Driver to drive?

[Jim Yanik]

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker>
wrote in news:i7oqi5heiktav1ojdqmo8r2n0cg0t06gbb@4ax.com:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:23:13 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker
wrote in news:edfqi5tk6b3jj2sh5qrvn3iv4vftvrk8pf@4ax.com:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:46:19 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote in
news:31upi51l18hmuhtn1mf20lv9fuhef5khc0@4ax.com:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:12:32 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote in
news:l1fni5pg0rp6f64r3mbcb6apmg0to677ue@4ax.com:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:11:47 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote
in news:ch7ni5ptab13kvhcr28uo31qb03l86685d@4ax.com:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:02:05 -0600, Jim Yanik
jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in
news:t6pli5taujnq2pqp7rqh084udrbgfoomhs@4ax.com:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:05:15 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:44 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
What do you mean "get the encryption right"? I understood
that there was no encryption at all.

I just assumed that, since it is the US military, employing
a drone to do semi-stealth reconnaisance, that a basic
requirement would be that young kids who probably earn
$100/month should not be able to intercept the stealth
video. My bad.

Maybe they should leave it as it is. That way, the
terrorists could put it up on YouTube. Maybe there is a
Hollywood show in it...

Perhaps it was intentional. They can sell electronics to
the terrorists. Who knows what backdoors lurk...

"So You Think You Can Out-Run A Hell-Fire Missile."

"Smile! You're on Candid Camera!"


the US now has a very small Air-Ground Missile in
development;it's called Spike(not the Israeli Spike ATGM),and
is 2 ft long,5.3 lb total and has a 1 lb
warhead,electro-optical guidance.It's intended to take out
unarmored/lightly armored vehicles or single rooms in
buildings and not cause a lot of collateral damage.
A soldier can carry three missiles and launcher,and it can
also be carried on the drones.

it's like a small model rocket.

http://defense-update.com/products/s/spike_laser.htm

That's the sort of thing I recommend to stop "hot pursuit"
situations...

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/321871

Stop on an officer's order or we make you stop ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Heck,-I- want a launch rail on MY car.

Anybody have plans for a rail gun ?

...Jim Thompson

Spike is "fire and forget",so it locks on the target's image.
Easier to aim.
but 5 grand a shot,though....
unless you can engineer a really low cost seeker.


I may build a model rocket copy of Spike,I've got an unfinished
airframe of the right size.

Heh,cops would FREAK if they saw a missile on a launch rail on top
of a car! Maybe put a red LED in the nose,people would think it's
a seeker...

GRIN

What would it cost to make a scaled-down TOW missile?

...Jim Thompson

a "model rocket" like an Estes or Aerotech,or a working guided
missile?

(the TOW Anti-Tank Guided Missile[ATGM] is wire-guided,trails a pair
of wires that provide guidance to the missile.)

I know. I know. _Many_ of my hybrids circuits are in the TOW...
remember it was Hughes _Tucson_.



FYI,here's more on the Navy Spike;
http://tinyurl.com/ybn9xt9

...Jim Thompson

well,you don't want to have wires dragging from your car after you've
taken care of some MFFY driver up ahead. ;-)

that's why Spike is so appropo;
you lock in their image,launch,and Spike does the rest on it's own,you
are free to leave...with no wires trailing.And Spike's small warhead
means little "collateral damage". it actually blows up INSIDE the
vehicle. it's also a FAST little missile.600 MPH in 1.5 sec.



MFFY; "Me First,F-You".

I have in mind some stationary targets ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Spike is great for those,too.
One of it's intended uses is attacking fixed targets,like a single room of
a building,without causing much collateral damage.
(like killing a terrorist while leaving his family in other rooms
unharmed.)
At short range, Spike is essentially an inertially stabilized RPG.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[TheGlimmerMan]

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:28:48 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:26:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:23:13 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote
in news:edfqi5tk6b3jj2sh5qrvn3iv4vftvrk8pf@4ax.com:

[auto-snip]
I know. I know. _Many_ of my hybrids circuits are in the TOW...
remember it was Hughes _Tucson_.


...Jim Thompson

well,you don't want to have wires dragging from your car after you've taken
care of some MFFY driver up ahead. ;-)

that's why Spike is so appropo;
you lock in their image,launch,and Spike does the rest on it's own,you are
free to leave...with no wires trailing.And Spike's small warhead means
little "collateral damage". it actually blows up INSIDE the vehicle.
it's also a FAST little missile.600 MPH in 1.5 sec.



MFFY; "Me First,F-You".

I have in mind some stationary targets ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Anybody have design details for a small rail gun ?

...Jim Thompson

You need an old Lincoln Continental as the baseline mobile carriage
frame.

They are outlawed at demolition derbys. Perfect mobile railgun platform
base.

 

[Andrew Swallow]

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

On 12/19/2009 12:24 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:04:59 -0600, krw<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
{snip}

You're an idiot. Most digital links can handle up to 10 percent bit
error rate before correction coding fails to fix it.

Generally not. Raw BER for BPSK at 0dB is less than 10 percent, and few
codes can operate that far down. Even capacity-approaching codes
generally need input error rates higher than that.

Can you name a code and what code rate would be required to operate with
an input BER of 10e-1? I wouldn't think anyone would use a deep-space
code on a satellite because of bandwidth efficiency issues.

Tactical military links to a mobile destination are being specified
as static civilian links. An error rate of 1 in 10 on a battle
field is far from impossible. The military will simply have to live
with losing half their bandwidth to the FEC. The links also suffer
badly from block errors - a mixture of motor bike engines and
frequency hopping jammers. No need to be paranoid, the jammers have
operators who are out to get you.

Andrew swallow

 

[David Schwartz]

On Dec 18, 9:51 am, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

IMO the lack of encryption was a failure in management.  I would bet you a
nickel that when the systems were being developed, the contractors said,
"sure, we can add encryption, but it will add years and millions to the
development schedule," and someone made the Executive Decision to skip it..

The fact that you're missing is that when the systems were being
developed, they *HAD* encryption. The encryption on the downlink to
the operator was lost due to a design change that allowed the system
to have a capability it never had before, the ability to takeoff and
land without a nearby pilot/operator.

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

On Dec 18, 6:15 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org>
wrote:

 Real simple.  Make it TCP/IP and use IP encryption, just like the
government and military does everywhere else.

Sure, you just fly on up to the satellite and change its design so
that it handles a digital uplink rather than an analog one. I think
NASA has a space shuttle you can borrow.

 As far as your claim of knowing what they did implement...  I have
serious doubts that you do. Your simple, blanket statement that it "is
simply not encryption capable" is about as uninformed and stupid as it
gets.

  ANY data stream can be EASILY encrypted, and that at a very strong
level.

Sure, so long as there is decryption hardware on the other end. If the
other end is designed to receive an unencrypted analog uplink, it is
*not* an easy task to substitute encrypted video that can pass over
the existing system and still be reliably decrypted on the other end
despite noise in the analog signal. In fact, as far as I know, it is
still an unsolved problem and every solution to date has been
compromised.

The system has an analog uplink and a digital downlink. The middle
essentially cannot be modified because it's satellites. The only
reasonable solution is to encrypt the video before the uplink, pass
the encrypted video over the analog uplink, and hope that the digital
downlink can still be reliably decrypted. If you think that's an easy
task, explain what technology you would use to do it.

DS

 

[Tom Gootee]

On Dec 18, 3:22 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

Eric Jacobsen  <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/18/2009 1:55 AM, Steve Pope wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin<jaibudu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
It should be noted that decrypting in non-real time, right now, in
December, 2009, is impossible using 256-bit AES.
WTF are you talking about?
I think he meant cracking it in real time.  Certainly decryption in
real-time isn't a big deal.  

Thanks, that makes sense.  I (as usual) was reading the sentence
too literally.

Steve

I think that he did mean what he said, that EVEN cracking it in NON-
real-time is also impossible. However, that's probably wrong.
Someone told me that the time it takes to crack it might be down to
about 40 years or so, nowadays.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:22:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:26 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:57:15 +0000, 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.

Graham

Kind of difficult when Hansen et al., keep adjusting the data from what
the satellite reported to what they want it to have reported.

Try reading the raw satellite data sometime. And note that the biggest
recent correction to satellite data was made by Roy W Spencer and John
Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, under a certain
amount of external pressure

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.

Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense". In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.

Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Dec 19, 9:02 pm, Tom Gootee <t...@fullnet.com> wrote:

On Dec 18, 3:22 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

Eric Jacobsen  <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/18/2009 1:55 AM, Steve Pope wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin<jaibudu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
It should be noted that decrypting in non-real time, right now, in
December, 2009, is impossible using 256-bit AES.
WTF are you talking about?
I think he meant cracking it in real time.  Certainly decryption in
real-time isn't a big deal.  

Thanks, that makes sense.  I (as usual) was reading the sentence
too literally.

Steve

I think that he did mean what he said, that EVEN cracking it in NON-
real-time is also impossible.  However, that's probably wrong.
Someone told me that the time it takes to crack it might be down to
about 40 years or so, nowadays.

That's what I meant, but whoever told you 40 years probably needs to
do a little more work with crypto.

Unless the fundamental AES algorithm is cracked, a determination not
yet made by the top cryptographers in the world, no one will be
cracking 256-bit AES any time soon.

A attempted brute-force attack on 256-bit AES would border on
insanity.

See the following link:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aesq&a.htm

"Assuming that one could build a machine that could recover a DES key
in a second (i.e., try 2^55 keys per second), then it would take that
machine approximately 149 thousand-billion (149 trillion) years to
crack a 128-bit AES key. To put that into perspective, the universe is
believed to be less than 20 billion years old."

That's 128-bit AES. I leave it to the reader to figure out how long it
would take to brute-force search on 256-bit AES.

Hint: It's greater than 149 trillion years. Add 30+ zeros.

Also note in the paragraph above that 2^55=36,028,797,018,963,968, so
this is a conservative proposition. You're talking about a machine
that can do 36 quadrillion decipherments per second. Having every
computational device on the planet at one's disposal would help a
little bit, but you're still talking about billions of trillions of
quadrillions of...yada..the age of the universe.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Son of a Sea Cook]

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:40:13 +0000, Andrew Swallow
<am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:

No need to be paranoid, the jammers have
operators who are out to get you.

The reason not to be paranoid is because "the jammers" will not be able
to "jam" tommorow's (today's) gear. Tommorrow's battle theaters will be
fast, secure, and clean and consistent links.

 

[Son of a Sea Cook]

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:42:52 -0800 (PST), David Schwartz
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

On Dec 18, 6:15 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org
wrote:

 Real simple.  Make it TCP/IP and use IP encryption, just like the
government and military does everywhere else.

Sure, you just fly on up to the satellite and change its design so
that it handles a digital uplink rather than an analog one. I think
NASA has a space shuttle you can borrow.

 As far as your claim of knowing what they did implement...  I have
serious doubts that you do. Your simple, blanket statement that it "is
simply not encryption capable" is about as uninformed and stupid as it
gets.

  ANY data stream can be EASILY encrypted, and that at a very strong
level.

Sure, so long as there is decryption hardware on the other end. If the
other end is designed to receive an unencrypted analog uplink, it is
*not* an easy task to substitute encrypted video that can pass over
the existing system and still be reliably decrypted on the other end
despite noise in the analog signal. In fact, as far as I know, it is
still an unsolved problem and every solution to date has been
compromised.

The system has an analog uplink and a digital downlink. The middle
essentially cannot be modified because it's satellites. The only
reasonable solution is to encrypt the video before the uplink, pass
the encrypted video over the analog uplink, and hope that the digital
downlink can still be reliably decrypted. If you think that's an easy
task, explain what technology you would use to do it.

DS

Boeing and many others are currently working on such systems. You have
not even been paying attention to some of the references made in this
very thread.

Since the idiot that referenced it was more concerned with putting down
the government, it is not surprising that you may have missed his
reference since it was framed inside a slew of insults.

Anyway, it is common knowledge what IS used, AND what WILL be used, as
well as the wish list for an entire, new constellation of satellites.

It is only some of what is online now, and what is coming online and
what may come online...

_http://jpeojtrs.mil/files/org_info/SBIR_STTR_FINAL_PAGE_FLIP_LAYOUT_smaller.pdf

 

[Son of a Sea Cook]

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:01:26 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
<jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

A attempted brute-force attack on 256-bit AES would border on
insanity.

The WOPR could do it, no problem, and it is old.

Bwuahahahahaha!

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f313@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote in part:

On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<SNIP to edit for space>

That is what the politicians are trying to make it.  Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?

They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.

At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.

I do not do well with arguments that sufficiently proving existence of
AGW is strong evidence that the magnitude thereof argued by those arguing
it exists is also true. As a result, I am somewhat skeptical of need for
expensive economy-hindering political solutions, especially any that
support new securities among the bazillions of modern ones that have low
relevance to net creation of wealth.

<SNIP from here>

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <37sqi59a0nn2kh4hnd70tu700m1tv500u5@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:14:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100, 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?

Sylvia.

That is what the politicians are trying to make it.  Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?

They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences. There are few
- Dubbya was an example - who are silly enough to think that denial is
a practical strategy, and go to the trouble of bribing or intimidating
denialist opinions from people who actually know better, but
Copenhagen was a rather too high-level for this kind of rubbish to cut
any ice. One report clamed that Saudi delegation was silly enough to
make a few denialist noises, but somebody seems to have pointed out to
them that they were making themselves look foolish.

Heck, everybody looked foolish. Pelosi and Obama bailed early to beat
the blizzard moving into D.C.

As if this is supposed to be the first blizzard to hit D.C.?

I doubt it satisfied in D.C. relevant definition of a blizzard as well
as the storm hitting D.C. on March 13 1993 did, or as well as the one of
1888 did.

Heck, I have some experience of DC drivers even mishandling snow even
when snowflakes melt within a second or 2 of landing on streets - so that
the effect is in my words a white flakey kind of rain.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On 12/19/2009 7:40 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On 12/19/2009 12:24 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:04:59 -0600, krw<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
{snip}


You're an idiot. Most digital links can handle up to 10 percent bit
error rate before correction coding fails to fix it.

Generally not. Raw BER for BPSK at 0dB is less than 10 percent, and
few codes can operate that far down. Even capacity-approaching codes
generally need input error rates higher than that.

Can you name a code and what code rate would be required to operate
with an input BER of 10e-1? I wouldn't think anyone would use a
deep-space code on a satellite because of bandwidth efficiency issues.


Tactical military links to a mobile destination are being specified
as static civilian links. An error rate of 1 in 10 on a battle
field is far from impossible. The military will simply have to live
with losing half their bandwidth to the FEC. The links also suffer
badly from block errors - a mixture of motor bike engines and
frequency hopping jammers. No need to be paranoid, the jammers have
operators who are out to get you.

Andrew swallow

The point was really that even from an advanced FEC standpoint an input
BER of 1 in 10 isn't practical to work with for the described
application. Yielding half the bandwidth to FEC overhead is actually
practical, and using R = 1/2 coding over satellite channels is quite
common. Using something like an R = 1/6 capacity-approaching code to
be able to handle such low input error rates is, I think, not practical.

So I think there's a lot of misinformation being thrown around this
thread, but that's probably not surprising anybody.
--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:36:54 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f313@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote in part:

On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

SNIP to edit for space

That is what the politicians are trying to make it.  Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?

They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.

At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.

A problem here is what is meant by AGW.

If you mean all man made impacts on the climate I am not so sure that
the science is settled.

If you mean the case for CO2 and other green house gas warming then
yes there is an understood mechanism.

If you include the feedbacks, positive and negative then I don't see
the case as closed.

I do not do well with arguments that sufficiently proving existence of
AGW is strong evidence that the magnitude thereof argued by those arguing
it exists is also true.

This is the real debate.

The bulk of debate over climategate, Briffa, hockey sticks etc is
about paleoclimatology. Until there is a reliable reconstruction of
past temperatures we have no way of knowing if recent temperature
changes are unusual.

A problem with reconstructions is that the further back you go the
more the temperature record becomes an average, often with data points
more than a hundred years apart.

I still need to be convinced that AGW is significant compared to the
natural climate variations.

As a result, I am somewhat skeptical of need for
expensive economy-hindering political solutions, especially any that
support new securities among the bazillions of modern ones that have low
relevance to net creation of wealth.

Agreed

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 20, 11:22 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:36:54 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don





Klipstein) wrote:
In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Slomanwrote in part:

On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

SNIP to edit for space

That is what the politicians are trying to make it.  Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?

They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.

 At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.

A problem here is what is meant by AGW.

If you mean all man made impacts on the climate I am not so sure that
the science is settled.

 If you mean the case for CO2 and other green house gas warming then
yes there is an understood mechanism.

If you include the feedbacks, positive and negative then I don't see
the case as closed.



 I do not do well with arguments that sufficiently proving existence of
AGW is strong evidence that the magnitude thereof argued by those arguing
it exists is also true.

This is the real debate.

The bulk of debate over climategate, Briffa, hockey sticks etc is
about paleoclimatology.  Until there is a reliable reconstruction of
past temperatures we have no way of knowing if recent temperature
changes are unusual.

The hockey stick debate is over the past thousand years. That isn't
paleoclimatology - the orginal Greek prefix "paleo" means ancient,
primitive and old but the modern meaning comes closer to "pre-
historic" and the hockey stick debate is about historical climates,
albeit using archeological tools.

The ice core data goes back a lot further and is subject to a lot less
debate. It does represent a genuine global average - as evidenced by
the fact that the Greenland ice cores - as far as they go - tell the
same story as the longer Antartic ice cores, though the Antarctic ice
cores do go back further.

The ice core data does make it clear that the recent temperature
changes are unusual, essentially because they are coupled with an
extraordinary increase in atmospheric CO2 level, which hasn't been
accompanied by anything like the temperature rise that would have been
expected to accompany it on the basis of the recorded association
between temperature and CO2 level.

We do understand why we haven't yet seen the temperature rise that
history would have led us to expect, though because we are now
extrapolating into CO2 levels that aren't represented in the ice core
data (but do seem to correspond to levels that can be deduced from
geological data) we can't predict exactly how much more warming we've
already stored up for ourselves.

A problem with reconstructions is that the further back you go the
more the temperature record becomes an average, often with data points
more than a hundred years apart.

This isn't strictly true. the discussion of the onset and end of the
Younger Dyras -11,500 to 12,800 years ago - talks about significant
changes occuring over periods of as little as five years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

I still need to be convinced that AGW is significant compared to the
natural climate variations.

Obviously, but you clearly don't have access to much of the scientific
evidence, as I've just made clear. If you could have brought yourself
to learn a bit more about the subject before making up your mind, your
opinion might have carried some weight.

As a result, I am somewhat skeptical of need for
expensive economy-hindering political solutions, especially any that
support new securities among the bazillions of modern ones that have low
relevance to net creation of wealth.

Agreed.

Much as I hate to disagree with Don Klipstein, I think his recent
conversion to a belief in lower forcing factors for CO2 has made him a
lot too relaxed about the current CO2 levels. They are still higher
than they have been for the past 20 million years, and the 30% of our
recent contributions that is now dissolved in the oceans is eventually
going to come out of solution.

We really do need to get ahead of the problem now, before the current
warming has had a chance to work through to the depths of the oceans.
Raising the price of energy by roughly a factor of two certainly isn't
going to help the economy, but it isn't going to wreck it either, and
in fact shouldn't be anything like as much of a problem as the rapid
quadrupling of the price of oil that followed the 1973 oil crisis.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 19, 2:58 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:20:26 +1100, "APR" <I_Don't_W...@Spam.com> wrote:

"Bill Sloman" <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:14910c77-6d8e-400d-8f58-25a9d4166a83@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
On Dec 11, 10:31 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800, John Larkin

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

This is an entertaining exercise in examining raw data.

Bill, have a look at the video in the following link. You can download the
data yourself, from what is supposed to be a most reputable source, and do
your own analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04

Doesn't this make a a light come on or are you still in the dark.

Thanks.  It well documents what data was presented when i was in school in the 1960s.

We've learned quite a bit since then.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 18, 9:55 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:39:46 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don





Klipstein) wrote:
In <lajii5l9va045795kac17edrb4gjbrv...@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote,
edited-for-space-by-me:

SNIP everything before following

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

/quote

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based
Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the
Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the
British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably
tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not
substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the
country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data
submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature
calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of
meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate
Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any
substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st
century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete
data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations
facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of
meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete
observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in
large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming
effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature
distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature
data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

 There are the two major interpretations of MSU/AMSU satellite data for
temperature change and trend thereof.  (Good for starting with the
beginning of 1979.)

 I am aware of a color-coded map of the world for decadal trend by one of
these two outfits.  The other (UAH) as of end of 2008 had global decadal
trend over the past 30 complete years .029 degree C per decade less than
this one (RSS) has.

 I seem to think that if we look at 1979-onward data, we can see how
well or how poorly the results from data gathered by the eyes in the sky
correlate with surface station data.

- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)

There's a challange for the alarmists. Prove that the Russians are
wrong using satelllite data since 1979.- Hide quoted text -

It's easier to point out that the Russian objections actually come
from their international energy agency, whose main interest is
supporting the sale of Russian oil, rather than climatology. The fact
that the guy that heads the agency is also a senior fellow of the Cato
Institute, a well-known source of denialist propaganda, does tend to
cast further doubt on the credibility of the report.

But Ravinghorde is always willing to grab any source that looks as if
it supports his particular point of view - to the point of quoting
rhetorical flourishes that appear to support his point of view when
the conclusions of the argument go directly against him. He once used
to the introduction of a George Monbiot piece in exactly this way,
when the bulk of the article went on to brutally satirise the kind of
conspiracy theories Ravinghorde presents here all too often.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:49:59 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 20, 11:22 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:36:54 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don





Klipstein) wrote:
In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Slomanwrote in part:

On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

SNIP to edit for space

That is what the politicians are trying to make it.  Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?

They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.

 At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.

A problem here is what is meant by AGW.

If you mean all man made impacts on the climate I am not so sure that
the science is settled.

 If you mean the case for CO2 and other green house gas warming then
yes there is an understood mechanism.

If you include the feedbacks, positive and negative then I don't see
the case as closed.



 I do not do well with arguments that sufficiently proving existence of
AGW is strong evidence that the magnitude thereof argued by those arguing
it exists is also true.

This is the real debate.

The bulk of debate over climategate, Briffa, hockey sticks etc is
about paleoclimatology.  Until there is a reliable reconstruction of
past temperatures we have no way of knowing if recent temperature
changes are unusual.

The hockey stick debate is over the past thousand years. That isn't
paleoclimatology - the orginal Greek prefix "paleo" means ancient,
primitive and old but the modern meaning comes closer to "pre-
historic" and the hockey stick debate is about historical climates,
albeit using archeological tools.

The ice core data goes back a lot further and is subject to a lot less
debate. It does represent a genuine global average - as evidenced by
the fact that the Greenland ice cores - as far as they go - tell the
same story as the longer Antartic ice cores, though the Antarctic ice
cores do go back further.

I'll agree on that point which means we are agreed that Greenland Ice
cores are representative of global temepratures.

The ice core data does make it clear that the recent temperature
changes are unusual, essentially because they are coupled with an
extraordinary increase in atmospheric CO2 level, which hasn't been
accompanied by anything like the temperature rise that would have been
expected to accompany it on the basis of the recorded association
between temperature and CO2 level.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

The latest point is 95 years before present with a temperature of
-31.59C. The warmest point is 7817 before present, or about 5800BC
with a temperature of -28.70 or 2.9C higher than the most recent. So
even allowing Central Greenland to have warmed 1.5C since 1905 we are
still nowhere near the peak for the Holocene.

There are also other peaks warmer than present. So recent temperatures
are not unusual for the holocene.

We do understand why we haven't yet seen the temperature rise that
history would have led us to expect, though because we are now
extrapolating into CO2 levels that aren't represented in the ice core
data (but do seem to correspond to levels that can be deduced from
geological data) we can't predict exactly how much more warming we've
already stored up for ourselves.

A problem with reconstructions is that the further back you go the
more the temperature record becomes an average, often with data points
more than a hundred years apart.

This isn't strictly true. the discussion of the onset and end of the
Younger Dyras -11,500 to 12,800 years ago - talks about significant
changes occuring over periods of as little as five years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Note the NOAA data points are 17 years apart for 7817 bp so do average
out ther data. For example an El Nino year like 1998 would not have
much impact on the figure.

Loehle analysed all the non tree ring reconstructions he could find.
From memory a number of these had widely dispersed data points,
something like 300 years in one case.

I still need to be convinced that AGW is significant compared to the
natural climate variations.

Obviously, but you clearly don't have access to much of the scientific
evidence, as I've just made clear. If you could have brought yourself
to learn a bit more about the subject before making up your mind, your
opinion might have carried some weight.

As a result, I am somewhat skeptical of need for
expensive economy-hindering political solutions, especially any that
support new securities among the bazillions of modern ones that have low
relevance to net creation of wealth.

Agreed.

Much as I hate to disagree with Don Klipstein, I think his recent
conversion to a belief

Bill reverts to religious language and accuses Don of apostasy.

in lower forcing factors for CO2 has made him a
lot too relaxed about the current CO2 levels. They are still higher
than they have been for the past 20 million years, and the 30% of our
recent contributions that is now dissolved in the oceans is eventually
going to come out of solution.

We really do need to get ahead of the problem now, before the current
warming has had a chance to work through to the depths of the oceans.
Raising the price of energy by roughly a factor of two certainly isn't
going to help the economy, but it isn't going to wreck it either, and
in fact shouldn't be anything like as much of a problem as the rapid
quadrupling of the price of oil that followed the 1973 oil crisis.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:05:22 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <37sqi59a0nn2kh4hnd70tu700m1tv500u5@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:14:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100, 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?

Sylvia.

That is what the politicians are trying to make it.  Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?

They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences. There are few
- Dubbya was an example - who are silly enough to think that denial is
a practical strategy, and go to the trouble of bribing or intimidating
denialist opinions from people who actually know better, but
Copenhagen was a rather too high-level for this kind of rubbish to cut
any ice. One report clamed that Saudi delegation was silly enough to
make a few denialist noises, but somebody seems to have pointed out to
them that they were making themselves look foolish.

Heck, everybody looked foolish. Pelosi and Obama bailed early to beat
the blizzard moving into D.C.

As if this is supposed to be the first blizzard to hit D.C.?

The point is that Obama was willing to spend 15 hours to try to save
the world, but the world isn't worth his being stuck in Copenhagen for
the entire weekend.

He only went to scoop up the credit at the end of the show, only there
wasn't any credit to be scooped, so he bailed. And Wen Jiabao was
dissing him something awful anyhow.

John