Driver to drive?

On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:30 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:





On Mar 7, 12:07 am, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:58:30 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:42 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
and China and India and the rest of the developing world
will simply not restrict energy use (lots of nasty coal) for our
benefit.

They may well do it for their own benefit, Anthropogenic global
warming is already starting to crimp their food output...

Really?  How so?

What specific aspect of the climate has changed in a MEASURABLE way
enough to impact agricultural output in China a NEGATIVE way?

The aspect that this year gave northern China the worst drought in
half a century

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/05/china-food-farming

"Worst drought in half a century" implies that things were about as
bad 50 years ago. And presumably this drought isn't as bad as some
other drought farther back in time. And much of the water woes in
China are self-inflicted.

There have been floods and droughts somewhere in the world since the
dawn of recorded history.

That's the trouble with noisy signals. Southern Australia seems to be
in the middle of the worst drought for a thousand years, but that too
could just be coincidence.

The onset of the Younger Dryas probably looked like just a
particularly bad winter when it started. Temperatures in Europe and
North America dropped 5 degrees Celcius over a decade, and stayed low
for 1300 years before recovering just as fast.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

EXACTLY,

therefore there is NO unambiguous measurement  of global climate
change and climate change is therefore an UNVERIFIED THEORY.

If Mark wasn't an ignorant idiot, he'd know that you can't verify a
theory, only falsify it.

Anthropogenic global warming is less unverified as Newton's theory of
gravity, which has actually been falsified, if only to the extent that
Einstein theory of Relativity updated it.

None of the data available has yet falsified the proposition that
anthropogenic global warming is going on and getting worse. To some
extent, this reflects the fact that the climate is a little to
complicated to allow us to make particularly precise short term
predictions, but there is work in progress aimed at filling in some of
the missing details - like the heat transfer by currents in the depths
of the oceans - and the theory can be expected to become more
precisely testable as this more detailed information is collected.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:28:55 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 10:23:36 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 8, 12:54 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

[snip]

therefore there is NO unambiguous measurement  of global climate
change and climate change is therefore an UNVERIFIED THEORY.

If Mark wasn't an ignorant idiot, he'd know that you can't verify a
theory, only falsify it.

Anthropogenic global warming is less unverified as Newton's theory of
gravity, which has actually been falsified, if only to the extent that
Einstein theory of Relativity updated it.

None of the data available has yet falsified the proposition that
anthropogenic global warming is going on and getting worse. To some
extent, this reflects the fact that the climate is a little to
complicated to allow us to make particularly precise short term
predictions, but there is work in progress aimed at filling in some of
the missing details - like the heat transfer by currents in the depths
of the oceans - and the theory can be expected to become more
precisely testable as this more detailed information is collected.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-


Bill:
1) I have been civil to you in all my posts. You have no reason to
attack me personally.


He has a perfectly good reason to attack you personally. Insulting
other people is the only way he knows to validate his own worth.

John

Insulting other people is the only way Slowman knows to validate his
own worthlessness.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

How severe can senility be? Just check out Slowman.

 

In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>
|> In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> |
|> | You are so stupid that you hav enver hear of "Thinking outside the
|> | box"?
|>
|> You are quite creative. You have that going for you.
|>
|> I know about "Thinking outside the box". But you didn't specify that
|> box as the one you were referring to before I asked you to.
|
|
| Lame excuse.

Factually accurate. Look back at what you posted (and did not include
in your last post ... how convenient). It could have been any box.


|> | No, I SAID THAT I WOULD USE A BATTERY BANK 50% MORE THEN THE MINIMUM
|> | TO EXTEND ITS LIFE.
|>
|> With some UPSes you can do that. With others, you can't.
|
|
| We were talking a new design so that is a lame answer. Do I have do
| define 'Lame' as well?

Maybe a new design. But I never said I designed it. I never even gave
a design. Yet you acted as if I have provided a design.

Existing designs can be used if full power conversion is acceptable over
the full voltage range, either 100 to 240 volts for a 240 volt system,
or 50 to 120 volts for a 120 volt system. Power supplies (chargers, AC
to DC converters, by any other name) are already designed with this wide
of an input voltage range. The only change in design that might be
needed is model specifics, such as a particular capacity or form factor.
This is stuff electrical engineers frequently do, as evidenced by the
myriad of products like this on the market.

Where a theoretical design change would be needed is when it is desired
to have an upper limit on the current being drawn. At lower voltages
this would mean less power is drawn. That would be needed, for example,
when a nominal power of 1000 watts is working on a 120 volt circuit, and
it is desired to limit the current at 12 amps to operate within the 80%
single dedicated device rating on a 15 amp circuit. Down to 83.333
volts, the full power can be sustained. Below that voltage, the power
level must be reduced to stay within the 12 amp limit. So at 50 volts,
the power would be only 600 watts. If the load being powered is 1000
watts, then 400 watts has to come from the battery. But that's only 40%
of what the battery could carry. If the load being powered is only 600
watts, then the battery has no load at all.

The above figured are based on a hypothetical 100% efficiency ONLY for
the purpose of simplified explanation. In reality efficiency levels
would vary around 90% to 96%. It would complicate the explanation to
use those figures, and make it harder for some people to see what is
going on. In a real product design case, it would be more complicated.
That's the job of the engineer doing the actual design.


|> I *AM* talking about a redesign (without yet doing that redesign) of the
|> charging (AC to DC) component of the UPS so that it will get whatever
|> power it can get from a deep brownout condition, and use that to charge
|> the battery or supplement the use of the battery.
|>
|> It is PLAUSIBLE to do this because switch mode power supplies, which are
|> devices that convert AC to DC at one or more DC output voltages, can
|> readily and easily be made to operate over a voltage range greater than
|> 2:1. Most computer power supplies now do 100 to 240 volts AC continuous,
|> without needing one of those "115/230" switches. Almost all my wall
|> warts do this, too. If it can be done for 100 to 240, it could also be
|> done for 50 to 120, and thus be within the range for the class of deep
|> brownout I have seen about half the time. Or a 240 volt class UPS can
|> be left at the 100 to 240 volt range. What will need to be done to
|> accomodate this is to be sure the current at the low voltage can be
|> handled, or be restricted/limited.
|>
|> So really, I don't even need to design this. It has already been done.
|
|
| Really? Then go buy it.

I already have many such power supplies. What is not available is such
a power supply in an integrated UPS.


|> | Tell me, Phil, how low of a line voltage do you expect your fantasy
|> | UPS to work, without being completely on batteries?
|>
|> At least one existing UPS can go down to 86 volts or lower for a 120 volt
|> system. Switch mode power supplies are readily available for the 100 to
|> 240 volt range (check your own computer(s) and see). Just build one big
|> enough to drive the inverter and charge the battery. Front end it with a
|> 120 volt to 240 volt transformer if you want to power it on 120 volts. Or
|> just connect it to a 240 volt circuit.
|>
|> If a switch mode power supply can be made to operate over a 100 to 240 volt
|> range, then a similar design for a smaller voltage could do 50 to 120 volts
|> if that is the desired system voltage.
|>
|> Note that the 100 to 240 volt range is nominal. They do have a wider range
|> to accomodate voltage variations of 5% or even 10%. Power supply specs I
|> have seen often say they work down to 90 volts. And this is without looking
|> for wider range ones. I bet a real electrical engineer would know how to
|> make one handle 45 to 305 volts input AC with a reasonbly constant DC output
|> at some voltage.
|
|
| Is this fantasy supply for a single computer, or for a room full of
| servers? It makes a huge difference.

It will make a difference when one is being selected for deployment.
While the concept would work across a wide capacity range, it would only
be economical for a smaller scale. I estimate the practical limit would
be around the 6kVA to 10kVA per room or building.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

On Mar 8, 6:23 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 8, 12:54 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:





On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:30 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:07 am, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:58:30 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:42 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
and China and India and the rest of the developing world
will simply not restrict energy use (lots of nasty coal) for our
benefit.

They may well do it for their own benefit, Anthropogenic global
warming is already starting to crimp their food output...

Really?  How so?

What specific aspect of the climate has changed in a MEASURABLE way
enough to impact agricultural output in China a NEGATIVE way?

The aspect that this year gave northern China the worst drought in
half a century

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/05/china-food-farming

"Worst drought in half a century" implies that things were about as
bad 50 years ago. And presumably this drought isn't as bad as some
other drought farther back in time. And much of the water woes in
China are self-inflicted.

There have been floods and droughts somewhere in the world since the
dawn of recorded history.

That's the trouble with noisy signals. Southern Australia seems to be
in the middle of the worst drought for a thousand years, but that too
could just be coincidence.

The onset of the Younger Dryas probably looked like just a
particularly bad winter when it started. Temperatures in Europe and
North America dropped 5 degrees Celcius over a decade, and stayed low
for 1300 years before recovering just as fast.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

EXACTLY,

therefore there is NO unambiguous measurement  of global climate
change and climate change is therefore an UNVERIFIED THEORY.

If Mark wasn't an ignorant idiot, he'd know that you can't verify a
theory, only falsify it.

Anthropogenic global warming is less unverified as Newton's theory of
gravity, which has actually been falsified, if only to the extent that
Einstein theory of Relativity updated it.

None of the data available has yet falsified the proposition that
anthropogenic global warming is going on and getting worse. To some
extent, this reflects the fact that the climate is a little to
complicated to allow us to make particularly precise short term
predictions, but there is work in progress aimed at filling in some of
the missing details - like the heat transfer by currents in the depths
of the oceans - and the theory can be expected to become more
precisely testable as this more detailed information is collected.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

Bill:
1) I have been civil to you in all my posts.  You have no reason to
attack me personally.  It makes you look bad by the way.

I'll survive. Describing a scientific theory as "unverified" on the
other hand, is one of those fatally revealing errors that demonstrates
- in this case - that you don't have a clue about how science works.

You can be a civil as you like, but if you post gratuitous nonsense,
you have to be expect to be told that you are posting nonsense.
There's no polite way of doing it.

2) The theory of relativity was hard for many people to believe at
first and there was no physical evidence to back it up at first.
Eventually the measurements became refined enough to verify it.  The
theory of relativity has now been verified.

If you knew anything about physics you'd know that relatively - as
Einstein defined it - is incompatible with quantum theory, and to that
extent has also be falsified. It provides an appreciably better
approximation to reality that Newtonian gravitation in certain fairly
specific situations, but it certainly hasn't been "verified" even if
there were a way in which a scientific theory could be "verified" as
opposed to tested.

3) The theory of AGW is based on computer simulations and calculations

They do provide one way of testing the theory.

but there are no clear physical measurements to verify it.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice core data could have falsified the
theory, and didn't. The global temperature rise over the last century
is barely big enough to provide much of a test, but - such as it is -
it hasn't falsied the theory. Granting that no experimental mesurement
can ever "verify" a theory, your claim about the absence of physical
measurements merely confirms that you don't know what you are talking
about.

 If there
were unambiguous measurements of  global temperature or sea level
rise,  then there would be some evidence that AGW is true.

There is

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

The record is noisy - there are other things going on that affect the
global temperature

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

but the trend is pretty clear.

 Right now it is a theory that predicts that the temp and sea will
rise at some time in the future.  If and when that starts to happen,
 I'll be a believer too.

Temperature and sea level are both rising now, if not all that
dramatically yet. At the moment about half the CO2 we are pumping itno
the atmosphere ends up in the sea and in tropical rain forests. If we
keep on putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, the seas will warm up
enough that they will start losing CO2 rather than dissovling it, and
we are cutting down the tropical rain forests, so the prospects fro
more dramtic rises are good, if we persist.

I think it is wrong to base important national and global policy
decisions about carbon taxes and sequestration and use of coal on an
unverified theory.  

Since no scientific theory can ever be verified, your opinion is that
we should never try to anticipate a natural disaster, and confining
ourselves to cleaning up after we've unambiguously wrecked our planet.

I have no argument with developing conservation
and renewable energy sources.

Or motherhood or apple pie.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Mar 8, 6:28 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 10:23:36 -0700 (PDT), makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:54 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:30 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:07 am, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:58:30 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:42 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:
and China and India and the rest of the developing world
will simply not restrict energy use (lots of nasty coal) for our
benefit.

They may well do it for their own benefit, Anthropogenic global
warming is already starting to crimp their food output...

Really?  How so?

What specific aspect of the climate has changed in a MEASURABLE way
enough to impact agricultural output in China a NEGATIVE way?

The aspect that this year gave northern China the worst drought in
half a century

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/05/china-food-farming

"Worst drought in half a century" implies that things were about as
bad 50 years ago. And presumably this drought isn't as bad as some
other drought farther back in time. And much of the water woes in
China are self-inflicted.

There have been floods and droughts somewhere in the world since the
dawn of recorded history.

That's the trouble with noisy signals. Southern Australia seems to be
in the middle of the worst drought for a thousand years, but that too
could just be coincidence.

The onset of the Younger Dryas probably looked like just a
particularly bad winter when it started. Temperatures in Europe and
North America dropped 5 degrees Celcius over a decade, and stayed low
for 1300 years before recovering just as fast.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

EXACTLY,

therefore there is NO unambiguous measurement  of global climate
change and climate change is therefore an UNVERIFIED THEORY.

If Mark wasn't an ignorant idiot, he'd know that you can't verify a
theory, only falsify it.

Anthropogenic global warming is less unverified as Newton's theory of
gravity, which has actually been falsified, if only to the extent that
Einstein theory of Relativity updated it.

None of the data available has yet falsified the proposition that
anthropogenic global warming is going on and getting worse. To some
extent, this reflects the fact that the climate is a little to
complicated to allow us to make particularly precise short term
predictions, but there is work in progress aimed at filling in some of
the missing details - like the heat transfer by currents in the depths
of the oceans - and the theory can be expected to become more
precisely testable as this more detailed information is collected.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

Bill:
1) I have been civil to you in all my posts.  You have no reason to
attack me personally.

He has a perfectly good reason to attack you personally. Insulting
other people is the only way he knows to validate his own worth.

As personal attacks go

If Mark wasn't an ignorant idiot, he'd know that you can't verify a
theory, only falsify it.

is pretty tame.

In fact the propostion that you could "verify" a scientific theory
displays a sufficiently fundamental ignorance of how science works to
disqualify any contribution that Mark might think he was making, and
calling him an ignorant idiot is a remarkably concise way of making
the point, and one of the few that is difficult to ignore.

You don't understand science any too well yourself, so ask yourself
how you could "verify" a circuit diagram for a sealed black box if you
couldn't open it or X-ray it or whatever and could only infer the
contents of the box from the electric signals going in an coming out.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> |
|> | You are so stupid that you hav enver hear of "Thinking outside the
|> | box"?
|
|> You are quite creative. You have that going for you.
|
|> I know about "Thinking outside the box". But you didn't specify that
|> box as the one you were referring to before I asked you to.
|
|
| Lame excuse.

Factually accurate. Look back at what you posted (and did not include
in your last post ... how convenient). It could have been any box.

Bull shit.

|> | No, I SAID THAT I WOULD USE A BATTERY BANK 50% MORE THEN THE MINIMUM
|> | TO EXTEND ITS LIFE.
|
|> With some UPSes you can do that. With others, you can't.
|
|
| We were talking a new design so that is a lame answer. Do I have do
| define 'Lame' as well?

Maybe a new design. But I never said I designed it. I never even gave
a design. Yet you acted as if I have provided a design.

No, I didn't. In fact, you can't even write a decent set of
specifications. That is the whole point. You post stupid ideas, with
no groundwork.

Existing designs can be used if full power conversion is acceptable over
the full voltage range, either 100 to 240 volts for a 240 volt system,
or 50 to 120 volts for a 120 volt system. Power supplies (chargers, AC
to DC converters, by any other name) are already designed with this wide
of an input voltage range. The only change in design that might be
needed is model specifics, such as a particular capacity or form factor.
This is stuff electrical engineers frequently do, as evidenced by the
myriad of products like this on the market.

The wide range units switch the input configuration, depending on the
input voltage and under the control of a custom IC. It isn't a single
wide range.

Where a theoretical design change would be needed is when it is desired
to have an upper limit on the current being drawn. At lower voltages
this would mean less power is drawn.

You have that backwards. The switching supply is designed to output a
fixed voltage, and the lower the input voltage, the higher the input
current. Also, it may be higher than expected, due to a distorted
waveform at the AC input. It will attempt to provide the power required
by the load, as the input current goes up. That is the major flaw in
your half assed concept.

That would be needed, for example,
when a nominal power of 1000 watts is working on a 120 volt circuit, and
it is desired to limit the current at 12 amps to operate within the 80%
single dedicated device rating on a 15 amp circuit. Down to 83.333
volts, the full power can be sustained. Below that voltage, the power
level must be reduced to stay within the 12 amp limit. So at 50 volts,
the power would be only 600 watts. If the load being powered is 1000
watts, then 400 watts has to come from the battery. But that's only 40%
of what the battery could carry. If the load being powered is only 600
watts, then the battery has no load at all.

The above figured are based on a hypothetical 100% efficiency ONLY for
the purpose of simplified explanation. In reality efficiency levels
would vary around 90% to 96%. It would complicate the explanation to
use those figures, and make it harder for some people to see what is
going on. In a real product design case, it would be more complicated.
That's the job of the engineer doing the actual design.

the losses also depend on operating temperature, battery condition,
and the percentage the load represents of the UPS design allows. The
harder you push it, the hotter it runs, and the higher the losses.

|> I *AM* talking about a redesign (without yet doing that redesign) of the
|> charging (AC to DC) component of the UPS so that it will get whatever
|> power it can get from a deep brownout condition, and use that to charge
|> the battery or supplement the use of the battery.
|
|> It is PLAUSIBLE to do this because switch mode power supplies, which are
|> devices that convert AC to DC at one or more DC output voltages, can
|> readily and easily be made to operate over a voltage range greater than
|> 2:1. Most computer power supplies now do 100 to 240 volts AC continuous,
|> without needing one of those "115/230" switches. Almost all my wall
|> warts do this, too. If it can be done for 100 to 240, it could also be
|> done for 50 to 120, and thus be within the range for the class of deep
|> brownout I have seen about half the time. Or a 240 volt class UPS can
|> be left at the 100 to 240 volt range. What will need to be done to
|> accomodate this is to be sure the current at the low voltage can be
|> handled, or be restricted/limited.
|
|> So really, I don't even need to design this. It has already been done.
|
|
| Really? Then go buy it.

I already have many such power supplies. What is not available is such
a power supply in an integrated UPS.

Then it doesn't exist, and you lied.

|> | Tell me, Phil, how low of a line voltage do you expect your fantasy
|> | UPS to work, without being completely on batteries?
|
|> At least one existing UPS can go down to 86 volts or lower for a 120 volt
|> system. Switch mode power supplies are readily available for the 100 to
|> 240 volt range (check your own computer(s) and see). Just build one big
|> enough to drive the inverter and charge the battery. Front end it with a
|> 120 volt to 240 volt transformer if you want to power it on 120 volts. Or
|> just connect it to a 240 volt circuit.
|
|> If a switch mode power supply can be made to operate over a 100 to 240 volt
|> range, then a similar design for a smaller voltage could do 50 to 120 volts
|> if that is the desired system voltage.
|
|> Note that the 100 to 240 volt range is nominal. They do have a wider range
|> to accomodate voltage variations of 5% or even 10%. Power supply specs I
|> have seen often say they work down to 90 volts. And this is without looking
|> for wider range ones. I bet a real electrical engineer would know how to
|> make one handle 45 to 305 volts input AC with a reasonbly constant DC output
|> at some voltage.
|
|
| Is this fantasy supply for a single computer, or for a room full of
| servers? It makes a huge difference.

It will make a difference when one is being selected for deployment.
While the concept would work across a wide capacity range, it would only
be economical for a smaller scale. I estimate the practical limit would
be around the 6kVA to 10kVA per room or building.

Really? Do you have any ideas what is required to build that
abomination? I do know, and you won't like the answers.

Show us you know what you claim by describing what has to be done to
make it operate the way you want, or admit that you are the moron you're
know to be.


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

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

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

 

[Eeyore]

Bill Sloman wrote:

http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5918/1187

Martin van Calmhout - a formidable Dutch science journalist - reviewed
this article in Science in yesterday's Volkskrant. One of the authors -
Henk Brinkhuis - is a professor at Utrecht.

It talks about a 5C drop in global temperature over 100,000 years some
34 million years ago during the Eocene-Oligocene Climate Transition.

And the relevance of this to today's situation is ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

D from BC wrote:

When's the next ice age due?

According to the Slomans of the 1970s, any time now.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Don Klipstein wrote:

If not for AGW, a century or two from now could easily repeat the
"Little Ice Age" of 2-3 centuries or so ago, with noticeable downturn in
first half of 22nd century appearing likely on basis of MAO and longer
term sunspot cycles. Should we set new global surface and/or lower
troposphere temperature highs at those times when we should be repeating
"little ice age" as a harbinger of "next real ice age", then we end up
being shown that AGW is for real and that we have given ourselves warming
that will probably persist through the next several millennia and
probably be reinforced to multi-mega-year highs by the time the
"should-be-coming next ice age glaciation" would end maybe 90,000 or so
years from now.

Now prove the 'A' in AGW.

Graham

 

On Mar 8, 7:30 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:28:55 -0700, John Larkin







jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 10:23:36 -0700 (PDT), makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 8, 12:54 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

[snip]

therefore there is NO unambiguous measurement  of global climate
change and climate change is therefore an UNVERIFIED THEORY.

If Mark wasn't an ignorant idiot, he'd know that you can't verify a
theory, only falsify it.

Anthropogenic global warming is less unverified as Newton's theory of
gravity, which has actually been falsified, if only to the extent that
Einstein theory of Relativity updated it.

None of the data available has yet falsified the proposition that
anthropogenic global warming is going on and getting worse. To some
extent, this reflects the fact that the climate is a little to
complicated to allow us to make particularly precise short term
predictions, but there is work in progress aimed at filling in some of
the missing details - like the heat transfer by currents in the depths
of the oceans - and the theory can be expected to become more
precisely testable as this more detailed information is collected.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

Bill:
1) I have been civil to you in all my posts.  You have no reason to
attack me personally.

He has a perfectly good reason to attack you personally. Insulting
other people is the only way he knows to validate his own worth.

John

Insulting other people is the only way Slowman knows to validate his
own worthlessness.

Interesting that Jim Thompson finds it appropriate to post a message
with the sole purpose of insulting me.
I can only imagine that he has no other way of confirming his own self-
worth. Not too surprising, since his brain is so far gone that he
can't even spell my name right.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>
|> In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> |
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |>
|> |> In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> |> |
|> |> | You are so stupid that you hav enver hear of "Thinking outside the
|> |> | box"?
|> |>
|> |> You are quite creative. You have that going for you.
|> |>
|> |> I know about "Thinking outside the box". But you didn't specify that
|> |> box as the one you were referring to before I asked you to.
|> |
|> |
|> | Lame excuse.
|>
|> Factually accurate. Look back at what you posted (and did not include
|> in your last post ... how convenient). It could have been any box.
|
|
| Bull shit.

The creativity, again.


|> |> | No, I SAID THAT I WOULD USE A BATTERY BANK 50% MORE THEN THE MINIMUM
|> |> | TO EXTEND ITS LIFE.
|> |>
|> |> With some UPSes you can do that. With others, you can't.
|> |
|> |
|> | We were talking a new design so that is a lame answer. Do I have do
|> | define 'Lame' as well?
|>
|> Maybe a new design. But I never said I designed it. I never even gave
|> a design. Yet you acted as if I have provided a design.
|
|
| No, I didn't. In fact, you can't even write a decent set of
| specifications. That is the whole point. You post stupid ideas, with
| no groundwork.

You said I designed it wrong. That is the same as you saying I designed it.


|> Existing designs can be used if full power conversion is acceptable over
|> the full voltage range, either 100 to 240 volts for a 240 volt system,
|> or 50 to 120 volts for a 120 volt system. Power supplies (chargers, AC
|> to DC converters, by any other name) are already designed with this wide
|> of an input voltage range. The only change in design that might be
|> needed is model specifics, such as a particular capacity or form factor.
|> This is stuff electrical engineers frequently do, as evidenced by the
|> myriad of products like this on the market.
|
|
| The wide range units switch the input configuration, depending on the
| input voltage and under the control of a custom IC. It isn't a single
| wide range.

Actually, it is a single wide range. This was verified directly with
one of the manufacturers that offered both full range and switched range
models. One thing they said is that extra cost of full range is so low,
now, that it is reaching the savings of having fewer models. There is
some threshold switching that takes place in many models to change
characteristics to make it more optimal at different parts of the range.
For one model I asked about, that change happens at 166 volts RMS.


|> Where a theoretical design change would be needed is when it is desired
|> to have an upper limit on the current being drawn. At lower voltages
|> this would mean less power is drawn.
|
|
| You have that backwards. The switching supply is designed to output a
| fixed voltage, and the lower the input voltage, the higher the input
| current. Also, it may be higher than expected, due to a distorted
| waveform at the AC input. It will attempt to provide the power required
| by the load, as the input current goes up. That is the major flaw in
| your half assed concept.

Again with the inability to read.

I previously in that same post described the normal case of a lower
input voltage having a higher input current. Then I described here the
special case of a current limit. Do you even understand what a current
limit is? Maybe not.

When the current input is limited, and has reached the limit, then the
power input goes down as the voltage goes down. Common power supplies
just shut down at this point. As I said, this case is a "theoretical
design change". But I guess you didn't read those words or even
understand what they meant.


|> That would be needed, for example,
|> when a nominal power of 1000 watts is working on a 120 volt circuit, and
|> it is desired to limit the current at 12 amps to operate within the 80%
|> single dedicated device rating on a 15 amp circuit. Down to 83.333
|> volts, the full power can be sustained. Below that voltage, the power
|> level must be reduced to stay within the 12 amp limit. So at 50 volts,
|> the power would be only 600 watts. If the load being powered is 1000
|> watts, then 400 watts has to come from the battery. But that's only 40%
|> of what the battery could carry. If the load being powered is only 600
|> watts, then the battery has no load at all.
|>
|> The above figured are based on a hypothetical 100% efficiency ONLY for
|> the purpose of simplified explanation. In reality efficiency levels
|> would vary around 90% to 96%. It would complicate the explanation to
|> use those figures, and make it harder for some people to see what is
|> going on. In a real product design case, it would be more complicated.
|> That's the job of the engineer doing the actual design.
|
|
| the losses also depend on operating temperature, battery condition,
| and the percentage the load represents of the UPS design allows. The
| harder you push it, the hotter it runs, and the higher the losses.

I didn't intend to list everything. Thank you for adding to the list so
others who read this have a more complete list.


|> |> I *AM* talking about a redesign (without yet doing that redesign) of the
|> |> charging (AC to DC) component of the UPS so that it will get whatever
|> |> power it can get from a deep brownout condition, and use that to charge
|> |> the battery or supplement the use of the battery.
|> |>
|> |> It is PLAUSIBLE to do this because switch mode power supplies, which are
|> |> devices that convert AC to DC at one or more DC output voltages, can
|> |> readily and easily be made to operate over a voltage range greater than
|> |> 2:1. Most computer power supplies now do 100 to 240 volts AC continuous,
|> |> without needing one of those "115/230" switches. Almost all my wall
|> |> warts do this, too. If it can be done for 100 to 240, it could also be
|> |> done for 50 to 120, and thus be within the range for the class of deep
|> |> brownout I have seen about half the time. Or a 240 volt class UPS can
|> |> be left at the 100 to 240 volt range. What will need to be done to
|> |> accomodate this is to be sure the current at the low voltage can be
|> |> handled, or be restricted/limited.
|> |>
|> |> So really, I don't even need to design this. It has already been done.
|> |
|> |
|> | Really? Then go buy it.
|>
|> I already have many such power supplies. What is not available is such
|> a power supply in an integrated UPS.
|
|
| Then it doesn't exist, and you lied.

The wide range power supplies do exist. So no new design is needed for
the simple case of operating at 60 volts on a 120 volt system, other
than scaling it down from 100-240 to 50-120, which would not be hard.
The slightly harder design, which I am sure any experienced power supply
designer can do, is the current limiting design. But you don't even
understand what current limiting is, so you are way way out of the
running for being able to design such a thing.


|> |> | Tell me, Phil, how low of a line voltage do you expect your fantasy
|> |> | UPS to work, without being completely on batteries?
|> |>
|> |> At least one existing UPS can go down to 86 volts or lower for a 120 volt
|> |> system. Switch mode power supplies are readily available for the 100 to
|> |> 240 volt range (check your own computer(s) and see). Just build one big
|> |> enough to drive the inverter and charge the battery. Front end it with a
|> |> 120 volt to 240 volt transformer if you want to power it on 120 volts. Or
|> |> just connect it to a 240 volt circuit.
|> |>
|> |> If a switch mode power supply can be made to operate over a 100 to 240 volt
|> |> range, then a similar design for a smaller voltage could do 50 to 120 volts
|> |> if that is the desired system voltage.
|> |>
|> |> Note that the 100 to 240 volt range is nominal. They do have a wider range
|> |> to accomodate voltage variations of 5% or even 10%. Power supply specs I
|> |> have seen often say they work down to 90 volts. And this is without looking
|> |> for wider range ones. I bet a real electrical engineer would know how to
|> |> make one handle 45 to 305 volts input AC with a reasonbly constant DC output
|> |> at some voltage.
|> |
|> |
|> | Is this fantasy supply for a single computer, or for a room full of
|> | servers? It makes a huge difference.
|>
|> It will make a difference when one is being selected for deployment.
|> While the concept would work across a wide capacity range, it would only
|> be economical for a smaller scale. I estimate the practical limit would
|> be around the 6kVA to 10kVA per room or building.
|
|
|
| Really? Do you have any ideas what is required to build that
| abomination? I do know, and you won't like the answers.

You've shown you don't even understand many of the concepts. How could
you possibly be able to design these things if you don't even understand
what it is supposed to do? Yeah, I won't like the answer that you can't
accomplish it, if I were in the business of making UPSes. I'd have to
hire a different engineer.


| Show us you know what you claim by describing what has to be done to
| make it operate the way you want, or admit that you are the moron you're
| know to be.

I've already described what it needs to do. It needs to keep supplying
DC power in such a way that the inverter fully operates at up to the
rated inverter load, using all the DC power available from the
converter, and gets else is needed (but no more than this) from the
battery. I'm not talking about the circuit details. Those things have
already been done in other things besides UPSes. This is just a product
design (that's not the same as circuit design) and integration issue.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

[James Arthur]

Eeyore wrote:

D from BC wrote:

When's the next ice age due?

According to the Slomans of the 1970s, any time now.

Graham

I heard revelations some years ago that the onset of
glacial periods was astonishingly rapid--possibly as
little as 20 years.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html
"The recent high-resolution Atlantic sediment record of
Adkins et al (1997) suggests that the move from
interglacial to much colder-than-present glacial
conditions occurred over a period of less than 400 years
(with the limitations on the resolution of the sediment
record leaving open the possibility that the change was
in fact very much more rapid than this)."


One wonders what mechanism might cause that, and how it's
been modeled.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

Anthropogenic global warming is less unverified as Newton's theory of
gravity, which has actually been falsified, if only to the extent that
Einstein theory of Relativity updated it.

None of the data available has yet falsified the proposition that
anthropogenic global warming is going on and getting worse. To some
extent, this reflects the fact that the climate is a little to
complicated to allow us to make particularly precise short term
predictions, but there is work in progress aimed at filling in some of
the missing details - like the heat transfer by currents in the depths
of the oceans - and the theory can be expected to become more
precisely testable as this more detailed information is collected.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

Bill:
1) I have been civil to you in all my posts.  You have no reason to
attack me personally.  It makes you look bad by the way.

I'll survive. Describing a scientific theory as "unverified" on the
other hand, is one of those fatally revealing errors that demonstrates
- in this case - that you don't have a clue about how science works.

You can be a civil as you like, but if you post gratuitous nonsense,
you have to be expect to be told that you are posting nonsense.
There's no polite way of doing it.

2) The theory of relativity was hard for many people to believe at
first and there was no physical evidence to back it up at first.
Eventually the measurements became refined enough to verify it.  The
theory of relativity has now been verified.

If you knew anything about physics you'd know that relatively - as
Einstein defined it - is incompatible with quantum theory, and to that
extent has also be falsified. It provides an appreciably better
approximation to reality that Newtonian gravitation in certain fairly
specific situations, but it certainly hasn't been "verified" even if
there were a way in which a scientific theory could be "verified" as
opposed to tested.

3) The theory of AGW is based on computer simulations and calculations

They do provide one way of testing the theory.

but there are no clear physical measurements to verify it.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice core data could have falsified the
theory, and didn't. The global temperature rise over the last century
is barely big enough to provide much of a test, but - such as it is -
it hasn't falsied the theory. Granting that no experimental mesurement
can ever "verify" a theory, your claim about the absence of physical
measurements merely confirms that you don't know what you are talking
about.

 If there
were unambiguous measurements of  global temperature or sea level
rise,  then there would be some evidence that AGW is true.

There is

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

The record is noisy - there are other things going on that affect the
global temperature

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

but the trend is pretty clear.

 Right now it is a theory that predicts that the temp and sea will
rise at some time in the future.  If and when that starts to happen,
 I'll be a believer too.

Temperature and sea level are both rising now, if not all that
dramatically yet. At the moment about half the CO2 we are pumping itno
the atmosphere ends up in the sea and in tropical rain forests. If we
keep on putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, the seas will warm up
enough that they will start losing CO2 rather than dissovling it, and
we are cutting down the tropical rain forests, so the prospects fro
more dramtic rises are good, if we persist.

I think it is wrong to base important national and global policy
decisions about carbon taxes and sequestration and use of coal on an
unverified theory.  

Since no scientific theory can ever be verified, your opinion is that
we should never try to anticipate a natural disaster, and confining
ourselves to cleaning up after we've unambiguously wrecked our planet.

I have no argument with developing conservation
and renewable energy sources.

Or motherhood or apple pie.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

Bill,
If you want to base you logic system on the fundamental belief that a
theory can not ever be 100% verified, then I will put it in terms of
degree rather than absolutes so that we at least have some common
ground...

The theory of relativity made predictions that have since been
observed by experimental and observational evidence. Of course it is
does not explain 100% of all of science and when you get into greater
detail it has inconsistencies with quantum theory. But to the level
of detail that it goes it has been verified. Time dilatation etc
has now been verified with clear unambiguous measurements. Before
these clear unambiguous measurement results were available, there
indeed was doubt to the validity of the theory of relativity.

Right now, AGW is analogous to the early days of the theory of
relativity when there were maybe some noisy data available that could
be interpreted as supporting or not supporting the theory. In your
own words the AGW data is noisy.

Again my main point is it foolish to base major policy decisions on
theories that have a low level of verification.

Mark

 

On Mar 9, 3:41 am, makol...@yahoo.com wrote:

Anthropogenic global warming is less unverified as Newton's theory of
gravity, which has actually been falsified, if only to the extent that
Einstein theory of Relativity updated it.

None of the data available has yet falsified the proposition that
anthropogenic global warming is going on and getting worse. To some
extent, this reflects the fact that the climate is a little to
complicated to allow us to make particularly precise short term
predictions, but there is work in progress aimed at filling in some of
the missing details - like the heat transfer by currents in the depths
of the oceans - and the theory can be expected to become more
precisely testable as this more detailed information is collected.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

Bill:
1) I have been civil to you in all my posts.  You have no reason to
attack me personally.  It makes you look bad by the way.

I'll survive. Describing a scientific theory as "unverified" on the
other hand, is one of those fatally revealing errors that demonstrates
- in this case - that you don't have a clue about how science works.

You can be a civil as you like, but if you post gratuitous nonsense,
you have to be expect to be told that you are posting nonsense.
There's no polite way of doing it.

2) The theory of relativity was hard for many people to believe at
first and there was no physical evidence to back it up at first.
Eventually the measurements became refined enough to verify it.  The
theory of relativity has now been verified.

If you knew anything about physics you'd know that relatively - as
Einstein defined it - is incompatible with quantum theory, and to that
extent has also be falsified. It provides an appreciably better
approximation to reality that Newtonian gravitation in certain fairly
specific situations, but it certainly hasn't been "verified" even if
there were a way in which a scientific theory could be "verified" as
opposed to tested.

3) The theory of AGW is based on computer simulations and calculations

They do provide one way of testing the theory.

but there are no clear physical measurements to verify it.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice core data could have falsified the
theory, and didn't. The global temperature rise over the last century
is barely big enough to provide much of a test, but - such as it is -
it hasn't falsied the theory. Granting that no experimental mesurement
can ever "verify" a theory, your claim about the absence of physical
measurements merely confirms that you don't know what you are talking
about.

 If there
were unambiguous measurements of  global temperature or sea level
rise,  then there would be some evidence that AGW is true.

There is

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

The record is noisy - there are other things going on that affect the
global temperature

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

but the trend is pretty clear.

 Right now it is a theory that predicts that the temp and sea will
rise at some time in the future.  If and when that starts to happen,
 I'll be a believer too.

Temperature and sea level are both rising now, if not all that
dramatically yet. At the moment about half the CO2 we are pumping itno
the atmosphere ends up in the sea and in tropical rain forests. If we
keep on putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, the seas will warm up
enough that they will start losing CO2 rather than dissovling it, and
we are cutting down the tropical rain forests, so the prospects fro
more dramtic rises are good, if we persist.

I think it is wrong to base important national and global policy
decisions about carbon taxes and sequestration and use of coal on an
unverified theory.  

Since no scientific theory can ever be verified, your opinion is that
we should never try to anticipate a natural disaster, and confining
ourselves to cleaning up after we've unambiguously wrecked our planet.

I have no argument with developing conservation
and renewable energy sources.

Or motherhood or apple pie.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

Bill,
If you want to base you logic system on the fundamental belief  that a
theory can not ever be 100% verified, then I will put it in terms of
degree rather than absolutes so that  we at least have some common
ground...

The theory of relativity made predictions that have since been
observed by experimental  and observational evidence.  Of course it is
does not explain 100% of all of science and when you get into greater
detail it has inconsistencies with quantum theory.    But to the level
of detail that it goes it has been verified.     Time dilatation etc
has now been verified with clear unambiguous measurements.   Before
these clear unambiguous measurement results  were available, there
indeed was doubt to the validity of the theory of relativity.

Right now, AGW is analogous to the early days of the theory of
relativity when there were maybe some noisy data available that could
be interpreted as supporting or not supporting the theory.   In your
own words the AGW data is noisy.

Again my main point is it foolish to base major policy decisions on
theories that have a low level of verification.

AWG depends on the proposition that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more
CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global tempertures.

There's no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - that's about as
verified as a scientific fact can be - and the only question is how
much a given increase in CO2 will raise global temperature. Despite
your claims, the various mathematical models predict a roughly 4
degrees Celcius rise by the end of the century, if we keep on pumping
CO2 into the atmosphere at the current rate.

The IPCC has recognised the some of the stranger models give higher
and lower estimates, so they give a range from 1.1 to 6.4 °C.

They don't include any estimates for non-linear run-away processes
that they aren't equipped to model, so they've ignored the risk that
lots of methane will start coming out of the Arctic permafrost when it
gets a bit warmer - the permafrost has already warmed up enough to be
emitting quite appreciable amounts of methane, but not enough that
anybody thinks that it is going to run away (methane is a much more
potent greenhouse gas than CO2) any time soon.

You may think it is foolish to "base major policy decisions on
theories that have a low level of verification" but the choice not to
do anything to restrict CO2 emissions is implicitly endorsing one of
several even more suspect theories.

One would be that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, so we can put as much of
it into the atmosphere as we feel like.
This is obvious nonsense.

The next is that while CO2 may be a greenhouse gas, there are other
mechanisms that will prevent any significant increase in temperature.
Lindzen had some silly idea about ocean cloud cover that got shot down
years ago, and since there have been some pretty massive temperature
excursions in the geological past it is difficult to believe that any
such mechansm is likely to protect us in the near future.

Check out the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal maximum, which happened some 55
million years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Beyond that you've got a bunch of silly conspiracy theories in which
the world's climatologists hae invented the whole story to get more
and bigger research grants.

So if it would be foolish to "base major policy decisions on theories
that have a low level of verification" the decision to do nothing
about anthropogenic global warming would have to be rejected, because
it would be based on theories that have even less supporting evidence
than AGW.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Mar 9, 4:13 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

D from BC wrote:

When's the next ice age due?

According to the Slomans of the 1970s, any time now.

Graham

I heard revelations some years ago that the onset of
glacial periods was astonishingly rapid--possibly as
little as 20 years.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html
  "The recent high-resolution Atlantic sediment record of
   Adkins et al  (1997) suggests that the move from
   interglacial to much colder-than-present glacial
   conditions occurred over a period of less than 400 years
  (with the limitations on the resolution of the sediment
   record leaving open the possibility that the change was
   in fact very much more rapid than this)."

One wonders what mechanism might cause that, and how it's
been modeled.

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

A theory claims that it was caused by a significant reduction or
shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to
a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and the deglaciation
in North America.

Lake Agassiz was huge, and apparently emptied very rapidly.

There are other ways in which the Gulf Stream and similar ocean
currents that move heat from the equator to the poles could be stopped
or re-routed, and that would do it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Martin Brown]

makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

Anthropogenic global warming is less unverified as Newton's theory of
gravity, which has actually been falsified, if only to the extent that
Einstein theory of Relativity updated it.
None of the data available has yet falsified the proposition that
anthropogenic global warming is going on and getting worse. To some
extent, this reflects the fact that the climate is a little to
complicated to allow us to make particularly precise short term
predictions, but there is work in progress aimed at filling in some of
the missing details - like the heat transfer by currents in the depths
of the oceans - and the theory can be expected to become more
precisely testable as this more detailed information is collected.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-
Bill:
1) I have been civil to you in all my posts. You have no reason to
attack me personally. It makes you look bad by the way.
I'll survive. Describing a scientific theory as "unverified" on the
other hand, is one of those fatally revealing errors that demonstrates
- in this case - that you don't have a clue about how science works.

You can be a civil as you like, but if you post gratuitous nonsense,
you have to be expect to be told that you are posting nonsense.
There's no polite way of doing it.

2) The theory of relativity was hard for many people to believe at
first and there was no physical evidence to back it up at first.
Eventually the measurements became refined enough to verify it. The
theory of relativity has now been verified.
If you knew anything about physics you'd know that relatively - as
Einstein defined it - is incompatible with quantum theory, and to that
extent has also be falsified. It provides an appreciably better
approximation to reality that Newtonian gravitation in certain fairly
specific situations, but it certainly hasn't been "verified" even if
there were a way in which a scientific theory could be "verified" as
opposed to tested.

3) The theory of AGW is based on computer simulations and calculations
They do provide one way of testing the theory.

The theory of AGW is also based on observational data. Even sceptical
scientists admit that it is not possible to balance the global energy
equations for the Earth after about 1970 without including GHG forcing.
Crucially we have satellite data of the solar flux so you cannot
magically handwave away the recent warming trend by pretending that the
sun somehow got brighter.

but there are no clear physical measurements to verify it.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice core data could have falsified the
theory, and didn't. The global temperature rise over the last century
is barely big enough to provide much of a test, but - such as it is -
it hasn't falsied the theory. Granting that no experimental mesurement
can ever "verify" a theory, your claim about the absence of physical
measurements merely confirms that you don't know what you are talking
about.

If there
were unambiguous measurements of global temperature or sea level
rise, then there would be some evidence that AGW is true.
There is

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

The record is noisy - there are other things going on that affect the
global temperature

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

but the trend is pretty clear.

Right now it is a theory that predicts that the temp and sea will
rise at some time in the future. If and when that starts to happen,
I'll be a believer too.
Temperature and sea level are both rising now, if not all that
dramatically yet. At the moment about half the CO2 we are pumping itno
the atmosphere ends up in the sea and in tropical rain forests. If we
keep on putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, the seas will warm up
enough that they will start losing CO2 rather than dissovling it, and
we are cutting down the tropical rain forests, so the prospects fro
more dramtic rises are good, if we persist.

I think it is wrong to base important national and global policy
decisions about carbon taxes and sequestration and use of coal on an
unverified theory.
Since no scientific theory can ever be verified, your opinion is that
we should never try to anticipate a natural disaster, and confining
ourselves to cleaning up after we've unambiguously wrecked our planet.

I have no argument with developing conservation
and renewable energy sources.
Or motherhood or apple pie.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen-

Bill,
If you want to base you logic system on the fundamental belief that a
theory can not ever be 100% verified, then I will put it in terms of
degree rather than absolutes so that we at least have some common
ground...

That is a basic tenet of modern science. The best scientific models
describe nature as completely as possible and are self consistent. To be
a valid scientific theory it must also make testable predictions and
those predictions can be used to test the theory. In particular you can
only learn something new when the theory makes a prediction and the
experiment shows that the theory is wrong - nature does something else.

It doesn't matter how many times you see the predicted results the
theory can never be proved. Proof is only available in mathematics.

A scientific theory becomes more trusted each time it is tested in a new
way and found to make a correct prediction. But most of the interesting
science comes from testing theories to destruction and revealing new
physics. Quantum physics and relativity were both paradigm shifts.

The theory of relativity made predictions that have since been
observed by experimental and observational evidence. Of course it is

It also fitted nicely with Maxwells equations and the null result of the
Michelson-Morely ether drift experiment. There was great appeal in the
very elegant idea that the laws of physics should be the same for all
observers in an inertial frame.

Some people had a lot of difficulty in accepting relativity and
especially electronics engineers. You still get the odd nutter spouting
off about it in the UKs Wireless World magazine.

does not explain 100% of all of science and when you get into greater
detail it has inconsistencies with quantum theory. But to the level
of detail that it goes it has been verified. Time dilatation etc
has now been verified with clear unambiguous measurements. Before
these clear unambiguous measurement results were available, there
indeed was doubt to the validity of the theory of relativity.

Comparatively little. There were plenty of people who refused point
blank to accept relativity because it conflicted with their common
sense. Notably in the polemical leaflet "100 authors against Einstein"
to which he retorted that if they were right then one would be enough.

Right now, AGW is analogous to the early days of the theory of
relativity when there were maybe some noisy data available that could
be interpreted as supporting or not supporting the theory. In your
own words the AGW data is noisy.

The AGW signature is well established in the scientific literature. We
can see the CO2 concentration increasing in the atmosphere and we can
establish from the changing isotope ratio that it is from our burning
fossil fuels. We know from their IR spectra that CO2 and CH4 are both
potent greenhouse gasses. The only thing in doubt now is exactly how bad
things will get and how quickly.

The confusion in the public mind is sown by fossil fuel lobbyists using
techniques well honed to keep people smoking tobacco (and some of the
same practitioners too).

Again my main point is it foolish to base major policy decisions on
theories that have a low level of verification.

It is even more foolish to be influenced by drooling right wingers to
continue with profligate waste of energy for short term profit. You can
bet your bottom dollar when the chickens come home to roost that the
politicians will blame scientists for not being more vocal.

I don't favour doing much more than taking prudent "no regrets" energy
efficiency measures at this stage. But I do object very strongly to
right wing ostriches pretending that there isn't a problem.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Mar 9, 1:34 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5918/1187

Martin van Calmhout - a formidable Dutch science journalist - reviewed
this article in Science in yesterday's Volkskrant. One of the authors -
Henk Brinkhuis - is a professor at Utrecht.

It talks about a 5C drop in global temperature over 100,000 years some
34 million years ago during the Eocene-Oligocene Climate Transition.

And the relevance of this to today's situation is ?

Whatever happened then could play out - in reverse - now, and perhaps
in appreciably less than 100,000 years.

Unexplained effects are always worrying.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 5:56 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:14:07 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:20 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:53:52 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

The part that is working hard on setting up its own personal global
extinction.

Insanely absurd, unless you always trust extrapolation and always
ignore feedbacks.

   If he doesn't understand a simple aluminum electrolytic, how can he
claim to understand the so called global warming?

Michael Terrell doesn't appreciate that you can make better
electrolytic capacitors with tantalum than aluminium.

---
I don't think that's a valid extrapolation since all he claimed was that
you don't understand simple aluminum electrolytics.

His attention span isn't all that long, and the only discussion I've
been involved in about aluminium electrolytics is the recent one with
you, which was actually about the difference between aluminium and
tantalum electrolytics,

---
Speaking about attention spans, the discussion wasn't about the
difference between aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors, it was
about your using 30 year old data in presuming present-day aluminum
electrolytic capacitor leakage current is bad enough to preclude their
being used in RC timers with long timeouts.
---

a point that you don't seem to understand any
too well either, since you only posted data on aluminium
electrolytics.

---
It wasn't incumbent on me to post anything else, since the point I was
making was related to old aluminum electrolytic capacitors, new aluminum
electrolytic capacitors, and stupidity.

JF

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:13:12 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

[snip]

His attention span isn't all that long, and the only discussion I've
been involved in about aluminium electrolytics is the recent one with
you, which was actually about the difference between aluminium and
tantalum electrolytics,

---
Speaking about attention spans, the discussion wasn't about the
difference between aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors, it was
about your using 30 year old data in presuming present-day aluminum
electrolytic capacitor leakage current is bad enough to preclude their
being used in RC timers with long timeouts.
---

a point that you don't seem to understand any
too well either, since you only posted data on aluminium
electrolytics.

---
It wasn't incumbent on me to post anything else, since the point I was
making was related to old aluminum electrolytic capacitors, new aluminum
electrolytic capacitors, and stupidity.

JF

Now! Now! Don't give Slowman a boost and elevate his ranking from
imbecile to stupid. He's definitely imbecile level. But I will be
gracious and allow that his imbecilic actions may be due to senility
;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

How severe can senility be? Just check out Slowman.

 

On Mar 9, 6:19 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:13:12 -0500, John Fields







jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

[snip]

His attention span isn't all that long, and the only discussion I've
been involved in about aluminium electrolytics is the recent one with
you, which was actually about the difference between aluminium and
tantalum electrolytics,

---
Speaking about attention spans, the discussion wasn't about the
difference between aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors, it was
about your using 30 year old data in presuming present-day aluminum
electrolytic capacitor leakage current is bad enough to preclude their
being used in RC timers with long timeouts.  
---

a point that you don't seem to understand any
too well either, since you only posted data on aluminium
electrolytics.

---
It wasn't incumbent on me to post anything else, since the point I was
making was related to old aluminum electrolytic capacitors, new aluminum
electrolytic capacitors, and stupidity.  

JF  

Now!  Now!  Don't give Slowman a boost and elevate his ranking from
imbecile to stupid.  He's definitely imbecile level.  But I will be
gracious and allow that his imbecilic actions may be due to senility
;-)

Jim Thompson gives advice to one of his intellectual equals - the West
Virginia red-neck counseling the Texas red-neck, as if Jim had wisdom
to impart, and John was capable of learning anything.

It's either comical or pathetic - possibly both.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen