What's the chance of going out and finding the butterfly which caused Hurricane Alex?
in [Math]
|
From: Don Stockbauer on 30 Jun 2010 19:57 On Jun 30, 2:42 pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Don Stockbauer" <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:132cf3f1-89a4-4ec0-bd98-45df28c4a221(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 30, 1:49 pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chi...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > "Don Stockbauer" <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:81c357ae-bed4-4331-a979-21d35fbe1381(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > After all, we're told that the flapping of a butterfly's wings can > > > create a hurricane down the line. > > > The butterfly effect is the lie that is told for public consumption. That > > is because the public won't find it very pleasing to know that hurricanes > > are actually caused by cow flatulence. > > > So, the question is whether you can find the cow that farted in the wrong > > direction at the wrong time. Butterflies don't contribute to hurricanes.. > > Cows do. > > >Oh, oh. > > >I see a runaway positve feedback possibility. > > >The cow farts cause global warming from the methane, and they also > >kick off hurricanes. The Earth shalt be destroyed by billions of > >category 5 hurricanes. The surface, anyway. But mostly just living > >things. > > Where do you see the positive feedback? > > For nomenclature, I'll use (CF) = (cow flatulence), (GW) = (global warming), > and (HU) = (hurricanes). > > The implication chains I see are: > > a)CF->HU (sometimes directly, per the misnamed butterfly effect). > > b)CF->GW > > c)GW->HU > > All I see is that cow flatulence leads directly or indirectly to hurricanes. > > For there to be positive feedback, you'd need to close the loop: for > example, by showing that hurricanes lead to more cows or at least makes them > pass gas more often. > > That hasn't been shown. > > In fact, I'd argue that hurricanes can lead to less cows, particularly if > you're a cow near the ocean. Perhaps "positive feedback" was the wrong term. The simple effect would be cow farts producing billions of hurricanes, and the increased methane causes global warming (increasing the strength of hurricanes), causing wordwide devastion.
From: spudnik on 30 Jun 2010 20:50 if all of the relatives of the butterflies that got caught in the hurricane caught him, they would. or, would a hurrican not harm a butterfly, much? > Whaddya gonna do when you catch it? Tear its wings off? thus&so: fractals are the very definition of psychedelia, "magnification" with the floating-point spec (IEEE-755, -855; I think .-) > If you go towww.amherst.edu/~rloldershawand click on the last paper > in the "Selected Papers", you will find the essay "Nature Adores Self- > Similarity". It describes about 80 examples of fractals > observationally identified in nature and thus&so: ever heard of Alfven waves?... you couldn't go anywhere in space science without them. it was a discovery about ten years ago, that about an order of magnitude of hydrogen in Universe is dihydrogen, which has no dipole moment; so, it wasn't seen, til it was looked-for. > Not if you believe in electromagnetic theory. You require some very special > pleads to make bulk amounts of hydrogen invisible, especially in *this* > galaxy where radio isn't redshifted into oblivion. thus&so: I didn't see what "last paragraph" you wrote; anyway, the summary in the paper is fairly clear (~1.8 some thing .-) > The last paragraph about the relation between surface temperature and pressure, > and radiating temperature and altitude is my translation of what I think > Miskolczi is saying in: > <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf> thus&so: that is awfully interesting, if rather complex. anyway, I have said for years, that no-one ever bothered -- after Ahrrenius did not win the first Nobel in chemistry for his coinage of the term, glass house gasses -- to model an ordinary glass house *at a latitude.* thus, the overwhelming conception of the GCMers, that the poles will heat more than the tropics, which is quite absurd. I'd also mention the '30s paper of George Simpson, a table-top experiment with a Bunsen-burner & cubes of ice! thus&so: BP's and Waxman's cap&trade is striclty "free market;" let the arbitrageurs & daytrippers jack-up the price of energy, as much as they can, as with Waxman's '91 bill (presumably; there seems to be a dearth of "story" about how fantastic it was .-) thus&so: don't worry; British Petroleum's cap&trade & free beer/miles is on the way! thus&so: like, I typed, sea-ice is the most unstable thing -- aside from clouds. so, see Fred Singer's retrospective metastudy on world-around glaciers, Doofus. also, see the November '01 story in the Sunday LAtribcoTimes, "120 New Glaciers Found on Continental Divide." thus&so: what if El Nino is correlated with underwater vulcanism? I started looking at ENSO, just before it was called that. well, it was two things, El Nino and the Quasibiennial Southern Oscillation, the latter having had a period of about 26 months. so, now, draw some conclusion! > The global temperature lags ENSO by 6 months. thus&so: as in, Beyond Petroleum (tm) -- stuff that's squeezed from a holow rock, and is allegedly fossilized. in my experience, neither R or D know the definition of "republic," or much of the history of the idea. anyway, the whole problem of the Anthropocene was highlighted, perhaps for some purpose, by having the conference in the venue of the Copenhagenskool of QM thus&so: Myth 1 is supported by the old Shackleton et al study, which seems to show a spike in CO2, just before the glacial phase. Myth 2 is somewhat overstated, since the change in obliquity of Earth's orbit is synched -- not causative -- with the 100,000-year cycle of glaciation in the Quaternary. Myth 5 is supported by the fact that the floating-point spec is inherently chaotic (IEEE-755, -855, I think); think, "fractals are the very definition of psychedelia, man!" > * Myth 1 Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive > changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is > driving the current warming. > * Myth 2 Solar activity is the main driver of climate change. > * Myth 5 Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide > useful projections of climate change." > http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/hadley-center-to-delayers-denie... > ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.... thus&so: what if the same guy who was the source d'Eaugate for Bernward at the Post, was also the Vice President, who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower (second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop); and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set, to make for a controlled demolition? well, some of us believe that he was not just the acting president -- especially since the impeachment of Bill C.. also, what in Heck is a one-ball centrifuge -- doesn't one need two, at the least, for balance? --BP's cap&trade + free beer/miles on your CO2 debits at ARCO! http://wlym.com
From: Don Stockbauer on 30 Jun 2010 23:44
On Jun 30, 2:50 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:16 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > After all, we're told that the flapping of a butterfly's wings can > > create a hurricane down the line. > > Whaddya gonna do when you catch it? Tear its wings off? No, not at all. I just want to see it flap its wings several thousand times and cause that many hurricanes. |