Driver to drive?

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 1:57 am, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 3:04 am, John Larkin wrote:
Science used to rely on experiment.

Newton's astronomical experiments are famous, as are Darwin's
evolutionary experiments.

Physics in particular also relies on repeatable OBSERVATIONS.

Name a single observation that the warmingists can show is even real,
never mind repeatable.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice core data?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 12:31 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:07:15 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
34268b9d-aaeb-43f2-9e4c-70b5021df...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>:

You are soooo unscientific, by the time the water is high enough to come > >over the dikes here, if ever, I will be
long gone.
Did you know humans have a limited lifespan>?

As Bohr said. prediction is difficult, and predicting the future is
very difficult. The sea level may rise faster than you think. and you
may live longer than you expect.

snipped one of Jan's less comprehensible comments

Well if that was uncomprehensible, for you, then you really need help.

Since you haven't bothered to explain it, it would seem that you can't
remember what you might have intened to convey by it.

Until the sea dikes had to be so high - and corrrespondling wide -
that they's have to fill the country.

You are still twisting and turning it seems.

Jan, you should have worked out by now that I don't take you
seriously, and wouldn't waste the time required to discover a
plausible prediction to embed in a posting aimed at you.

Well I do not take you seriously either, you should have noticed.
Warming weenies are just manipulted neural nets, trained the wrong way.

Nice line, but you need to elucidate the training involved and produce
an example the illustrates the restricted responses available before
you can score any brownie points.

Global Warming, I love it!

Actually, when it gets warmer, people need less heating, and so will prod> >uce less CO2.
It is all self stabilising.

Someone obviously hasn't heard about air-conditioning. Dutch summer
don't get all that warm, but they do get humid, and air-condtioners
are a great - if energy-intensive - way of getting the humidity down
to bearable levels. Since I now spend the Dutch summer in Sydney
(where it is usually warmer, even it it is winter there) I don't have
to bother.

Hardly anyone in The Netherlands has an aircondition unit, but everyone has a heater.
You should know that.

I do, That was the substance of my reaction.

Also I think you have _never_been_ near a sea dike, as you would have seen how much
space there is.

There are a few roads that run on top of sea dikes, but most of the
traffic is routed behind them, which makes it difficult to appreciate
their dimensions.

Humidity never was a problem here, ridiculous.

The Dutch don't distinguish between heat and humidity, since they only
experience dry heat when on holiday overseas. They wilt when the
temperature goes over 30 Celcius, whereas 40 Celcius of dry heat isn't
either uncomfortable or inconvnenient, though you do need to drik
quite a lot of water if you play field hockey when the weather is that
warm.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[krw]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:08:20 +0200, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi>
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:17:20 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 16, 1:41 am, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 12:56 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

True. Scientific questions are usually decided by a concensus of
scientists who have all looked at the question in some detail, and end
up agreeing - give or take a few contarians who won't agree with any
majority, on principle - on the evidence and the arguments.

NO. It's agreed by many scientists performing the same experiment(s) and
validating the results. Of course they can't do that when the IPCC and
CRU won't release the data from the experiments.

Climatologists don't do experiments. It is an observational science,
so they merely collect data. Graham's grasp of science can be judged
by his incapacity to appreciate this trivial point.

At least the hockey stick climatologists do a lot of experiments in
order to find the most suitable time series and experiment with time
series weights to get the expected aggregate result

Nah, they use Mexicans to pick their cherries.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 10:17 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:32:13 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 13, 11:43 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:37:46 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:31 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800, John Larkin

For one example of a trick see:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

This is an entertaining exercise in examining raw data. The author
obviously didn't ask anybody why the Darwin temperature records might
have needed to be adjusted, or why they seemed to be a bit odd in
1941.

Most Australians would have been able to explain why records don't
look too good in 1941.

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/darwinbombing/

Had the author gone as far as running a Google search on "Darwin 1941"
he would have found this item right at the
top of the list.

Japanese bombs do happen to be a slightly more credible explanation
than the one the author seems to fancy, but they don't happen to
generate anything like the same number of conspiracy theory brownie
points, so he didn't bother to search hard enough to find this
tolerably salient explanation.

Bill, you got me there and it shows my ignorance of the science.
Please explain the temporal mechanics.

There was a war on. Weather observations do tend to get disrupted when
this happens, even before the enemy starts dropping bombs - as
happened on the 14th Feburary 1942

None of this reflects on the contents of the article and the war is a
red herring.

On the contrary, it makes it clear that the author hadn't done the
elementary homework required to find out what whas going on in and
around Darwin in 1941

SNIP

Restoring the snip.

Note the temperature measurment site moved in 1941, before the
bombing, from the bombed Post Office to the airport.

By the time of the bombing there were ten fighters (probably
Wirraways, basically a locally built North American NA-16 trainer) in
Darwin, and presumably some meteorological support staff. The military
would have had an immediate interest in the weather measurements,
which presumably motivated the move.

http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/100119

Bear in mind that while the Japanese didn't declare war until the 8th
December 1941, the British and the Australians had long been anxious
about their territorial ambitions and military build-up.

Unsurprisingly, Ravinghorde doesn't like having had his nose rubbed in
the inadequacies of the stuff he adduced and defended.

Now the Russians are accusing the Hadley Centre of cherry picking only
the warm stations from Russia.

http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

<snipped defensive Russian objections to having a lot of weather
stations ignored>

Has anybody asked CRU why they rejected so many Russian weather
stations? As with Darwin, there may be a fairly straightfoward
explanation that doesn't involve one more of Ravinghordes perennial
conspiracy theories, which have the great advanatage that they can be
devised by the most idle armchair theorist from the comfort of his
armchair.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 11:21 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:51:02 +0000, Raveninghorde





raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:42:49 -0800, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

If it involves ripping off millions of wage-earners to transfer funds to
the parasite class (which cap & tax does), then absolutely!

In fact, it should be a 2/3 majority or unanimous, which a simple majority
isn't.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html

/quotes

Bearing in mind that the issue is based on the central deception that
the life-giving gas carbon dioxide is a "pollutant",

Denialist signature. Carbon dioxide can be lfe-giving and a polluntant
in the same way that thirst-quenching water can drown you.

<snipped the rest>

Even better (as in worse)

Big UK steel works closed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/67980...

The Daily Telegraph does see Thatcher's influence as benign, while in
fact she gutted U.K. manufacturing industry, and spent very little on
the kind of infra-structure that might have kept Redcar viable.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Dec 16, 3:03 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 16, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:





If Isaac Newton were alive today, 30 years old,
what would he be doing?

   Well, for calculus idiots, it may be more
enlightening what he wouldn't be doing.
   He wouldn't be working on Laser Disks, Blue Ray,
HDTV, Home Broadband, mp3, mpeg, muliplexed fiber
optics, Digital Books, Atomic Clock Wristwatches

 He wouldn't be working on PGP, Microcomputers,
 GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping, Post 1900 Cell Phones,
    He wouldn't be working on Post Cambridge-nomics,
 All-In-One Printers, and Rapid Prototying.

  He wouldn't be working Laser-Guided Phasors,
Holograms, Self-Replicating Machines,
Self-Assembling Robots, Cyber Batteries, and Post
Gutenburg Publishing,

  He wouldn't be working on Hybid-Electric Energy,
Microwave Cooling, and Post Ferro E-M.

Why not?

Reason 1) He was a profound believer that light was composes of
particles, not waves.
Reason 2) He was a serious believer in tranmutation of the elements
as
the one true philosophy of economics.
Reason 3) The only thing he knew about ferro anything, was not only
British Law, it was Gregorian Law.

--
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:26:29 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:25:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 11, 1:26 am, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote:
Sylvia Else a écrit :

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 12:46 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all
know what
happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE...

[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago
LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement
defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of
hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. ....
Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.
--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

----
Cheers!
Rich
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Sort of. The mindless majority will keep on burning fossil carbon and
the the earth will count the CO2 molecules and warm up appropriately.
Your grand-children will be able to read the outcome from their
thermometers, if their  civilisation still retains the capacity to
build thermometers.

The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

Sylvia.

Right. Here on sed, it's not vote but rather bash.

Sure, the suckers who have fallen for the Exxon-Mobil funded denialist
propaganda seem to be a little more numerous, but they are distinctly
short on good arguments.

Essentially no one (and less than 5% of the internet population) has
any idea what usenet is. They just draw a blank. And only a few of
what remains there even bother with it.

The distribution of opinion in SED is far from representing the public
at large on anything, let alone this subject. Worse, essentially zero
posters in SED have done so much as to comprehensively inform
themselves on even the smallest ledge of any of climate science --
modern or ancient -- and I can't recall a single serious discussion
here over a single peer-reviewed climate science paper, let alone done
with understanding of the material. As such, the opinions here are
worth no more than a random roll of a thousand-sided die. Being more
than a little generous about it.

Some people here like to talk about people they know. For example,
Jörg mentions his own neighbors' opinions, which are quite different
from my own. But I'm also a Precinct Committee Person (elected
official of the lowest order) who travels around my district and talks
with families. My own experience is quite different than Jörg's. None
of which means much. Our districts may simply be quite different and
that's all it may mean. But opinions here are a measure of nothing
more than opinions here.

I know no naysayer here will dares, but I'd suggest that we discuss,
without ad hominem and engaging only the methods, source materials,
and conclusions in a serious way, of "Nonlinear threshold behavior
during the loss of Arctic sea ice," by I. Eisenmana and J. S.
Wettlauferb, 2009. There's a few partials, boundary conditions, and
diff eqs, plus references to papers going back to at least 1969 ("The
effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the earth," M.
I. Budyko, 1969, for example) and it would require some small effort
and study by anyone here wishing to intelligently discuss it. It
includes its development of the math in the SI Appendix and the main
article segues with a very simple and basic understanding of a
bistable state and a mathematical bifurcation surface. But it is
recent, relevant, and I sincerely doubt any but a very few naysayers
here can begin to understand the math involved, simple as it really
is. Let alone discuss the implications with any care and sincere
engagement. There's plenty to attack, much of it already discussed in
the paper; more to research; and yet much that is still said of
importance. The training required to understand that paper is modest
and nothing even close to what is required for atmospheric and oceanic
fluid dynamics. It's 5th grader child's play, by comparison. Which
pretty much puts the dunce cap on most of the naysaying posters here.
They can't even approach the work. So all they do is ignorantly rant.

In case there is a taker of a sincere, informed and comprehensive
discussion, the paper is freely available here:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~ian/publications/Eisenman-Wettlaufer-2009-incl-SI.pdfSee
One of the earliest referenced papers, by the above paper, is also
available here:

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcgehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/references/Budyko1969Tellus21p611-Albedo.pdf

There are others, of course, and some will have to be gotten by
requesting them from the authors. But that's what a serious
discussion entails, doesn't it?

I have NO respect for those here willing to espouse firm name-calling
directed at _all_ climate scientists as a group, unless they are
willing to do the necessary work for their opinions. And I've yet to
see the slightest shred of that willingness.

Says a great deal to me about their own lack of self-respect, not to
mention credibility.

Jon

Um, have you noticed that this is an electronic design group?

Tell us about something that you are designing.

John

 

[Greegor]

G > Is 1700 a unanimous vote?

Dave > More like anonymous, and they were all
Dave > cloned from one pseudo-scientist from
Dave > Scotland. (Who is actually a bagpipe
Dave > player for a local pub)

G > Is 1700 the number who knuckled under to group pressure?

G > How were these ""votes"" collected?

Dave > Chinese abacus

G > Who did it?

Dave > An organization in Britain fashioned after ACORN

G > Is there no "Confirmation Bias" involved?

Dave > "No comment"

Doesn't the British joke go more like
"I could not possibly comment." ?

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:41:41 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:26:29 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:25:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 11, 1:26 am, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote:
Sylvia Else a écrit :

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 12:46 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all
know what
happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE...

[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago
LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement
defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of
hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. ....
Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.
--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

----
Cheers!
Rich
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Sort of. The mindless majority will keep on burning fossil carbon and
the the earth will count the CO2 molecules and warm up appropriately.
Your grand-children will be able to read the outcome from their
thermometers, if their  civilisation still retains the capacity to
build thermometers.

The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

Sylvia.

Right. Here on sed, it's not vote but rather bash.

Sure, the suckers who have fallen for the Exxon-Mobil funded denialist
propaganda seem to be a little more numerous, but they are distinctly
short on good arguments.

Essentially no one (and less than 5% of the internet population) has
any idea what usenet is. They just draw a blank. And only a few of
what remains there even bother with it.

The distribution of opinion in SED is far from representing the public
at large on anything, let alone this subject. Worse, essentially zero
posters in SED have done so much as to comprehensively inform
themselves on even the smallest ledge of any of climate science --
modern or ancient -- and I can't recall a single serious discussion
here over a single peer-reviewed climate science paper, let alone done
with understanding of the material. As such, the opinions here are
worth no more than a random roll of a thousand-sided die. Being more
than a little generous about it.

Some people here like to talk about people they know. For example,
Jörg mentions his own neighbors' opinions, which are quite different
from my own. But I'm also a Precinct Committee Person (elected
official of the lowest order) who travels around my district and talks
with families. My own experience is quite different than Jörg's. None
of which means much. Our districts may simply be quite different and
that's all it may mean. But opinions here are a measure of nothing
more than opinions here.

I know no naysayer here will dares, but I'd suggest that we discuss,
without ad hominem and engaging only the methods, source materials,
and conclusions in a serious way, of "Nonlinear threshold behavior
during the loss of Arctic sea ice," by I. Eisenmana and J. S.
Wettlauferb, 2009. There's a few partials, boundary conditions, and
diff eqs, plus references to papers going back to at least 1969 ("The
effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the earth," M.
I. Budyko, 1969, for example) and it would require some small effort
and study by anyone here wishing to intelligently discuss it. It
includes its development of the math in the SI Appendix and the main
article segues with a very simple and basic understanding of a
bistable state and a mathematical bifurcation surface. But it is
recent, relevant, and I sincerely doubt any but a very few naysayers
here can begin to understand the math involved, simple as it really
is. Let alone discuss the implications with any care and sincere
engagement. There's plenty to attack, much of it already discussed in
the paper; more to research; and yet much that is still said of
importance. The training required to understand that paper is modest
and nothing even close to what is required for atmospheric and oceanic
fluid dynamics. It's 5th grader child's play, by comparison. Which
pretty much puts the dunce cap on most of the naysaying posters here.
They can't even approach the work. So all they do is ignorantly rant.

In case there is a taker of a sincere, informed and comprehensive
discussion, the paper is freely available here:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~ian/publications/Eisenman-Wettlaufer-2009-incl-SI.pdfSee
One of the earliest referenced papers, by the above paper, is also
available here:

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcgehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/references/Budyko1969Tellus21p611-Albedo.pdf

There are others, of course, and some will have to be gotten by
requesting them from the authors. But that's what a serious
discussion entails, doesn't it?

I have NO respect for those here willing to espouse firm name-calling
directed at _all_ climate scientists as a group, unless they are
willing to do the necessary work for their opinions. And I've yet to
see the slightest shred of that willingness.

Says a great deal to me about their own lack of self-respect, not to
mention credibility.

Jon

Um, have you noticed that this is an electronic design group?

Tell us about something that you are designing.

_You_ write here a LOT MORE about climate than I do. In fact, I've
been pretty much avoiding the issue here in 2009. Looking over my
posts in .basics and .design, almost all of them are related to
physics (phosphors, for example) or electronics (core materials and
inductance and many other subjects of some relationship to the group's
purpose.) You are far more active in distracting the group away, than
I am, now. Look in a mirror.

Now, I'd very much like to you see actually work for your opinion on
climate -- since you seem so willing to waste breathe on the subject
here. Care to take me up on the above challenge?

Jon

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 17, 12:32 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:43:01 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:25 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:06:03 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:41 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:38:06 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

This would be the insult part of your bluster-and-insult contribution.
Your contributions about the scientific status of anthropogenic global
warming is - of course - the bluster, since you seem to collect it all
from denialist web-sites, rather than coming up with original
nonsense.

Sheesh. This is an engineering group. Engineers can't afford to be
sloppy like climate scientists. They can't afford the sort of politics
seen with the CRU/realclimate team.

You don't seem to have worked on any decent-sized projects.

This was a reference to Ravinghorde, not John Larkin.

John Larkin doesn't seem to have the self-control to take the time to
work out the tree structure of a thread in which he feels that he has
been insulted.

Agent lines up things vertically after a lot of indent levels.

But you still managed to ignore the line

"> >> >On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid
wrote:"

But this is a discussion group.

Which excuses you from having to think about what you are responding
to?

Well, how _about_ you? Tell us about your biggest projects.

I've got only one big project going on at the moment - getting a new
aortic valve. It doesn't call for much creative input on my part, but
does require a certain amount of showing up at the local hospitals and
putting up with stuff, which can be distracting.

As John says this is a discussion group.

But to answer your question to me:

I don't do big projects. I do niche projects. My kit ends up world
wide with people such as US Army, China Telecom, NASA, IBM, Thales and
that's current production of my designs.

And my 168 LED light bulb which I posted on ABSE came second in a
technical evaluation by big oil. So I'm not yet a shill.

Not a shill for big oil but merely a sucker for their propaganda.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 1:26 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:07:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:24 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:11:28 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:26 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:24:58 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
ae5ab312-8b61-4d33-8501-ff9cc4a36...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:

On Dec 11, 5:42 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:21:56 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
EkuUm.28005$gd1.18...@newsfe05.iad>:

It is a pity that your political blinkers prevent you from seeing that
evidence.

There is no evidence.
And even if the A in GW was significant, in the sense more then the 2 sig> >> >> >ma Sloman claims,
the solution is to have nuke power plants.
More power plants, CO2 production will not go down in this industrialised> >> >> > world.
An on top of that GW is not bad, I want more of it here, now,
palm trees, sunny beaches, property value increases, let's have it, kill > >> >> >the AGW weenies.
Kill the energy taxes,
And our friends the plants and trees like CO2 too
Give it to them!

Jan really does want his home to be submerged under the rising oceans.
Mine is some 30 metres above NAP - effectively, sea-level - so I'll
get the sunny beaches, plam trees and rising property values,

Then WTF are you complaining about all the time ?


The prospect of being flooded with stateless refugees, driven back to
the nearest high ground as the sea-level rises.

Not in your lifetime. A more immediate danger is hungry refugees,
impoverished by the trillions we may spend on useless AGW mitigation,
funds diverted from serious economic development. The Europeans are
planning that already.

IIRR the European trillions are aimed at serious economic development
of sustainable power sources. Since the money now being spent doesn't
seem to prevent a steady influx of economic refugees (most of whom
have to spend a lot more than the starving millions can command), I'm
fairly sure that you haven't a clue about the subject.

In particular, I don't look forward to having you camped on my
doorstep, telling me that I should have made it clearer to you that
anthropogenic global warming was real and that we should have done
something about it back when we had a chance of beating it, or a least
keeping it within bounds.

Going by the 1995 evacuations - when the Rhine got threateningly high
- every Dutch person in the affected areas will expect to be
accomodated by friends or acquaintances living on higher ground.

There won't be much of the Netherlands left on higher ground, so the
refugees will be forced to exploit rather remote acquaintances ...

How hard is it to build up the dikes by, say, 2 mm a year? Hell, you
could build up the entire country by 2 mm a year.

The Rhine used to do something like that. It has now been "canalised"
and flows rather faster, so the silt makes it all the way to the sea.

The problem with building up the dikes is that 2mm on the height is at
least 12mm on the width - the seaward side needs a slope of 1:6 or
shallower to survive erosion by storm waves, plus solid protection
agains erosion

http://icce2008.hamburg.baw.de/downloads/intern/Paper/BookOfAbstracts...

Building up the country by 2mm per year isn't all that practical. 27%
of the country and 60% of the population live below sea-level - some
quite a way below sea-level. The lowest point is 7 metres below sea
level. Building the entire country up to sea-level would submerge some
valuable real estate in dirt, which wouldn't suite the inhabitants any
better than having it flooded with sea water.

And, of course 2mm per year probably isn't enough. Current rates are
closer to 3mm per year, and if the ice continues to slide off the
Antarctic and the Greenland ice sheets at an ever-increasing rate as
it is at the moment, life could get more complicated still.

Finally some people are starting to make a little sense:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/15/soot_bigger_than_co2/

Particulates are evil in many ways, but would be relatively easy to
control. As noted, the alarmists don't want any relatively easy
solutions, they want crisies that require massive taxation and major
redesign of the world's economy to fix.

Why do you say that? Fixing particulates will certainly help, but
continuing to burn fossil carbon at the current rate or faster is
going to push us beyond the highest global temperatures we've had
during any interglacial with in the next century or two and leave us
open the sort of methane clathrate destabilising event that made life
interesting during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

I'm sure that climatology community (as represented by the IPCC) would
fall over themselves to trumpet an easy fix, if one existed - the
scheme for fertising the southern ocen with iron certainly got a lot
of attention, even if it finally proved to be more effective in
providing a free lunch for crustaceans than in persuading lots of
diatoms to grow carbonate-rich shells to eventually sink to the sea
floor.

So we're about to have a new category of denialist, CO2 haters who
refuse to believe that particulates are a bigger problem. I assume we
can chalk you up as a charter member.

I'm all in favour of getting rid of particulates as fast as we can. As
yet I've seen no evidence - beyond your usual wishful thinking - that
they are a major contribution to anthropogenic global warming around
the world (as opposed to over the Himalayas), but they are bad for the
lungs and the circulatory system, and I have a direct and personal
interest in seeing them eliminated from the air I breath.

http://scitizen.com/stories/future-energies/2009/12/Carbon-Particles-a-Factor-in-Climate-Change/

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:52:42 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:41:41 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:26:29 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:25:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 11, 1:26 am, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote:
Sylvia Else a écrit :

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 12:46 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all
know what
happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE...

[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago
LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement
defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of
hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. ....
Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.
--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

----
Cheers!
Rich
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Sort of. The mindless majority will keep on burning fossil carbon and
the the earth will count the CO2 molecules and warm up appropriately.
Your grand-children will be able to read the outcome from their
thermometers, if their  civilisation still retains the capacity to
build thermometers.

The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

Sylvia.

Right. Here on sed, it's not vote but rather bash.

Sure, the suckers who have fallen for the Exxon-Mobil funded denialist
propaganda seem to be a little more numerous, but they are distinctly
short on good arguments.

Essentially no one (and less than 5% of the internet population) has
any idea what usenet is. They just draw a blank. And only a few of
what remains there even bother with it.

The distribution of opinion in SED is far from representing the public
at large on anything, let alone this subject. Worse, essentially zero
posters in SED have done so much as to comprehensively inform
themselves on even the smallest ledge of any of climate science --
modern or ancient -- and I can't recall a single serious discussion
here over a single peer-reviewed climate science paper, let alone done
with understanding of the material. As such, the opinions here are
worth no more than a random roll of a thousand-sided die. Being more
than a little generous about it.

Some people here like to talk about people they know. For example,
Jörg mentions his own neighbors' opinions, which are quite different
from my own. But I'm also a Precinct Committee Person (elected
official of the lowest order) who travels around my district and talks
with families. My own experience is quite different than Jörg's. None
of which means much. Our districts may simply be quite different and
that's all it may mean. But opinions here are a measure of nothing
more than opinions here.

I know no naysayer here will dares, but I'd suggest that we discuss,
without ad hominem and engaging only the methods, source materials,
and conclusions in a serious way, of "Nonlinear threshold behavior
during the loss of Arctic sea ice," by I. Eisenmana and J. S.
Wettlauferb, 2009. There's a few partials, boundary conditions, and
diff eqs, plus references to papers going back to at least 1969 ("The
effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the earth," M.
I. Budyko, 1969, for example) and it would require some small effort
and study by anyone here wishing to intelligently discuss it. It
includes its development of the math in the SI Appendix and the main
article segues with a very simple and basic understanding of a
bistable state and a mathematical bifurcation surface. But it is
recent, relevant, and I sincerely doubt any but a very few naysayers
here can begin to understand the math involved, simple as it really
is. Let alone discuss the implications with any care and sincere
engagement. There's plenty to attack, much of it already discussed in
the paper; more to research; and yet much that is still said of
importance. The training required to understand that paper is modest
and nothing even close to what is required for atmospheric and oceanic
fluid dynamics. It's 5th grader child's play, by comparison. Which
pretty much puts the dunce cap on most of the naysaying posters here.
They can't even approach the work. So all they do is ignorantly rant.

In case there is a taker of a sincere, informed and comprehensive
discussion, the paper is freely available here:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~ian/publications/Eisenman-Wettlaufer-2009-incl-SI.pdfSee
One of the earliest referenced papers, by the above paper, is also
available here:

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcgehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/references/Budyko1969Tellus21p611-Albedo.pdf

There are others, of course, and some will have to be gotten by
requesting them from the authors. But that's what a serious
discussion entails, doesn't it?

I have NO respect for those here willing to espouse firm name-calling
directed at _all_ climate scientists as a group, unless they are
willing to do the necessary work for their opinions. And I've yet to
see the slightest shred of that willingness.

Says a great deal to me about their own lack of self-respect, not to
mention credibility.

Jon

Um, have you noticed that this is an electronic design group?

Tell us about something that you are designing.

_You_ write here a LOT MORE about climate than I do.

I never start a climate-related thread. I do like to make fun of the
guys who obscess about climate and don't design electronics and
generally refuse to think.


In fact, I've

been pretty much avoiding the issue here in 2009. Looking over my
posts in .basics and .design, almost all of them are related to
physics (phosphors, for example) or electronics (core materials and
inductance and many other subjects of some relationship to the group's
purpose.) You are far more active in distracting the group away, than
I am, now. Look in a mirror.

Most of my posts are electronics related. Compare my ratio to Sloman's
for example.

Now, I'd very much like to you see actually work for your opinion on
climate -- since you seem so willing to waste breathe on the subject
here. Care to take me up on the above challenge?

This is s.e.d. An appropriate challenge would be to discuss something
you are designing. Do you in fact design electronics?

We had three guys visit us yesterday. They are software types who made
fortunes developing social networking sites that you have heard of.
They have decided to start a company to save the world by developing
green technolgy, and some of it will involve energy measurement
hardware. It's astonishing how far up the abstraction stack they
are... programming in C is primitive to them. They had never heard of
real versus apparent power, power factor, phase shifts, crest factor,
RMS, that sort of stuff. I think "line, neutral, ground" was new to
them. They seemed to grasp the idea of ADC quantization, but I'm not
sure.

I told them that I program my electric meters in assembly. If I'd said
that to a similar group 10 years ago, they would have laughed. Times
have changed: these guys were *impressed* that I can program in
assembly.

I suppose I'll help them, but I doubt we'll save the world.

I have designed metering gear for utility load studies, with around
100,000 channels deployed. It was used for power-plant planning,
EnergyStar limits, time-of-use algorithm development, stuff like that.
And I'm working of several other things that will do stuff like
improve jet engine efficiency. Although I'm a climate change skeptic,
I have actually done a *lot* to improve energy efficiency.

How about you? What do you do?

John

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Dec 17, 11:20 am, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

This Christmas, I offer to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency a reflection of truth about the Predator program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator

As some of you have undoubtedly already seen, the live video feed was
allegedly hacked using OTS*

*off the shellf software

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

Futhermore, these drones seem to crash a lot:

http://cursor.org/stories/dronesyndrome.htm

Earlier this year, when I spoke to DARPA program managers and prime
contractors about secure, mobile, wirless links, it seemed that that
"their bread was not fully baked" in this area. I asked a technical
director of a $11US+ billion program if this was the case, and he was
reluctant to admit that, after $5US billion already spent, they still
had not figured out how to do secure mobile links in a way that
actually made sense. His response was something like,

"Yes, before, we had some issues around 2000-2001, but recently we
have provided demonstrations that show that we have control of the
situation."

DARPA, please, you are impressing us toooo much!!!!

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:46:29 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:52:42 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:41:41 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:26:29 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:25:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 11, 1:26 am, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote:
Sylvia Else a écrit :

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 12:46 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all
know what
happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE...

[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago
LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement
defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of
hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. ....
Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.
--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

----
Cheers!
Rich
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Sort of. The mindless majority will keep on burning fossil carbon and
the the earth will count the CO2 molecules and warm up appropriately.
Your grand-children will be able to read the outcome from their
thermometers, if their  civilisation still retains the capacity to
build thermometers.

The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

Sylvia.

Right. Here on sed, it's not vote but rather bash.

Sure, the suckers who have fallen for the Exxon-Mobil funded denialist
propaganda seem to be a little more numerous, but they are distinctly
short on good arguments.

Essentially no one (and less than 5% of the internet population) has
any idea what usenet is. They just draw a blank. And only a few of
what remains there even bother with it.

The distribution of opinion in SED is far from representing the public
at large on anything, let alone this subject. Worse, essentially zero
posters in SED have done so much as to comprehensively inform
themselves on even the smallest ledge of any of climate science --
modern or ancient -- and I can't recall a single serious discussion
here over a single peer-reviewed climate science paper, let alone done
with understanding of the material. As such, the opinions here are
worth no more than a random roll of a thousand-sided die. Being more
than a little generous about it.

Some people here like to talk about people they know. For example,
Jörg mentions his own neighbors' opinions, which are quite different
from my own. But I'm also a Precinct Committee Person (elected
official of the lowest order) who travels around my district and talks
with families. My own experience is quite different than Jörg's. None
of which means much. Our districts may simply be quite different and
that's all it may mean. But opinions here are a measure of nothing
more than opinions here.

I know no naysayer here will dares, but I'd suggest that we discuss,
without ad hominem and engaging only the methods, source materials,
and conclusions in a serious way, of "Nonlinear threshold behavior
during the loss of Arctic sea ice," by I. Eisenmana and J. S.
Wettlauferb, 2009. There's a few partials, boundary conditions, and
diff eqs, plus references to papers going back to at least 1969 ("The
effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the earth," M.
I. Budyko, 1969, for example) and it would require some small effort
and study by anyone here wishing to intelligently discuss it. It
includes its development of the math in the SI Appendix and the main
article segues with a very simple and basic understanding of a
bistable state and a mathematical bifurcation surface. But it is
recent, relevant, and I sincerely doubt any but a very few naysayers
here can begin to understand the math involved, simple as it really
is. Let alone discuss the implications with any care and sincere
engagement. There's plenty to attack, much of it already discussed in
the paper; more to research; and yet much that is still said of
importance. The training required to understand that paper is modest
and nothing even close to what is required for atmospheric and oceanic
fluid dynamics. It's 5th grader child's play, by comparison. Which
pretty much puts the dunce cap on most of the naysaying posters here.
They can't even approach the work. So all they do is ignorantly rant.

In case there is a taker of a sincere, informed and comprehensive
discussion, the paper is freely available here:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~ian/publications/Eisenman-Wettlaufer-2009-incl-SI.pdfSee
One of the earliest referenced papers, by the above paper, is also
available here:

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcgehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/references/Budyko1969Tellus21p611-Albedo.pdf

There are others, of course, and some will have to be gotten by
requesting them from the authors. But that's what a serious
discussion entails, doesn't it?

I have NO respect for those here willing to espouse firm name-calling
directed at _all_ climate scientists as a group, unless they are
willing to do the necessary work for their opinions. And I've yet to
see the slightest shred of that willingness.

Says a great deal to me about their own lack of self-respect, not to
mention credibility.

Jon

Um, have you noticed that this is an electronic design group?

Tell us about something that you are designing.

_You_ write here a LOT MORE about climate than I do.

I never start a climate-related thread. I do like to make fun of the
guys who obscess about climate and don't design electronics and
generally refuse to think.


In fact, I've
been pretty much avoiding the issue here in 2009. Looking over my
posts in .basics and .design, almost all of them are related to
physics (phosphors, for example) or electronics (core materials and
inductance and many other subjects of some relationship to the group's
purpose.) You are far more active in distracting the group away, than
I am, now. Look in a mirror.

Most of my posts are electronics related. Compare my ratio to Sloman's
for example.


Now, I'd very much like to you see actually work for your opinion on
climate -- since you seem so willing to waste breathe on the subject
here. Care to take me up on the above challenge?

This is s.e.d. An appropriate challenge would be to discuss something
you are designing. Do you in fact design electronics?
snip

I won't do you the justice of answering such a silly misdirection. I'm
tempted to disabuse you of your misapprehensions, but I have no
intention allowing you to move the discussion away from _you_.

_You_ are one of those helping the very most to turn this group into a
climate denial group rather than to serve as an excellent resource for
the tiny group of people who even _know_ about usenet. On the other
hand, I've been quite literally ignoring almost all of these ignorant
exchanges during a time when they seem to be even more continually
engaged than ever before. A few years ago, Jim T posted very rarely
his opinion on the subject. Now, he starts threads on it right and
left. You might want to talk with him. But you have yourself to look
to, as well. Change your ways, if this is your real concern. (I know
it isn't, just a slight of hand you wish would work.)

My speciality really has nothing to do with _your_ behavior _here_. If
you don't like the climate discussions, stop pushing them along with
so much of _your_ energy and maybe go talk with Jim T and ask him to
slow down the new-thread pace a bit.

And if you still want to keep at it (I suspect you will refuse to
change your own ways), then it is clear to me you have no respect for
your own opinions. You put no personal work into them, that much is
obvious, and I see no reason why anyone else should care when you
respect yourself and what you say so little as that. It may be simply
because you don't even believe in your own abilities to understand any
of it. If so, you have my condolences. Actually, I have been
gradually taking the impression you are no longer competent to even
read the papers with understanding, anymore. But I could be wrong.
And I want you to show me just how wrong I am on that. But I doubt
you will get off your butt long enough to do so.

Jon

 

[Jerry Avins]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Dec 17, 11:20 am, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,

This Christmas, I offer to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency a reflection of truth about the Predator program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator

As some of you have undoubtedly already seen, the live video feed was
allegedly hacked using OTS*

*off the shellf software

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

Futhermore, these drones seem to crash a lot:

http://cursor.org/stories/dronesyndrome.htm

Earlier this year, when I spoke to DARPA program managers and prime
contractors about secure, mobile, wirless links, it seemed that that
"their bread was not fully baked" in this area. I asked a technical
director of a $11US+ billion program if this was the case, and he was
reluctant to admit that, after $5US billion already spent, they still
had not figured out how to do secure mobile links in a way that
actually made sense. His response was something like,

"Yes, before, we had some issues around 2000-2001, but recently we
have provided demonstrations that show that we have control of the
situation."

DARPA, please, you are impressing us toooo much!!!!

The video down link is not encrypted. They say they're working on it.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Randy Yates]

Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> writes:

http://cursor.org/stories/dronesyndrome.htm

Why is this article dated December 18th, 2009?
--
Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
Digital Signal Labs % goes floating by
mailto://yates@ieee.org % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:26:02 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 16, 11:21 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:51:02 +0000, Raveninghorde





raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:42:49 -0800, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

If it involves ripping off millions of wage-earners to transfer funds to
the parasite class (which cap & tax does), then absolutely!

In fact, it should be a 2/3 majority or unanimous, which a simple majority
isn't.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html

/quotes

Bearing in mind that the issue is based on the central deception that
the life-giving gas carbon dioxide is a "pollutant",

Denialist signature. Carbon dioxide can be lfe-giving and a polluntant
in the same way that thirst-quenching water can drown you.

snipped the rest

Even better (as in worse)

Big UK steel works closed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/67980...

The Daily Telegraph does see Thatcher's influence as benign, while in
fact she gutted U.K. manufacturing industry, and spent very little on
the kind of infra-structure that might have kept Redcar viable.

The chairman of the IPCC, Pachauri, is as bent as a nine bob note (or
a 90 cent buck). HE is also director general of TERI. He takes EU
research money as director general of TERI and then uses his position
as chairman of the IPCC to defend the alarmism he is paid to research.
He is corrupt.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/24/stories/2009052457112000.htm

/quote

The European Union has launched project “HighNoon” in India to assess
the impact of the retreat of Himalayan glaciers and possible changes
of monsoon on distribution of water resources in north India.

The project also aims at providing recommendations for appropriate and
efficient strategies for adaptation to hydrological extreme events
through a participatory process. The EU has earmarked € 3 million (Rs.
19.5 crore) for the three-year project bringing together leading
research institutions in the Netherlands, Britain, Switzerland and
India. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and the IITs Delhi
and Kharagpur are part of the project.

/end quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers

/quote

"There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming
with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers." The minister added
although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that
was not "historically alarming".

However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the
Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't
know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It
is an extremely arrogant statement."

/end quote

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:21:27 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:46:29 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:52:42 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:41:41 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:26:29 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:25:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 11, 1:26 am, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote:
Sylvia Else a écrit :

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 12:46 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all
know what
happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE...

[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago
LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement
defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of
hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. ....
Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.
--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

----
Cheers!
Rich
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Sort of. The mindless majority will keep on burning fossil carbon and
the the earth will count the CO2 molecules and warm up appropriately.
Your grand-children will be able to read the outcome from their
thermometers, if their  civilisation still retains the capacity to
build thermometers.

The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

Sylvia.

Right. Here on sed, it's not vote but rather bash.

Sure, the suckers who have fallen for the Exxon-Mobil funded denialist
propaganda seem to be a little more numerous, but they are distinctly
short on good arguments.

Essentially no one (and less than 5% of the internet population) has
any idea what usenet is. They just draw a blank. And only a few of
what remains there even bother with it.

The distribution of opinion in SED is far from representing the public
at large on anything, let alone this subject. Worse, essentially zero
posters in SED have done so much as to comprehensively inform
themselves on even the smallest ledge of any of climate science --
modern or ancient -- and I can't recall a single serious discussion
here over a single peer-reviewed climate science paper, let alone done
with understanding of the material. As such, the opinions here are
worth no more than a random roll of a thousand-sided die. Being more
than a little generous about it.

Some people here like to talk about people they know. For example,
Jörg mentions his own neighbors' opinions, which are quite different
from my own. But I'm also a Precinct Committee Person (elected
official of the lowest order) who travels around my district and talks
with families. My own experience is quite different than Jörg's. None
of which means much. Our districts may simply be quite different and
that's all it may mean. But opinions here are a measure of nothing
more than opinions here.

I know no naysayer here will dares, but I'd suggest that we discuss,
without ad hominem and engaging only the methods, source materials,
and conclusions in a serious way, of "Nonlinear threshold behavior
during the loss of Arctic sea ice," by I. Eisenmana and J. S.
Wettlauferb, 2009. There's a few partials, boundary conditions, and
diff eqs, plus references to papers going back to at least 1969 ("The
effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the earth," M.
I. Budyko, 1969, for example) and it would require some small effort
and study by anyone here wishing to intelligently discuss it. It
includes its development of the math in the SI Appendix and the main
article segues with a very simple and basic understanding of a
bistable state and a mathematical bifurcation surface. But it is
recent, relevant, and I sincerely doubt any but a very few naysayers
here can begin to understand the math involved, simple as it really
is. Let alone discuss the implications with any care and sincere
engagement. There's plenty to attack, much of it already discussed in
the paper; more to research; and yet much that is still said of
importance. The training required to understand that paper is modest
and nothing even close to what is required for atmospheric and oceanic
fluid dynamics. It's 5th grader child's play, by comparison. Which
pretty much puts the dunce cap on most of the naysaying posters here.
They can't even approach the work. So all they do is ignorantly rant.

In case there is a taker of a sincere, informed and comprehensive
discussion, the paper is freely available here:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~ian/publications/Eisenman-Wettlaufer-2009-incl-SI.pdfSee
One of the earliest referenced papers, by the above paper, is also
available here:

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcgehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/references/Budyko1969Tellus21p611-Albedo.pdf

There are others, of course, and some will have to be gotten by
requesting them from the authors. But that's what a serious
discussion entails, doesn't it?

I have NO respect for those here willing to espouse firm name-calling
directed at _all_ climate scientists as a group, unless they are
willing to do the necessary work for their opinions. And I've yet to
see the slightest shred of that willingness.

Says a great deal to me about their own lack of self-respect, not to
mention credibility.

Jon

Um, have you noticed that this is an electronic design group?

Tell us about something that you are designing.

_You_ write here a LOT MORE about climate than I do.

I never start a climate-related thread. I do like to make fun of the
guys who obscess about climate and don't design electronics and
generally refuse to think.


In fact, I've
been pretty much avoiding the issue here in 2009. Looking over my
posts in .basics and .design, almost all of them are related to
physics (phosphors, for example) or electronics (core materials and
inductance and many other subjects of some relationship to the group's
purpose.) You are far more active in distracting the group away, than
I am, now. Look in a mirror.

Most of my posts are electronics related. Compare my ratio to Sloman's
for example.


Now, I'd very much like to you see actually work for your opinion on
climate -- since you seem so willing to waste breathe on the subject
here. Care to take me up on the above challenge?

This is s.e.d. An appropriate challenge would be to discuss something
you are designing. Do you in fact design electronics?
snip

I won't do you the justice of answering such a silly misdirection. I'm
tempted to disabuse you of your misapprehensions, but I have no
intention allowing you to move the discussion away from _you_.

_You_ are one of those helping the very most to turn this group into a
climate denial group rather than to serve as an excellent resource for
the tiny group of people who even _know_ about usenet.

What I mostly try to do is turn this electronic desihn group into an
electronic design group.

Do you design electronics?


On the other

hand, I've been quite literally ignoring almost all of these ignorant
exchanges during a time when they seem to be even more continually
engaged than ever before. A few years ago, Jim T posted very rarely
his opinion on the subject. Now, he starts threads on it right and
left. You might want to talk with him.

I have no desire to talk to JT.

But you have yourself to look

to, as well. Change your ways, if this is your real concern. (I know
it isn't, just a slight of hand you wish would work.)

My speciality really has nothing to do with _your_ behavior _here_.

Sure it does. If you don't design electronics, you're a nobody here.
Like Sloman.

If

you don't like the climate discussions, stop pushing them along with
so much of _your_ energy and maybe go talk with Jim T and ask him to
slow down the new-thread pace a bit.

I never start climate threads. I make relatively few posts about
climate in threads that others start. Rag Sloman and the other guys
who post almost 100% off-topic, about things they only read about.

And I never talk with JT.

And if you still want to keep at it (I suspect you will refuse to
change your own ways),

Change discussing electronics? Here?


then it is clear to me you have no respect for

your own opinions.

Unless you post on-topic, I have no respect for *your* opinions.


You put no personal work into them, that much is

obvious, and I see no reason why anyone else should care when you
respect yourself and what you say so little as that. It may be simply
because you don't even believe in your own abilities to understand any
of it.

I believe that nobody can get usefully predictive data from bad models
of chaotic systems, even people who don't cheat.

If so, you have my condolences.

Oh, stop being a fathead. I'm having fun.

Actually, I have been

gradually taking the impression you are no longer competent to even
read the papers with understanding, anymore. But I could be wrong.
And I want you to show me just how wrong I am on that. But I doubt
you will get off your butt long enough to do so.

Get off your butt and design something. Show your work.

John

 

[Malachy Moses]

From today's newspapers (Dec 17, 2009):

"Iraq insurgents hack into video feeds from US drones
"Insurgents in Iraq have hacked into live video feeds from unmanned
American drone aircraft, US media reports say."

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8419147.stm among many
others.

Apparently, the insurgents have been using off-the-shelf software
called SkyGrabber to view the live video feeds from the drones. So
the word "hacked" in the article is not entirely accurate, since it
implies that effort was involved, whereas in actuality the SkyGrabber
software made it almost effortless.

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:41:12 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:21:27 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

snip
_You_ are one of those helping the very most to turn this group into a
climate denial group rather than to serve as an excellent resource for
the tiny group of people who even _know_ about usenet.

What I mostly try to do is turn this electronic desihn group into an
electronic design group.
snip

I see a surprisingly large number of non-electronic posts from you,
considering that claim.

snip

I have no desire to talk to JT.

Given that he starts so many threads on a subject you suddenly seem so
focused on stemming, you might try that tact. It would, if you are
successful, certainly reduce the problem you seem so concerned about
(when it serves your interest to feign that concern.)

If you don't design electronics, you're a nobody here.

I'm a hobbyist. Is that a problem for you?

Like Sloman.

You mean the person that seems to keep you writing on a subject you
pretend to want to avoid here?

If
you don't like the climate discussions, stop pushing them along with
so much of _your_ energy and maybe go talk with Jim T and ask him to
slow down the new-thread pace a bit.

I never start climate threads. I make relatively few posts about
climate in threads that others start. Rag Sloman and the other guys
who post almost 100% off-topic, about things they only read about.

Note I didn't accuse you of _starting_ the threads.

And I never talk with JT.

You might improve what you claim to want to improve, by doing so.
Can't say until you try. Since I've been pretty much mum on the
subject of late, you seem to be tilting at the wrong windmill. I
don't mind a rare post on the subject, but in general I have learned
that almost everyone here has no skill in the subject and isn't the
least interested in lifting a finger to change it. So I've greatly
reduced any of my contributions there.

As I said, you need to look in a mirror or go after other big fish on
this subject, if you really care that much to change the tenor. There
are much better prizes to be had, John.

You put no personal work into them, that much is
obvious, and I see no reason why anyone else should care when you
respect yourself and what you say so little as that. It may be simply
because you don't even believe in your own abilities to understand any
of it.

I believe that nobody can get usefully predictive data from bad models
of chaotic systems, even people who don't cheat.

Which of course you pretend to know without a shred of personal work.

If so, you have my condolences.

Oh, stop being a fathead. I'm having fun.

You imagine I'm not?

Actually, I have been
gradually taking the impression you are no longer competent to even
read the papers with understanding, anymore. But I could be wrong.
And I want you to show me just how wrong I am on that. But I doubt
you will get off your butt long enough to do so.

Get off your butt and design something. Show your work.

I have, already. And I don't think you missed it, because I remember
some comments from you. But as I said, that's not relevant. My point
(the one you started responding to, remember?) is that those posting
here about climate, like you claiming that the science knowledge
doesn't really exist, neither dares nor bothers to engage the methods,
source materials, and conclusions in a serious way. I've seen not one
single case of it, here.... okay.... except maybe one. But it wasn't
from you.

I just think you just lack confidence in your ability to engage any
serious facet of the subject. But are all too willing to make broad,
sweeping accusations all the same. You don't value your own opinions
on the subject that much, which is sad.

Jon