Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 6:16:18?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
Apparently the Bay area thinks it\'s serious enough to start planning now for some kind of $100B seawall.
Yeah, sea level here is rising 2 mm per year. We don\'t have much time
left. We\'ll all doomed to drown.
New conditions (climate change, global warming, CO2 pollution) apply,
invalidating your linear extrapolation. Everyone else has known this for decades.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 20:14:20 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 6:16:18?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
Apparently the Bay area thinks it\'s serious enough to start planning now for some kind of $100B seawall.
Yeah, sea level here is rising 2 mm per year. We don\'t have much time
left. We\'ll all doomed to drown.
New conditions (climate change, global warming, CO2 pollution) apply,
invalidating your linear extrapolation. Everyone else has known this for decades.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1999/fs175-99/images/events.jpg
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:03:39â¯PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.
Fred does over-interpret the climate scientific warnings.
They aren\'t frightening the greedy children of the planet anything like enough. The ones that have been making a lot of money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it to be burnt as fuel are spending some of the money they make on lying propaganda that is pretty lame, but got enough to miusdlead gullible twits like you aren John Larkin.
For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists.
The climate change denial propaganda crew should be locked up for simple fraud - they are lying in the hope of getting away with make money out of anti-social activities for a few years longer.
On 2023/09/19 12:11 a.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:03:39â¯PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind..
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.
Fred does over-interpret the climate scientific warnings.
They aren\'t frightening the greedy children of the planet anything like enough. The ones that have been making a lot of money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it to be burnt as fuel are spending some of the money they make on lying propaganda that is pretty lame, but got enough to miusdlead gullible twits like you aren John Larkin.
Not frightening them enough? When quite a few are refusing to have children because the world is doomed?
For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists.
The climate change denial propaganda crew should be locked up for simple fraud - they are lying in the hope of getting away with make money out of anti-social activities for a few years longer.
I agree I should not have gotten personal in my response to the previous poster - that was churlish of me, and for that I apologize.
I consider myself a CO2 skeptic, based on the absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide. I need to study the math more, but treating CO2 as if it was the glass of a greenhouse seems a bit odd, glass reflects IR, CO2 refracts it and is pretty much saturated for those IR wavelengths - and the large IR atmospheric Window is outside of the absorption band of CO2. A one dimensional model this paper claims - how is that transferable to our 4D world (Time being the 4th)? Sounds like the tale of Flatland to me.
Denier sounds like the folks (fools) who don\'t want vaccinations, refute the Holocaust, and don\'t think the previous (2016-2020) president of the US is anything other than a con artist.
Fight incorrect data with facts, and leave the rest to the noisy ones.
\"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.\" If the climate scientists post their raw data to let folks check, I have no argument with them, just possibly their data.
I prefer Karl Popper\'s requirements of falsifiability to make a rebuttable theory. \'Prove me wrong (or right), here is my data.\' which implies an adult attitude - of \'I can make mistakes, let us learn from
them by working together...\'
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12â¯PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39â¯AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.
For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.
snip
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.
\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.
There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"
\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.
That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"
...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
You\'re missing information in the original BBC article, which is:
\"It\'s so far outside anything we\'ve seen, it\'s almost mind-blowing,\" says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
That\'s not \"information\". It\'s just a verbal flourish.
That\'s the same snow and ice center collecting the data for the NOAA page you linked. You might notice the anomaly for 2013 extent is -0.13% which is in stark contrast to typical yearly\'s of about -0.02 %.
It\'s not in \"stark contrast\". It\'s just bigger. Bad years for ice cover are worse than regular years, and they show up less often.
So, on the one hand you discount the significance of the BBC story, and then turn around and think you found a basis for your decision on a website produced by the very people making the BBC story.
You tell me who\'s the lunatic here.
It\'s definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard\'s walk.
We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You\'re not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.
Presumably you meant to write \"you are \" or \"you\'re scale and movement blind\". That isn\'t a disability I\'ve ever heard of, and I probably wouldn\'t be a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement chapter if I suffered from that kind of defect. Experimental scientists do appreciate measurement numbers. Semi-literate anonymous trolls exploit them as items to be rude about.
As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.
--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 7:29:06â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:05:03â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12â¯PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39â¯AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
snip
You tell me who\'s the lunatic here.
It\'s definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard\'s walk.
We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You\'re not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.
Presumably you meant to write \"you are \" or \"you\'re scale and movement blind\". That isn\'t a disability I\'ve ever heard of, and I probably wouldn\'t be a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement chapter if I suffered from that kind of defect. Experimental scientists do appreciate measurement numbers. Semi-literate anonymous trolls exploit them as items to be rude about.
You illustrate perfectly the results of the recent study I linked to that concluded overconfidence increases exponentially with intermediate but less than comprehensive levels of knowledge.
That\'s exactly the kind of over-confident assertion you get from people like you, whose reach exceeds their grasp.
That idiotic statement about \'one year low\' is a case in point. You\'re too illiterate to understand that a deviation that great arises from such an absurdly small probability of random occurrence that it cannot be interpreted as such. Then you seem oblivious to the well-publicized fact that the majority of climate research is dedicated to discerning tends.
You haven\'t posted the frequency distribution that you\'d need to back up that claim. Neither did the original paper. Picking trends out of noisy data is difficult.
You\'re pretty good at breezing through Chapter 0, but are hopelessly too underpowered to complete the rest of the treatise.
A chunk of my Ph.D. work was extracting reaction rate data from my observations. I ended up writing my own non-linear multi-parameter least squares curve-fitting program to pull out the reaction rate as well as the starting and equilibrium concentrations of my reactant (with objective, if low, error estimates). The treatise got me my Ph.D, and you could read it in the Melbourne University library. if you could notch your reading competence up a bit.
As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 2023/09/19 12:11 a.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:03:39â¯PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind..
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8
You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.
Fred does over-interpret the climate scientific warnings.
They aren\'t frightening the greedy children of the planet anything like enough. The ones that have been making a lot of money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it to be burnt as fuel are spending some of the money they make on lying propaganda that is pretty lame, but got enough to miusdlead gullible twits like you aren John Larkin.
Not frightening them enough? When quite a few are refusing to have
children because the world is doomed? What else are they not doing? Like
looking for alternatives for problems as they occur? Humans have solved
the problem of climate changes since we came out of the trees. These
days, with vastly more energy and communication resources at our
disposal, we can handle the future well enough - as long as the fear
mongers don\'t get everyone hiding in their basements says \"We\'re all
doomed!\"
Its been said before - \"We having nothing to fear but fear itself.\"
For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists.
The climate change denial propaganda crew should be locked up for simple fraud - they are lying in the hope of getting away with make money out of anti-social activities for a few years longer.
I agree I should not have gotten personal in my response to the previous
poster - that was churlish of me, and for that I apologize.
I consider myself a CO2 skeptic, based on the absorption coefficient of
carbon dioxide. I need to study the math more, but treating CO2 as if it
was the glass of a greenhouse seems a bit odd, glass reflects IR, CO2
refracts it and is pretty much saturated for those IR wavelengths - and
the large IR Atmospheric Window is outside of the absorption band of
CO2. A one dimensional model this paper claims - how is that
transferable to our 4D world (Time being the 4th)? Sounds like the tale
of Flatland to me.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328129326_Absorption_coefficient_of_carbon_dioxide_across_atmospheric_troposphere_layer
Denier sounds like the folks (fools) who don\'t want vaccinations, refute
the Holocaust, and don\'t think the previous (2016-2020) president of the
US is anything other than a con artist.
Fight incorrect data with facts, and leave the rest to the noisy ones.
\"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong.\" If the climate scientists post their raw
data to let folks check, I have no argument with them, just possibly
their data.
I prefer Karl Popper\'s requirements of falsifiability to make a
rebuttable theory. \'Prove me wrong (or right), here is my data.\' which
implies anadult attitude - of \'I can make mistakes, let us learn from
them by working together...\'
snip
John :-#)#
Adrien-Marie Legendre. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrien-Marie_Legendre>On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:05:27â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
A chunk of my Ph.D. work was extracting reaction rate data from my observations. I ended up writing my own non-linear multi-parameter least squares curve-fitting program to pull out the reaction rate as well as the starting and equilibrium concentrations of my reactant (with objective, if low, error estimates). The treatise got me my Ph.D, and you could read it in the Melbourne University library. if you could notch your reading competence up a bit.
Gauss invented least squares estimation for least error estimation of planetary orbits. Tell us what planetary orbits have to do with reaction rates..
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:05:03â¯AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12â¯PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39â¯AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.
\"mindless incomprehension\" sure describes someone who thinks that NUKING and FIREBOMBING their OWN COUNTRY is a good idea.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:05:27â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 7:29:06â¯AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:05:03â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12â¯PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39â¯AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
snip
You tell me who\'s the lunatic here.
It\'s definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard\'s walk.
We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You\'re not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.
Presumably you meant to write \"you are \" or \"you\'re scale and movement blind\". That isn\'t a disability I\'ve ever heard of, and I probably wouldn\'t be a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement chapter if I suffered from that kind of defect. Experimental scientists do appreciate measurement numbers. Semi-literate anonymous trolls exploit them as items to be rude about.
You illustrate perfectly the results of the recent study I linked to that concluded overconfidence increases exponentially with intermediate but less than comprehensive levels of knowledge.
That\'s exactly the kind of over-confident assertion you get from people like you, whose reach exceeds their grasp.
You mean the kind of assertion made by someone who knows how to use a step-stool to extend their reach as opposed to your Pleistocene self who can\'t figure that out.
That idiotic statement about \'one year low\' is a case in point. You\'re too illiterate to understand that a deviation that great arises from such an absurdly small probability of random occurrence that it cannot be interpreted as such. Then you seem oblivious to the well-publicized fact that the majority of climate research is dedicated to discerning tends.
You haven\'t posted the frequency distribution that you\'d need to back up that claim. Neither did the original paper. Picking trends out of noisy data is difficult.
The frequency distribution over multiple decades is displayed graphically on the NOAA ice snow and ice data center page. The fluctuation is not ergodic, the relevant statistic is the amplitude distributions seen at specific times of the year. If you had developed a working knowledge of statistics, you can visually \'see\' the point distributions have almost all the measurements clustered within 0.02 % deviations about the mean- that would be mean for any specific date. This makes a 0.13% deviation quite large as in 6-sigma large.
You\'re pretty good at breezing through Chapter 0, but are hopelessly too underpowered to complete the rest of the treatise.
A chunk of my Ph.D. work was extracting reaction rate data from my observations. I ended up writing my own non-linear multi-parameter least squares curve-fitting program to pull out the reaction rate as well as the starting and equilibrium concentrations of my reactant (with objective, if low, error estimates). The treatise got me my Ph.D, and you could read it in the Melbourne University library. if you could notch your reading competence up a bit.
Gauss invented least squares estimation for least error estimation of planetary orbits. Tell us what planetary orbits have to do with reaction rates..