got so much > energy coming in from the sun, and it all eventually gets radiated away to > outer space. Where would you find weather that is not so "tightly constrained"? AFAIK, conservation of energy and mass is pretty common. > Weather is unpredictable because we can't predict exactly what route the > energy is going to follow on it way to outer space. Climate is a lot > more predictable because we know that there's only so much energy > flowing, and it can only chose between a finite number of possilbe > paths. > >> > The Vostok ice-core data does show that climate isn't chaotic over a >> > period of half a million years, >> >> Show me, don't tell me. What makes you think it's not chaotic? > > I didn't say that it wasn't chaotic. I did say that it was predictable > over long enough periods to justify the effort now being put into > computer models. Here's the data - not for the first time > > http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Did you really read that? Here's a quote: <begin excerpt> This page was last updated on May 30, 2000. [...] "The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation." <end excerpt> The paper predates the correlation of higher resolution data that shows temperature leading CO2 by 800 years. Did you not know that, or were you trying to be deceptive? > You can see the regularities (and they tie up with the Milanlovich > cycles). Yes, until you look at the data close enough to see the 800 year lag. The most reasonable assumption is that temperature drives CO2. Any other explanation would require a really solid mechanism, not some wild-eyed waving of arms and claiming it's somehow caused by positive feedback. The temperature is chaotic, and the CO2 follows 800 years later. >> > 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. The observed correlation delay is opposite to that assumed by the models, so that's doubtful. Chaos will still be chaos in a hundred years. One could speculate that quantum computing or some yet to be discovered principle could get around the modeling problem, but not in the foreseeable future. >> No way. Chaos is not predictable, no matter how you try to dance >> around that fact. > > Chaotic systems can be very predictable - over limited periods - and > your capacity to persistently ignore this point makes it clear that you > are - in fact - a computer program that has just failed its Turing test. Your inability to post anything confirming your claim makes it clear you have no idea what you are talking about. Prediction error increases exponentially, and weather can't be predicted out more than a few weeks. Averaging it to "climate" doesn't help - the error still increases exponentially. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test > > You'd be a good deal more powerful than Eliza and Parry, but you share > their fundamental weakness, which is that you don't understand the text > that you are producing. You might be a human being suffering from > paranoid schizophrenia - Parry modelled the characteristic defects of > such people, and gave a tolerably convincing imitation of a lunatic, but > could be trapped into repetition (which seems to have been designed out > of your output at the production level, though it's very noticable at > the thematic level. You seem to need to change the subject. Is it because you feel uncomfortable staying on the topic of climate physics and chaos?
From: bill.sloman on 6 Dec 2008 19:33
On 5 dec, 00:32, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:41:45 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > >> On 4 dec, 06:14, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >>> d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > > >>> >In article <pan.2008.11.28.15.55.03.836...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, > >>> >Bill Ward wrote: > >>> >>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:26:40 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > > >>> >>> On 27 nov, 23:02, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >>> >>>> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org  wrote: > >>> >>>> >On 27 nov, 02:59, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >>> >>>> >> "DeadFrog" <DeadF...(a)Virgin.net>  wrote: > > >>> >>>> >> >"Whata Fool" <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote in message > >>> >>>> >> >news:fdeni4p8pptdaacn58utfjlehk9jcbfmff(a)4ax.com... > >>> >>>> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org  wrote: > > >> <snip> <snip> > >You certainly don't sound like much of a scientist. I'm not. I do have a couple of cited scientific papers to my credit, which does mean that I'm entitled to call myself a scientist, albeit strictly at the spear-carrier level. Go to scholar.google.com and search on "A W Sloman". > >> Granting your interests you need to spend any free time that you have > >> got learning about basic physics, and I - for - one would take it kindly > >> if you spent less time on posting questions to remind us that your > >> studies haven't yet got to first base. > > >Don't like to be forced to think, eh? Another strike. > > >Are you a political scientist? > > Maybe a layed off IPCC lackey? Wrong. A retired electronic engineer - with no obvious prospect of getting unretired. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |