Driver to drive?

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-03-06, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:43:50 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:


Not as many as the denialists, or as fast.

AGW skeptics hurt nobody; things like cap-and-trade, and burning food
to run cars, will kill people.

things like hurricanes, floods, droughts, fires, and famines kill people.

 

[YD]

Late at night, by candle light, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> penned this immortal opus:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 13, 3:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.

No, she didn't write it. Some time ago she was talking about the way
some genetically challenged people (not the Fox2p gene, which affects
speech production)

---
"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it." seems to be something someone with the
genetic challenge you refer to might say, yes?

JF

Strange. I understood what Bill was on about first time around, and
English isn't even my primary language. I'm fluent in four, which
might help.

- YD.
--
File corruption detected. Select option:
1 - Call the cops
2 - Call the press
3 - Bribe it

Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 07:59:58 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2009-03-06, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:43:50 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Not as many as the denialists, or as fast.

AGW skeptics hurt nobody; things like cap-and-trade, and burning food
to run cars, will kill people.

things like hurricanes, floods, droughts, fires, and famines kill people.

Not as many as wars do.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <322jr414nctn0bogcuvgud6hkev4c63m8q@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

<SNIP back-and-forth with Jon Kirwan>

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?

Annual HadCRUT-3, unsmoothed and smoothed, is shown as a graph at:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

The smoothed curve had a unidirectional decrease of about .2 degree C
from 1941 to 1949. If the smoothed curve drops .1 degree C from its peak
so far of 2004 to 2012 or drops unidirectionally through 2010, all that is
going to do is show that the rise is unsteady.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:39:21 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <pan.2009.03.12.17.21.48.233494@example.net>, Rich Grise wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:11 +0000, Jon Kirwan wrote:

My point was that when someone is ignorant about a subject, all things
seem possible. Magic, necromancy, tea leaf reading, etc., all seem to
make sense when ignorant. People who don't really have the knowledge
to know any better bring up all manner of possible explanations,
trying to say that climate scientists haven't got it right.

Ah, so you're a True Believer. Warmingism is true, and NO AMOUNT of facts
will shake your faith.

Just answer me one question: Howcome none of your "atmospheric models"
even ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF, let alone ACCOUNT FOR, atmospheric
water vapor?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Have a look at "page 630" (42nd page of this 74 page PDF).

I do think the cloud albedo feedback should be less than the surface
albedo feedback, and I don't sense great certainty that the cloud albedo
feedback is even positive. But they do consider feedbacks from both vater
vapor and clouds. Water vapor itself is considered a significant positive
feedback mechanism.

From what I've read earlier (and it has admittedly been at least 2 or
3 years now), the sign of cloud feedback is known to be different for
low altitude versus high altitude. It's the net result with other
feedbacks included that I think remains uncertain. I really need to
go find some more recent material on it.

Jon

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <82alr4d6bnnkb2dfl4imcb26i3gi9tuhh3@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

<SNIP>

A back of the fag packet calculation shows a 1000 metre drop in the
tropopause will reduce the surface area of the troposhere by about
0.015%.

I get .031%.

Small but not negligable when you consider that the
temperature anomaly peaked at about 0.15%.

Smoothed HadCRUT-3 peaked so far around .42-.43 degree C above the
1961-1990 average, which I would not call baseline. Smoothed HadCRUT-3's
2004 peak looks to me about .6 degree C above average of all time covered
by HadCRUT-3, about a .21% rise in absolute temperature.

At the moment I haven't found data on variation of tropopause or
stratopause heights with time. So I haven't a clue if 1000 metres is a
reasonable starting point.

The height of the tropopause varies with factors besides overall
atmospheric heating. Keep in mind that around the equator the tropopause
is typically around the 110 or so millibar pressure level, and near the
poles it is more like around the 350 millibar pressure level.

More useful would be height of the 200 millibar pressure level, which is
approximately the level between the lower 80% and the upper 20% of the
atmosphere's mass.

Height of any given pressure level varies mainly with overall temperature
of the atmosphere under that level. And the variation would be roughly
proportional with variation in absolute temperature.

A typical 200 millibar height is 12 kilometers. I am estimating that
the temperature of the air under that level averages out to 260 Kelvin
with appropriate weighting. A 1 degree K change would change the 200
millibar height by about .4%, about 48 meters.

Ultraviolet absorption starts to get significant at whatever pressure
level is currently on average 50 km above sea level. 50 km is the figure
mentioned in Wikipedia as essentially being the upper edge of the ozone
layer and of the stratosphere. I estimate that the appropriately weighted
average temperature of the air below that pressure level is about 230
Kelvin. A 1 degree change in that would change that pressure level by
217, maybe 220 meters.

Keep in mind that the entire atmosphere absorbs only about 20% of solar
radiation, while about half both reaches and is absorbed by the surface.

(According to the simplified version shown in Wikipedia of a graphical
depiction of the "energy budget" according to Kiehl and Trenberth,
in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg)

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <jadkr4h6m8fqia6cg87irjircvmqp0b5p5@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:00:25 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

<SNIP stuff otherwise getting more than 2 quotation symbols>

Jim and Rich Grise both seem to have received this same revelation.
If they had the wit, or the skills to dig into the scientifc case for
anthropogenic global warming, they'd have a different opinion, but
they have the sort of faith in their opinions that can ignore ice-core
data.

You have to keep science out of it.

Raving cherry-picks his scientific "facts". He doesn't seem to notice
that the temperature rise over the last century hasn't been smooth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

and includes a number of episodes of short term cooling that look very
like the current example, and consequently feels free to claim
"Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change
as
claimed. Check." Since no climatologist was ever silly enough to claim
that CO2 did overide other causes of (short term) temperature change
he's actually just set up a straw man.

I note you are using an out of date secondary source.

For a more up to date picture try:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

Which has seen the anomoly cut from 0.5C to 0.3C.

Make that from .482 in 2005 to .323 in 2008 for individual year data,
and 2008 was cooled by a major La Nina.

The 1998 spike was indeed .546 degree C (for entire year), but from the
greatest El Nino on record, and was short enough in duration and
sufficiently balanced by the 2000 La Nina for smoothed global annual
temperature to increase fairly steadily through the late 1990's and 2000
to its peak so far of 2004. Smoothed global HadCRUT-3 has since fallen so
far by about .05, maybe .06 degree C.

Add to this the guy from NOAA predicting cooling for another 30 years.

Who in NOAA is saying that? Where can I find that? I am aware that the
sun is experiencing a downturn in its output that is likely to continue to
about 2030-2040 or so.

That'll be 40 years of cooling. Which is consistent with moving from a
grand solar maximum to a minimum.

SNIP

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <pan.2009.03.12.17.21.48.233494@example.net>, Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:11 +0000, Jon Kirwan wrote:

My point was that when someone is ignorant about a subject, all things
seem possible. Magic, necromancy, tea leaf reading, etc., all seem to
make sense when ignorant. People who don't really have the knowledge
to know any better bring up all manner of possible explanations,
trying to say that climate scientists haven't got it right.

Ah, so you're a True Believer. Warmingism is true, and NO AMOUNT of facts
will shake your faith.

Just answer me one question: Howcome none of your "atmospheric models"
even ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF, let alone ACCOUNT FOR, atmospheric
water vapor?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Have a look at "page 630" (42nd page of this 74 page PDF).

I do think the cloud albedo feedback should be less than the surface
albedo feedback, and I don't sense great certainty that the cloud albedo
feedback is even positive. But they do consider feedbacks from both vater
vapor and clouds. Water vapor itself is considered a significant positive
feedback mechanism.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Richard Henry]

On Mar 12, 2:22 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan





j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

                                       ...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.

Jon

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cool. You found data.

Now try some arithmetic. Using the Hadley data, calculate the average
anomaly from 1989-1998. Compare it to the average anomaly from 1999
to 2008.

 

[Richard Henry]

On Mar 16, 10:27 am, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
<n...@example.net> wrote:

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 07:59:58 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-03-06, John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:43:50 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Not as many as the denialists, or as fast.

AGW skeptics hurt nobody; things like cap-and-trade, and burning food
to run cars, will kill people.

things like hurricanes, floods, droughts, fires, and famines kill people.

Not as many as wars do.

World War I (1914-1918) killed about 16 million.

Spanish Flu epidemic (1918) killed about 50 million.

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:55:06 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 12, 2:22 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan





j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

                                       ...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.

Jon

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cool. You found data.

Now try some arithmetic. Using the Hadley data, calculate the average
anomaly from 1989-1998. Compare it to the average anomaly from 1999
to 2008.

The average anomaly will say nothing about the trend.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <77407bec-83f4-42fc-a493-14c9393c45df@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Richard Henry wrote:

On Mar 12, 2:22 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

<SNIP stuff otherwise getting more than 2 quotation symbols>

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cool. You found data.

Now try some arithmetic. Using the Hadley data, calculate the average
anomaly from 1989-1998.

Average of the 10 annual global HadCRUT-3 figures 1989-1998 is .2215
degree C "anomaly", as in above 1961-1990 average.

Compare it to the average anomaly from 1999 to 2008.

Average of the 10 annual global HadCRUT-3 figures 1999-2008 is .3991
degree C "anomaly", as in above 1961-1990 average.

This is despite the former rather than the latter including the hottest
single year of 1998, .546 degree warmer than 1961-1990 average, due to
the greatest El Nino on record.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt - the figure
for the year is 14th column, when counting the column with the year as
1st column.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Richard Henry]

On Mar 17, 1:49 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:55:06 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry





pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 2:22 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

                                       ...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.

Jon

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cool.  You found data.

Now try some arithmetic.  Using the Hadley data, calculate the average
anomaly from 1989-1998.  Compare it to the average anomaly from 1999
to 2008.

The average anomaly will say nothing about the trend.

So what's the trend?

Show your work

 

[Richard Henry]

On Mar 17, 9:33 am, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 17, 1:49 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:





On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:55:06 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry

pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 2:22 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

                                       ...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.

Jon

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cool.  You found data.

Now try some arithmetic.  Using the Hadley data, calculate the average
anomaly from 1989-1998.  Compare it to the average anomaly from 1999
to 2008.

The average anomaly will say nothing about the trend.

So what's the trend?

Show your work.

To be fair, here is some of mine:

Year Anomaly 5-year ave 9-year ave

1981 0.12
1982 0.011
1983 0.177 0.0498
1984 -0.021 0.0316
1985 -0.038 0.0652 0.082222222
1986 0.029 0.0658 0.097111111
1987 0.179 0.0906 0.119444444
1988 0.18 0.149 0.106555556
1989 0.103 0.1856 0.120555556
1990 0.254 0.162 0.143777778
1991 0.212 0.147 0.171111111
1992 0.061 0.1606 0.166444444
1993 0.105 0.1648 0.185444444
1994 0.171 0.1498 0.234666667
1995 0.275 0.2078 0.239333333
1996 0.137 0.296 0.245777778
1997 0.351 0.321 0.284444444
1998 0.546 0.32 0.324333333
1999 0.296 0.3744 0.357888889
2000 0.27 0.397 0.377
2001 0.409 0.3824 0.415333333
2002 0.464 0.4126 0.423222222
2003 0.473 0.455
2004 0.447 0.4576
2005 0.482 0.4458
2006 0.422 0.4158
2007 0.405
2008 0.323

See the trend?

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:46:55 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 17, 9:33 am, Richard Henry <pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 17, 1:49 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:





On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:55:06 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry

pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 2:22 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

                                       ...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.

Jon

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cool.  You found data.

Now try some arithmetic.  Using the Hadley data, calculate the average
anomaly from 1989-1998.  Compare it to the average anomaly from 1999
to 2008.

The average anomaly will say nothing about the trend.

So what's the trend?

Show your work.

To be fair, here is some of mine:

Year Anomaly 5-year ave 9-year ave

1981 0.12
1982 0.011
1983 0.177 0.0498
1984 -0.021 0.0316
1985 -0.038 0.0652 0.082222222
1986 0.029 0.0658 0.097111111
1987 0.179 0.0906 0.119444444
1988 0.18 0.149 0.106555556
1989 0.103 0.1856 0.120555556
1990 0.254 0.162 0.143777778
1991 0.212 0.147 0.171111111
1992 0.061 0.1606 0.166444444
1993 0.105 0.1648 0.185444444
1994 0.171 0.1498 0.234666667
1995 0.275 0.2078 0.239333333
1996 0.137 0.296 0.245777778
1997 0.351 0.321 0.284444444
1998 0.546 0.32 0.324333333
1999 0.296 0.3744 0.357888889
2000 0.27 0.397 0.377
2001 0.409 0.3824 0.415333333
2002 0.464 0.4126 0.423222222
2003 0.473 0.455
2004 0.447 0.4576
2005 0.482 0.4458
2006 0.422 0.4158
2007 0.405
2008 0.323

See the trend?

These guys smooth using a 21 point binomial filter:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

Your 5 year average and their curve are trending downwards from a peak
around 2003/04.

Which is what I would expect from solar activity:

http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlyNOAA%20and%20HadCRUT3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960.gif

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:22:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.

Jon

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual


How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?



When his pecker freezes and falls off. He'll not notice, though, it
was already a useless appendage ;-)

Just like his other head.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I
will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

 

[marika]

On Mar 13, 7:56 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Since I was talking about short term noise superimposed on a long term
trend, both your sources provide exactly the same support for the
point I was making.

why are men so mean to women

and then there's william shatner, lj simpson and bobby barettta but
let's
not dwell on such details

Add to this the guy from NOAA predicting cooling for another 30 years.

Presumably you are misquoting Kyle Swanson  - again. As I pointed out
tp you last time, what he actually said was that the short term
cooling could extend for as long as thirty years.

In fact he seems to think that a few years is more likely.

You aren't the only mendacious creep who goes in for this kind of
selective misquotation

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/category/the-george-will-on-ic...

-

if this dude is so genuine, he'd never buy the swimsuit issue of
Discover and leave it out
on his desk in the first place

mk5000

"The meanness starts when girls are about 10 or 11 and are beginning
to
compete for boys and pay more attention to the media, It's probably
rooted in biology, and then girls are bombarded with external
messages that say it's all about hooking a man."--Dava Guerin

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:05:06 -0800 (PST), palvarez
<pabloalvarezsanchez@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

For several reasons a need very low jitter on some of my outputs. I
was thinking of using LVDS for my I/Os and of course I do not consider
using a clock manager. Do you have an idea of the order of magnitude
of jitter one can get? What fpga would you recomend for a low cost
small design?

Cheers

Pablo

Here's a signal that has made three independent non-trivial in/out
passes through a Spartan3, plus passed through six external SSI CMOS
chips. Total jitter of that whole chain is below 20 ps RMS.

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Jitter3.jpg


We were fairly impressed. Spartans are like having a few thousand 10KH
ECL gates on a $20 chip.

John

 

[Andrew Holme]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:nhfns4lrd245pvu2lt4pnn03lio466j5ti@4ax.com...

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:05:06 -0800 (PST), palvarez
pabloalvarezsanchez@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

For several reasons a need very low jitter on some of my outputs. I
was thinking of using LVDS for my I/Os and of course I do not consider
using a clock manager. Do you have an idea of the order of magnitude
of jitter one can get? What fpga would you recomend for a low cost
small design?

Cheers

Pablo


Here's a signal that has made three independent non-trivial in/out
passes through a Spartan3, plus passed through six external SSI CMOS
chips. Total jitter of that whole chain is below 20 ps RMS.

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Jitter3.jpg


We were fairly impressed. Spartans are like having a few thousand 10KH
ECL gates on a $20 chip.

John

I've just built a fractional-N synthesizer using a Spartan 3. The reference
frequency comes from an LVDS-output crystal oscillator. The VCO frequency
is fed into the opposite side of the FPGA using an LVDS-output comparator
and the (AD9901 style) PFD output from the FPGA to the loop filter is also
LVDS on a third physical side.

Inside the FPGA, the VCO divider and reference divider are on local clocks
confined to small regions around the pads where they enter. BUFGCE
primitives are used to gate the clocks so I only send edges over the global
clock network when a divider resets. The AD9901 PFD ensures that the VCO
and reference divider outputs are 180 degrees out of phase.

Some years ago, I built a cruder fractional-N synth using a 5V Altera PLCC84
CPLD. It worked quite well, but there was some interation between the VCO
and reference frequencies which caused integer-N boundary spurs. I see no
trace of these spurs on my new Spartan 3 design, and the phase noise is much
lower. I'm seeing around -95 dBc/Hz at 100 Hz offsets at the moment; and I
haven't finished tweaking things yet.


They say don't attempt analogue functions in FPGAs; but it seems to work
remarkably well in the Spartan 3, which is fully static when I'm not
clocking it.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:34:22 -0000, "Andrew Holme" <ah@nospam.co.uk>
wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:nhfns4lrd245pvu2lt4pnn03lio466j5ti@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:05:06 -0800 (PST), palvarez
pabloalvarezsanchez@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

For several reasons a need very low jitter on some of my outputs. I
was thinking of using LVDS for my I/Os and of course I do not consider
using a clock manager. Do you have an idea of the order of magnitude
of jitter one can get? What fpga would you recomend for a low cost
small design?

Cheers

Pablo


Here's a signal that has made three independent non-trivial in/out
passes through a Spartan3, plus passed through six external SSI CMOS
chips. Total jitter of that whole chain is below 20 ps RMS.

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Jitter3.jpg


We were fairly impressed. Spartans are like having a few thousand 10KH
ECL gates on a $20 chip.

John


I've just built a fractional-N synthesizer using a Spartan 3. The reference
frequency comes from an LVDS-output crystal oscillator. The VCO frequency
is fed into the opposite side of the FPGA using an LVDS-output comparator
and the (AD9901 style) PFD output from the FPGA to the loop filter is also
LVDS on a third physical side.

Inside the FPGA, the VCO divider and reference divider are on local clocks
confined to small regions around the pads where they enter. BUFGCE
primitives are used to gate the clocks so I only send edges over the global
clock network when a divider resets. The AD9901 PFD ensures that the VCO
and reference divider outputs are 180 degrees out of phase.

Some years ago, I built a cruder fractional-N synth using a 5V Altera PLCC84
CPLD. It worked quite well, but there was some interation between the VCO
and reference frequencies which caused integer-N boundary spurs. I see no
trace of these spurs on my new Spartan 3 design, and the phase noise is much
lower. I'm seeing around -95 dBc/Hz at 100 Hz offsets at the moment; and I
haven't finished tweaking things yet.


They say don't attempt analogue functions in FPGAs; but it seems to work
remarkably well in the Spartan 3, which is fully static when I'm not
clocking it.

The Spartan LVDS inputs are pretty good r-r comparators. And you can
make lots of good, cheap delta-sigma dacs from an FPGA.

You can do cool analog things with FPGAs. You can also get into a heap
of trouble.

John