Driver to drive?

Mar 9, 2009

On Mar 9, 6:13 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@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.

I didn't suggest that aluminium capacitors were bad enough to preclude
their use to get long time-outs - this wasn't true thirty years ago
either - but that tantalum electrolytic capacitors worked rather
better in that particular application.

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.

Sure. You felt a burning desire to advertise your own stupidity, and
you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

Quite why you have this enthusiasm for misunderstanding simple
arguments escapes me. Presumably you suffer from the delusion that it
might makes you look good. Sad really.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Mar 9, 2009

On Mar 7, 7:04 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:56:07 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Fields 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.

True. I do know the difference, and where not to use a tantalum.
Its just his usual half assed attempt to cover the fact that he's
incompetent.

He still can't remember that I have both of his .ieee and Google
accounts filtered so he's becoming senile, as well. That is probably
why he's 30 or more years out of date.

That's why I say SHUN Slowman.

He should be used to it, by now. People have shunned the loser his
whole life. He makes Rodney Dangerfield look like the life of the
party.

Nice to see Jim enjoying himself with his fan club. None of them have
an ounce of sense, so they are free admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John Fields · Mar 9, 2009

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:51:24 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 9, 6:13 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@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.

I didn't suggest that aluminium capacitors were bad enough to preclude
their use to get long time-outs - this wasn't true thirty years ago
either - but that tantalum electrolytic capacitors worked rather
better in that particular application.

---
Here's What you said:

"I hope your 100uF electrolytic capacitor is a tantalum device - back
in the 1970's, when I would with these sorts of time constants,
tantalum electrolytic capacitors offered much lowr and more stable
leakage currents than aluminium-based devices."

Now, had you known (or taken the time to find out) what kinds of
leakage currents modern aluminum electrolytics are capable of
exhibiting, there would have been no need for you to hope that his
electrolytic was tantalum, because you would have known that an aluminum
electrolytic would have been perfectly adequate for his job, today.
---

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.

Sure. You felt a burning desire to advertise your own stupidity, and
you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

---
Dream on, sucker; it wasn't _me_ who got caught giving bogus advice
about using tantalum electrolytics when aluminum will work just dandy
for the OP's application.
---

Quite why you have this enthusiasm for misunderstanding simple
arguments escapes me.

---
I have no enthusiasm for misunderstanding simple arguments, and your
suggesting I do is a red herring.

What I have a definite enthusiasm for is popping balloons which
blowhards like you inflate with lies and hold up for everyone to accept
as gospel.
---

Presumably you suffer from the delusion that it
might makes you look good. Sad really.

---
What's sad is that you're incapable of accepting criticism and prefer,
instead, to try to delude everyone with your little smoke-and-mirror
charades.

JF

Michael A. Terrell · Mar 9, 2009

Jim Thompson wrote:

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
;-)

Don't insult the senile. He barely rates useless.

--
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

John Fields · Mar 9, 2009

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:57:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

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.

---
Well, you certainly don't know anything about chip design, like Jim
does, or radio transmitter facility design, like Michael does, or even
how to properly use the lowly 555, like I do, plus you're impossible to
teach, so all that leaves you with is rehashing your salad days here,
reliving those fond old memories of not falling into the pitfall of
using leaky old aluminum electrolytics when those groovy tantalums are
sooo much better.

Barf...

JF

Jim Thompson · Mar 9, 2009

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:20:47 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:51:24 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 9, 6:13 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@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.

I didn't suggest that aluminium capacitors were bad enough to preclude
their use to get long time-outs - this wasn't true thirty years ago
either - but that tantalum electrolytic capacitors worked rather
better in that particular application.

---
Here's What you said:

"I hope your 100uF electrolytic capacitor is a tantalum device - back
in the 1970's, when I would with these sorts of time constants,
tantalum electrolytic capacitors offered much lowr and more stable
leakage currents than aluminium-based devices."

Now, had you known (or taken the time to find out) what kinds of
leakage currents modern aluminum electrolytics are capable of
exhibiting, there would have been no need for you to hope that his
electrolytic was tantalum, because you would have known that an aluminum
electrolytic would have been perfectly adequate for his job, today.
---

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.

Sure. You felt a burning desire to advertise your own stupidity, and
you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

---
Dream on, sucker; it wasn't _me_ who got caught giving bogus advice
about using tantalum electrolytics when aluminum will work just dandy
for the OP's application.
---

Quite why you have this enthusiasm for misunderstanding simple
arguments escapes me.

---
I have no enthusiasm for misunderstanding simple arguments, and your
suggesting I do is a red herring.

What I have a definite enthusiasm for is popping balloons which
blowhards like you inflate with lies and hold up for everyone to accept
as gospel.
---

Presumably you suffer from the delusion that it
might makes you look good. Sad really.

---
What's sad is that you're incapable of accepting criticism and prefer,
instead, to try to delude everyone with your little smoke-and-mirror
charades.

JF

480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

"It isn't that democrats are ignorant. Far from it... it's just that
they know so much that just isn't so" -Ronald Reagan

Jim Thompson · Mar 9, 2009

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:41:28 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:57:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

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.

---
Well, you certainly don't know anything about chip design, like Jim
does, or radio transmitter facility design, like Michael does, or even
how to properly use the lowly 555, like I do, plus you're impossible to
teach, so all that leaves you with is rehashing your salad days here,
reliving those fond old memories of not falling into the pitfall of
using leaky old aluminum electrolytics when those groovy tantalums are
sooo much better.

Barf...

JF

Raveninghorde · Mar 9, 2009

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:40:34 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

SNIP

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.

I've been arguing for a while that the solar minimum would lead to
cooler climate.

Now even NASA are stasrting to repsond to the solar minimum:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/view....B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

/quote

B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23

1. Scope of Program

In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that
marks the end of Solar Cycle 23. As this cycle comes to an end we are
recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily
quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in
records of both solar activity and the response to it of the
terrestrial space environment. For example:
Causes Solar output

* Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was
created in 1947;
* Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the
beginning of the Space age;
* Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the
current solar minimum;
* Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum
of Solar Cycle 22;
* Effectively no sunspots;
* The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer
belt; and
* Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.

/end quote

SNIP

John Fields · Mar 9, 2009

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:02:47 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 7:04 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:56:07 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Fields 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.

True. I do know the difference, and where not to use a tantalum.
Its just his usual half assed attempt to cover the fact that he's
incompetent.

He still can't remember that I have both of his .ieee and Google
accounts filtered so he's becoming senile, as well. That is probably
why he's 30 or more years out of date.

That's why I say SHUN Slowman.

He should be us>ed to it, by now. People have shunned the loser his
whole life. He makes Rodney Dangerfield look like the life of the
party.

Nice to see Jim enjoying himself with his fan club.

---
It's good to see us _all_ enjoying ourselves, but it's not a fan club.

It's more like a party where we get to play pin-the-tail-on-the-Sloman
(sorry, Graham

but we don't have to wear blindfolds.

It'd be more fun if you were like a pińata, but a pińata is full of fun
toys and candy, not shit.
---

None of them have an ounce of sense,

---
Geez, both Jim and I are running businesses and making money, and
Michael is rebuilding computers and giving them away, pro bono, to old
folks like you, while being severely handicapped.

And what are you doing?

Nothing but fighting with people whom you say have no sense.

That makes no sense to me.

If you want to make a point, and make it believable, then propose it and
back it up with data instead of worthless opinion.

Or, if your audience is senseless, save everyone some grief and don't
respond at all.
---

so they are free admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit.

---
Oh, and now you're a judge of wit?

In the first place, your command of the written language isn't good
enough that the subtlety of 'wit' is available to you and, in the second
place, you seem to consider 'wit' a more deliciously devious way to
issue an insult than a coarse, "fuck you".

As far as "In the first place" goes, you wrote:

"so they are free admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit."

Unless I'm mistaken, you should have written:

"so they are free to admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit."

Feel free to respond by whining about that your language skills aren't
that great but that you still have something to say and, hopefully, you
won't trip up on that, as well.

And, as far as second place goes, figure it out for yourself.

JF

Mar 9, 2009

On Mar 9, 10:41 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:57:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
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.

---
Well, you certainly don't know anything about chip design, like Jim
does,

I respect Jim's skills as a chip designer, not that I've been too
impressed with those chips of his that I have got to use. He certainly
doesn't know much about anything else, and he has a touching in faith
in the correctness of his comical opinions on subjects outside of
electronics.

or radio transmitter facility design, like Michael does,

Again, Michael may be the world's greatest expert on radio transmitter
facility design, but he doesn't seem to know much outside of this
rather narrow expertise.

or even how to properly use the lowly 555, like I do,

Since the proper way to use the 555 is to throw it in the waste bin,
your boasted skill is just evidence that you haven't kept up with
modern electronics.

plus you're impossible to teach,

That may be your impression, but in fact what you are saying is that
I'm not susceptible to your silly ideas, no matter how enthusiastic
you may be about infecting other people with your misconceptions

so all that leaves you with is rehashing your salad days here,
reliving those fond old memories of not falling into the pitfall of
using leaky old aluminum electrolytics when those groovy tantalums are
sooo much better.

We all see the world in the way that makes us feel comfortable. Your
perceptions, like Jim's, don't have much to do with reality, but if
that's what you need to protect your vulnerable little ego, go ahead
an enjoy yourself. It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John Fields · Mar 10, 2009

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:58:20 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:20:47 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:51:24 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 9, 6:13 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@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.

I didn't suggest that aluminium capacitors were bad enough to preclude
their use to get long time-outs - this wasn't true thirty years ago
either - but that tantalum electrolytic capacitors worked rather
better in that particular application.

---
Here's What you said:

"I hope your 100uF electrolytic capacitor is a tantalum device - back
in the 1970's, when I would with these sorts of time constants,
tantalum electrolytic capacitors offered much lowr and more stable
leakage currents than aluminium-based devices."

Now, had you known (or taken the time to find out) what kinds of
leakage currents modern aluminum electrolytics are capable of
exhibiting, there would have been no need for you to hope that his
electrolytic was tantalum, because you would have known that an aluminum
electrolytic would have been perfectly adequate for his job, today.
---

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.

Sure. You felt a burning desire to advertise your own stupidity, and
you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

---
Dream on, sucker; it wasn't _me_ who got caught giving bogus advice
about using tantalum electrolytics when aluminum will work just dandy
for the OP's application.
---

Quite why you have this enthusiasm for misunderstanding simple
arguments escapes me.

---
I have no enthusiasm for misunderstanding simple arguments, and your
suggesting I do is a red herring.

What I have a definite enthusiasm for is popping balloons which
blowhards like you inflate with lies and hold up for everyone to accept
as gospel.
---

Presumably you suffer from the delusion that it
might makes you look good. Sad really.

---
What's sad is that you're incapable of accepting criticism and prefer,
instead, to try to delude everyone with your little smoke-and-mirror
charades.

JF

Sorta like Larkin, huh?

---
Yeah, in a way, but Larkin's got a lot more on the ball.

JF

Michael A. Terrell · Mar 10, 2009

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:02:47 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Nice to see Jim enjoying himself with his fan club.

---
It's good to see us _all_ enjoying ourselves, but it's not a fan club.

It's more like a party where we get to play pin-the-tail-on-the-Sloman
(sorry, Graham but we don't have to wear blindfolds.

It'd be more fun if you were like a pińata, but a pińata is full of fun
toys and candy, not shit.
---

None of them have an ounce of sense,

---
Geez, both Jim and I are running businesses and making money, and
Michael is rebuilding computers and giving them away, pro bono, to old
folks like you, while being severely handicapped.

And what are you doing?

Nothing but fighting with people whom you say have no sense.

That makes no sense to me.

If you want to make a point, and make it believable, then propose it and
back it up with data instead of worthless opinion.

Or, if your audience is senseless, save everyone some grief and don't
respond at all.
---

so they are free admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit.

---
Oh, and now you're a judge of wit?

In the first place, your command of the written language isn't good
enough that the subtlety of 'wit' is available to you and, in the second
place, you seem to consider 'wit' a more deliciously devious way to
issue an insult than a coarse, "fuck you".

As far as "In the first place" goes, you wrote:

"so they are free admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit."

Unless I'm mistaken, you should have written:

"so they are free to admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit."

Feel free to respond by whining about that your language skills aren't
that great but that you still have something to say and, hopefully, you
won't trip up on that, as well.

And, as far as second place goes, figure it out for yourself.

Sloman is the only person I've ever seen who makes his delusions of
adequacy, very boring.

--
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

Mar 10, 2009

On Mar 9, 9:20 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:51:24 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 9, 6:13 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@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.

I didn't suggest that aluminium capacitors were bad enough to preclude
their use to get long time-outs - this wasn't true thirty years ago
either - but that tantalum electrolytic capacitors worked rather
better in that particular application.

---
Here's What you said:

"I hope your 100uF electrolytic capacitor is a tantalum device - back
in the 1970's, when I worked with these sorts of time constants,
tantalum electrolytic capacitors offered much lower and more stable
leakage currents than aluminium-based devices."

Now, had you known (or taken the time to find out) what kinds of
leakage currents modern aluminum electrolytics are capable of
exhibiting, there would have been no need for you to hope that his
electrolytic was tantalum, because you would have known that an aluminum
electrolytic would have been perfectly adequate for his job, today.
---

You've yet to establish that modern tantalum electrolytic capacitors
don't offer lower and more stable leakage currents than modern
aluminium electrolytics.

You went to the rouble of identifing an aluminium electrolytic
capacitor that you thought would be good enough to do the OP's job,
but you didn't tell him where he could buy them, or explain why he
should jump through hoops to find your special aluminium electrolytic,
when any regular tantalum electrolytic would do a perfectly
respectable job.

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.

Sure. You felt a burning desire to advertise your own stupidity, and
you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

---
Dream on, sucker; it wasn't _me_ who got caught giving bogus advice
about using tantalum electrolytics when aluminum will work just dandy
for the OP's application.
---

Since you've utterly failed to prove that my advice was bogus, you've
just advertised your terminal stupidity one more time.

Quite why you have this enthusiasm for misunderstanding simple
arguments escapes me.

---
I have no enthusiasm for misunderstanding simple arguments, and your
suggesting I do is a red herring.

You are perhaps being a little over-confident here.

What I have a definite enthusiasm for is popping balloons which
blowhards like you inflate with lies and hold up for everyone to accept
as gospel.
---

It's nice to have an ambition, but you really need to find an ambition
that you are equipped to achieve.

Presumably you suffer from the delusion that it
might makes you look good. Sad really.

---
What's sad is that you're incapable of accepting criticism and prefer,
instead, to try to delude everyone with your little smoke-and-mirror
charades.

I'm happy to accept competent criticism. If you had any sense you'd
have realised that you - once again - have gotten yourself excited
about a bizarre misinterpretation of what I wrote.

You aren't being critical - you've just got it wrong. Again.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Don Klipstein · Mar 10, 2009

In article <33cuq4pnuo2ab67sd634en214fmof04123@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 17:55:57 -0600, "Tim Williams"
tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:e45tq4ho7b19cppfjlce70873d5lha7g0l@4ax.com...
If someone
invented a clean, cheap source of, say, fusion energy, they'd be
against it. ^^^^^^

Actually, I'm against it too ...

See? What I said.

Um, John? Since when have you EVER associated myself with "they", i.e., The
Warmingists?

My objection to widespread fusion power is simple to see with some
multiplications and a couple of centuries use. In fact, Sloman understood
my statement correctly. That's scary, John.

The sun dumps about a kilowatt per square meter of heat onto us.

With clear sky and sun near zenith, that figure is roughly correct.
Worldwide average is more like 235 watts per square meter including
absorption in the atmosphere (Kiehl-Trenberth), as high as 250 according
to one disputing Kiehl-Trenberth.

The surface area of the earth is about 5e14 m^2, about 100,000 m^2 per
person.

What about when population hits 9 billion? Prepare for 1 person per
56,000 square meters.

Not that I am against fusion or other nuclear power, but some of these
numbers here appear to me to need corrections that may show us enough heat
that maybe we need to prepare for it.

So if everybody consumes a kilowatt, which is unlikely, the relative
energy is insignificant.

It looks to me as if the world is burning fossil fuels at a rate
accounting for 6.4 or more gigatons of carbon per year. Coal produces 8
kilocalories per gram burned, natural gas produces about 11, and oil about
or a little over 10. Let's say overall average 9 for the sake of argument
- probably a bit on the low side. And when combustion is incomplete,
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons will get oxidized in the ozone layer
and by urban tropospheric ozone and nitrogen oxides within years to a few
decades - so I consider heat from full combustion to be reasonably
truthful.

6.4 gigatons/year * 1 E+15 grams per gigaton * 9 calories per gram *
4.19 watt-seconds/calorie * 1 year/31557600 seconds = about 7.65 E+9
watts.

Divide that by current global population of maybe 6.6 billion people,
looks like current global energy usage is 1.15 kilowatts per person, plus
the little bit that nuclear energy amounts to.

With the widely-spouted figures of USA having 5% (or less) of global
population and 20% of global energy consumption, I figure USA having
energy consumption of 4.6 kilowatts per person.
Somehow, I have impression of Europeans having less, maybe 3 KW per
person even with "western" lifestyle.

Maybe the worry is should we get a prosperous industrialized planet with
average inhabitant being a member of a society sufficiently
industrialized/"westernized" to have average energy consumption of 2 KW
per capita. Keep in mind that a major fusion power industry will allow
billions to drive electric cars!

I would prepare for 9 billion people consuming 2KW apiece on average, or
18 terawatts, 1.8 E+13 watts. Possibly 10 billion people consuming (even
if indirectly) 2.5 KW each, amounting to 2.5 E+13 watts.

Then again, with Earth surface area being 5.1 E+14 square meters,
finding more-alarmist figures for direct thermal heating likely later
this century only finds approaching .05 watt per square meter.

Should the truth end up being double this, that is still 1/15 of a
figure that has been tossed around a fair amount for effect of CO2
increase as of a year or two ago.

Even with correction of a bad number, I would favor nuclear options such
as fusion to reduce CO2 production.

The prime indicator of human misery is low availability of power.
Cheap electric power would lift a lot of people out of ghastly
poverty. Some people actually want to purge the planet of the pest
that is Man, and choke off energy supplies in the process; their
policies will indeed kill a lot of people, especially kids.

I think that the world needs to stop and reverse the population growth,
in order to reduce consumption of limited natural resources until
substitutes are found/developed. I don't have much concern for global
thermal pollution from nuclear power including fusion power even if
the world achieves 10 billion people, with per capita energy consumption
close to current European average.

Please keep in mind that most societies with above-global-average
population growth rate have below-global-average rate of production of
scientists and engineers!

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Mar 10, 2009

I think that the world needs to stop and reverse the population growth,
in order to reduce consumption of limited natural resources until
substitutes are found/developed.

I'll agree with that... and so far the best way seems to be to raise
the standard of living, paradoxically that's what reduces population
growth of a group...

Mark

Don Klipstein · Mar 10, 2009

In article <h2tpq4d9tk7n7rvfuohgc6nf5tee5dairf@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
bill.sloman@ieee.org> 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.

The paper is based a new technique for recovering paleolthic
temperatures, by measuring the the relative concentrations of
particular organic chemicals in the cell wall of single cell fossils,
which allowed the authors to clarify what what actually going
on during the transition, when the Antartic ice-sheet seems to
have made its appearance

The authors can't come up with an explanation for why it happened
as fast as it did. Explanations for the transition do exist, but they
seem to envisage a slower cooling.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06853.html

No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.

Regarding cooling since 2000:

/quote

This is nothing like anything weve seen since 1950, Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesnt have one.

The "recent cooling" is from 4 causes:

1. Lack of El Ninos greater than the century-scale-greatness one of 1998

2. About 14 months ago we were in the bottom of a La Nina that was to a
small extent the most severe in 20 years

3. The "Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation" has a significant effect on
global temperature and has a period around 60-70 years, and that
peaked either with the 1998 El Nino or with the warm times of the
middle of the decade that we are about to exit.

4. We have recently gone past peak of a sunspot cycle of period around 80
years, and maybe also of one of period 2 or 2-plus centuries.

Should we have any global warming at all from now to 2030 or 2035, watch
out for what happens in the following 30 years or so that will have the
next upswing half of the AMO and a majority of the next upswing in the 80
year cycle of solar output.
I would worry about 2035-2070 achieving .2-.25 degree C/K per
decade warming, for .7-.875 degree addition to the roughly .4 degree boost
of the past decade from 1961-2000 average.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Don Klipstein · Mar 10, 2009

In article <38brq451mhjpdho2mdqhhg43bqpb8r3643@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual. Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time. A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to. Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail? Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?" I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

This is nothing like anything weve seen since 1950, Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesnt have one.

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the
"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is
significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved
by the AGW lobby.

However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing
temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from
this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is
around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.

High side of the recent past uptick is .19-.2 degree C per decade during
peak 2 or so of past 3-plus upswinging decades when effects of AMO and
the 80 year cycle of solar output were favoring upswing.

If the next 2-3 decades show much smaller downswing, beware that we have
warming trend on century-plus scale.

If the next 2-3 decades fail to have any significant cooling, watch out
for when AMO and the roughly-80-year-solar-cycle both mostly upswing from
2030 to 2070 or so.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Don Klipstein · Mar 10, 2009

In <63e0231f-dfad-4c3c-9844-d2d690166bdf@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 4, 1:31 am, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:27:54 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

Funny:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-prot...

I wonder why all warmingists seem to be against Nuclear energy - it's got
ZERO EMISSIONS! Maybe just the terror of the unknown that all ignorant
savages have?

Perhaps warmingists know enough physicis to be aware that nuclear
fission produces radioactive nuclear waste, which emits alpha, beta
and gamma rays. An ignorant savage like Rich may not appreciate that
these constitute emissions, but the more sophisticated may understand
that nobody has yet worked out an entirely satisfactory way of
disposing of this waste in a way that can be guaranteed not to foul
the world we leave to our children.

It appears to me that this point depends on obstacles that are political
more than scientific.

For example, nuclear waste can be safely dumped under a deep "Southwest
USA" salt dome.
For second place example, I consider that depths of a used-up uranium
mine are good enough for safe disposal. (And I say that those saying
"not good enough" are "close enough to 'luddites' ").

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Martin Brown · Mar 10, 2009

Raveninghorde wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:40:34 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

SNIP

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.

I've been arguing for a while that the solar minimum would lead to
cooler climate.

Now even NASA are stasrting to repsond to the solar minimum:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/view....B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

/quote

B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23

1. Scope of Program

In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that
marks the end of Solar Cycle 23. As this cycle comes to an end we are
recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily
quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in
records of both solar activity and the response to it of the
terrestrial space environment. For example:
Causes Solar output

* Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was
created in 1947;
* Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the
beginning of the Space age;
* Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the
current solar minimum;
* Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum
of Solar Cycle 22;
* Effectively no sunspots;
* The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer
belt; and
* Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.

/end quote

SNIP

So what? It is well known that the solar output changes by about 0.1%
over the 22 year sunspot cycle and it has long since been incorporated
into the climate change models. A less active sun is very slightly less
luminous. See for example :

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/sun_climate.html&edu=high

and

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/448.htm

One serious effect of solar maximum is to fluff up the outer layer of
the atmosphere with more aggressive solar winds and magnetic storms
increasing drag and requiring more frequent adjustments to low flying
satellites. It was responsible for the early reentry of spacelab.

Incidentally those solar cycle "references" that you found on the HM
Treasury site subdirectory /d are entirely bogus crap. The whole lot was
exposed to deep linking and search engines without appropriate HM
Government disclaimers. It is not government policy and never has been.

You are *only* supposed to look at that material through their
*official* portal window where there is a feeble disclaimer considering
some of the total garbage and nonsensical junk they are hosting. The
official access portal is hard to find. Quoting from their statement :

#The authors of the responses published were clearly labelled and the
#web page clearly states that the submissions and responses "...do not
#necessarily reflect the views of either Sir Nicholas Stern or of the
#Government."
# http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_responses.htm

You have to love the way every entry in the catalogue begins with
"PDF file of response to the Stern Review from ".

I was eventually sent this link after making enquiries to find out how
their site security had been compromised. The answer is that they are
the unsolicited responses to the Stern report and that their website is
very badly misconfigured by half witted cowboys.

This may change, but don't hold your breath. I think it is appalling
that a UK government website should host such gibberish and nonsense
"science" and expose it directly to Google and other search engines.

The responses can be online but you should get a warning when deep
linking into the Treasury site that they are not the views of the UK
government. Or they should prevent people from deep linking to take the
stuff out of context and passing it off as a UK Government reports.

AFAICT the first AGW denialist to exploit HM Treasury's naivety was
Melanie Phillips writing in the Spectator in her column of 10/4/2008.

There is some good material on the HMT website as well as a fair number
of rants by delusional nutters, cranks and kooks who are glad of their
1600 words.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Raveninghorde · Mar 10, 2009

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:51:20 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <h2tpq4d9tk7n7rvfuohgc6nf5tee5dairf@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
bill.sloman@ieee.org> 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.

The paper is based a new technique for recovering paleolthic
temperatures, by measuring the the relative concentrations of
particular organic chemicals in the cell wall of single cell fossils,
which allowed the authors to clarify what what actually going
on during the transition, when the Antartic ice-sheet seems to
have made its appearance

The authors can't come up with an explanation for why it happened
as fast as it did. Explanations for the transition do exist, but they
seem to envisage a slower cooling.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06853.html

No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.

Regarding cooling since 2000:

/quote

This is nothing like anything weve seen since 1950, Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesnt have one.

The "recent cooling" is from 4 causes:

1. Lack of El Ninos greater than the century-scale-greatness one of 1998

2. About 14 months ago we were in the bottom of a La Nina that was to a
small extent the most severe in 20 years

3. The "Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation" has a significant effect on
global temperature and has a period around 60-70 years, and that
peaked either with the 1998 El Nino or with the warm times of the
middle of the decade that we are about to exit.

4. We have recently gone past peak of a sunspot cycle of period around 80
years, and maybe also of one of period 2 or 2-plus centuries.

None of these factors seemed to be allowed for in the climate models
and the models did not predict cooling for the next 30 years.

Should we have any global warming at all from now to 2030 or 2035, watch
out for what happens in the following 30 years or so that will have the
next upswing half of the AMO and a majority of the next upswing in the 80
year cycle of solar output.
I would worry about 2035-2070 achieving .2-.25 degree C/K per
decade warming, for .7-.875 degree addition to the roughly .4 degree boost
of the past decade from 1961-2000 average.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

If this kind of weather repeats you'll know it's cooling:

http://www.wnem.com/news/18885556/detail.html

Driver to drive?

Guest

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Raveninghorde

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Martin Brown

Guest

Raveninghorde

Guest

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Driver to drive?

Guest

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Raveninghorde

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Martin Brown

Guest

Raveninghorde

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor