Driver to drive?

[Jon Kirwan]

On Wed, 06 May 2009 12:07:42 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

whit3rd wrote:
On May 3, 9:21 pm, mj <eluc...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm looking for ideas on how to make an LED flash so brightly at a low
duty cycle

Since the LED is only on 0.4% of the time, max, it still simply isn't
very bright. The strobe works--I can see the frozen image on the
spinning disk--but the light is simply anemic.

So, I'm wondering if anyone here knows how to design a circuit that
can dump an amp and a half through an LED for, say, 200 microseconds
at a time or less, at 20-50 Hz.

Firstly, I'd put a trickle through the LED at all times (maybe half a
milliamp)

That's enough to dimly light up a really high efficiency LED.

Actually, I have some here that look pretty decent at half an mA. At
least, indoors.

Jon

 

[Richard Heathfield]

riverman said:

<snip>

What about just
saying 'the agent moves to minimize the distance between himself
and the rabbit'?

Splash!

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 2 May 2009 17:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Mark-T
<MarkTanner50@gmail.com> wrote:

DId anyone here see the problem presented in
the Science section of NY Times last week?
Quite startling, to see something so sophisticated
in a 'general readership' publication.

Is it solvable without a calculus of variations approach?

I've not done anything on paper, but isn't this simply a variation of
the pursuit curve problem... the rabbit swims along a vector defined
by the agent's position and the center-point of the pond?

...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 |

Stormy on the East Coast today... due to Bush's failed policies.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 2 May 2009 17:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Mark-T
MarkTanner50@gmail.com> wrote:

DId anyone here see the problem presented in
the Science section of NY Times last week?
Quite startling, to see something so sophisticated
in a 'general readership' publication.

Is it solvable without a calculus of variations approach?

I've not done anything on paper, but isn't this simply a variation of
the pursuit curve problem... the rabbit swims along a vector defined
by the agent's position and the center-point of the pond?

That must be a super rabbit, to keep swimming like that.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <ris105t0gm8fvqm6l1m47bcu7n87ig751c@4ax.com>, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 5 May 2009 12:03:02 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net
wrote:

On May 5, 3:47 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:43:40 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 04:11:22 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Some REAL science at last, notably illustrating that the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere is nearly already at saturation level and more can
contribute very little to temperature rise.

Anthropogenic Global Warming was debunked in the 1970's. That's why they
changed the name to "Climate Change".

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Earth Day 1970

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If
present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder
for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in
the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into
an ice age."

 Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

The Cooling World, Newsweek, 1975

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Another Ice Age?, Time Magazine 1974

 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

t is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six-to
eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of
particulate matter particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise
the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our
calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as
3.5[degrees]K [3.5[degrees]C]. Such a large decrease in the average
surface temperature of the Earth, sustained over a period of a few
years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

--Science, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide : Effects of Large Increases on
Global Climate," July 9, 1971

Climatologists now blame those recurring droughts and floods on a
global cooling trend. It could bring massive tragedies for mankind.

--Fortune, "Ominous Changes in the World's Weather," February 1974

Don't laugh too hard. I give it maybe 10 years before we're back in
the 'global cooling' scare.

But if you want a *real* laugh, follow the Times further back in the
past because it hasn't reversed just twice.

In the 1930's Tmes cautioned "the earth is steadily growing warmer."

Oh no. (Btw, Greenland warming was 50% FASTER and just as 'hot' in the
1920-1930 warming period as the one that's creating all the hype this
time around).

But that was after the Times Feb. 24, 1895 article, "Geologists Think
the World May Be Frozen Up Again."

oh noes! time magazines isn't the world's best science journal!

No one said they were.

if
that's true, then how can anyone believe the IPCC?

I don't blindly 'believe' anybody. I listen to the merits of the
arguments made.

if you want a real laugh, find the names of the scientists time cites
who warn about impending global cooling! what crackpots, haw haw!
then look up what they say about AGW; yep, they still are sticking
with their "it's cooling, there's no agw" story. well, i guess they
were wrong then, but correct now, eh?

Now you're showing how you decide what to 'believe': whether they
agree with you and if you perceive they don't you invent attacks even
though you have no idea what the people think.

Many of the original 'global cooling' proponents are now 'global
warming' proponents.

Can you cite who argued cooling in 1970's and more recently argued
warming afterwards? I suspect that the "scientist count" having done both
is very small, since by all 3 of the major indices of global temperature
that cover pre-1978 (all 3 of which go back at least to 1880) the
1950's-through-1970's stretch had slight global warming that since
accelerated.

Ok, lets do your "find the names of the scientists time cites." Cited
in the Monday, Jun. 24, 1974 Times "Another Ice Age?" article was
George J. Kukla.

Take this October 19, 1981 NY Times "EVIDENCE IS FOUND OF WARMING
TREND" article

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us/evidence-is-found-of-warming-
trend.html?sec=technology&spon=&pagewanted=all

Well, shazzam, "The new study was conducted by George J. Kukla.."

One person who changed mind from 1974 to 1981, and I sense correction
from erroneously sensing a cooling trend as of 1974 that all 3 of the
major determinations of global temperature trend show to have not have
existed after a lowpoint around 1949-1950.
The 1949-1950 lowpoint notably had single-year and smoothed global
temperature only being lowest since 1934.

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

Another was

<I snip from that point due to sensing that I said how it is and was well
enough at this point>

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:13:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
&lt;mike.terrell@earthlink.net&gt; wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 2 May 2009 17:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Mark-T
MarkTanner50@gmail.com&gt; wrote:

DId anyone here see the problem presented in
the Science section of NY Times last week?
Quite startling, to see something so sophisticated
in a 'general readership' publication.

Is it solvable without a calculus of variations approach?

I've not done anything on paper, but isn't this simply a variation of
the pursuit curve problem... the rabbit swims along a vector defined
by the agent's position and the center-point of the pond?


That must be a super rabbit, to keep swimming like that.

We have a jackrabbit in the neighborhood. I see him every morning
running along the ridge as I'm pouring my coffee ;-)

...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 |

Stormy on the East Coast today... due to Bush's failed policies.

 

[flipper]

On Tue, 5 May 2009 23:35:25 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article &lt;i24005t5s9quuuj39kbfs1tvmh0mj494uo@4ax.com&gt;, flipper wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 02:53:49 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On May 5, 9:47 am, flipper &lt;flip...@fish.net&gt; wrote:

SNIP what is mostly 1970-1975 claims of global cooling and possibility
of soon-to-come ice age

The difference between current scientific opinion and the pre-1975
opinions that made it into the newpapers is a great deal of scientific
data,

There's certainly been a lot more data but some things haven't changed
one whit. And one of those constants is a perpetual predilection to
believe whatever the current 'disaster prediction' is.

quite a lot of it collectd from satellites in orbit.

Which show global temps flattened and then declined for the past
decade.

Not how the RSS determination of lower troposphere temperature from MSU
satellite data appears to me. I see:

* warming merely slowing after what the AMO favors to have been a high
point in 2004-2005,

* Slight following spike of the weak 2006-2007 El Nino,

* Following dip from the late-2007 to mid-2008 La Nina, greatest in 20
years,

* Huge spike from the 1998 El Nino, greatest on record, much greater than
the 1982-1983 one which was then considered to be the greatest in decades.

Yes, which makes comparing 1998 to other years a bit disingenuous.

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/plots/
SC_RSS_compare_TS_channel_TLT_Land_and_Sea.png

(My newsreader forces me to split URLs longer than 80 characters)

UAH's determination of lower troposphere temperature variations from MSU
satellite data are in the following text file, which appears to me to say
the same story:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

Depends entirely on where one anchors your trend line, don't it?

Even if we took your evaluation there hasn't been a commensurate
"merely slowing" of CO2.

Not to mention the convenient presumption that the world is 'not
supposed to warm', if it weren't for man. Or, if we go back to 1974,
that it isn't supposed to cool, if it weren't for man.

Not to mention error correction shows 1998 was not the
"hottest year on record." That record is still held by the 1930's.

Can you provide a link? I suspect you are latching onto something for
a single country or a continent-size region of the globe.

You are correct. That's U.S. temp. A mistake on my part, pure and
simple.

HadCRUT-3, GISS and NCDC have 1998 and 2005 beating the roughly-1940
previous global peak by a blowout:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

Manu Loa was collecting CO2 data from 1959, but it took a few years
befor they had accumulated enough data to be able to be confident that
CO2 was rising steadily from year to year.

No, what happened is the 'anti-technology' 'anti-humanity' fanatics
changed their mind on which conjecture to promote. It was aerosols and
light 'dimming' agents when things looked like cooling but when the
temperature trend reversed

It did not reverse according to all of the major indices of global
temperature that went that far back - the post-1950 warming that actually
existed accelerated.

They did the same thing you do with '1979' end points. They looked at
it being 'warm there' and, by golly, it's getting cooler now. Draw
your 'linear trend' and we got a problem, folks. And, of course, we
know it 'must be man' so what are we doing? Damn aerosols,
particulates, pollution blotting out the sun, we say.

The proposition is formed to match expectations.

they needed something else,

You want to claim that, oh, NOW you 'know' but they were JUST as
adamant back then that all their doom and gloom predictions were
:undeniable? and "unavoidable," and that 3/4 of the planet would be
starving in 2000, if not earlier, Making it to 2000 was the 'rosy'
outlook.

Frankly, I have yet to see so much as a 'Climate Change Theory'
proposed. All that comes out are speculations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[flipper]

On Wed, 6 May 2009 03:17:34 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article &lt;ris105t0gm8fvqm6l1m47bcu7n87ig751c@4ax.com&gt;, flipper wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 12:03:02 -0700 (PDT), z &lt;gzuckier@snail-mail.net
wrote:

On May 5, 3:47 am, flipper &lt;flip...@fish.net&gt; wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:43:40 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

freedom_...@example.net&gt; wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 04:11:22 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Some REAL science at last, notably illustrating that the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere is nearly already at saturation level and more can
contribute very little to temperature rise.

Anthropogenic Global Warming was debunked in the 1970's. That's why they
changed the name to "Climate Change".

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Earth Day 1970

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If
present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder
for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in
the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into
an ice age."

 Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

The Cooling World, Newsweek, 1975

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Another Ice Age?, Time Magazine 1974

 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

t is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six-to
eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of
particulate matter particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise
the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our
calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as
3.5[degrees]K [3.5[degrees]C]. Such a large decrease in the average
surface temperature of the Earth, sustained over a period of a few
years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

--Science, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide : Effects of Large Increases on
Global Climate," July 9, 1971

Climatologists now blame those recurring droughts and floods on a
global cooling trend. It could bring massive tragedies for mankind.

--Fortune, "Ominous Changes in the World's Weather," February 1974

Don't laugh too hard. I give it maybe 10 years before we're back in
the 'global cooling' scare.

But if you want a *real* laugh, follow the Times further back in the
past because it hasn't reversed just twice.

In the 1930's Tmes cautioned "the earth is steadily growing warmer."

Oh no. (Btw, Greenland warming was 50% FASTER and just as 'hot' in the
1920-1930 warming period as the one that's creating all the hype this
time around).

But that was after the Times Feb. 24, 1895 article, "Geologists Think
the World May Be Frozen Up Again."

oh noes! time magazines isn't the world's best science journal!

No one said they were.

if
that's true, then how can anyone believe the IPCC?

I don't blindly 'believe' anybody. I listen to the merits of the
arguments made.

if you want a real laugh, find the names of the scientists time cites
who warn about impending global cooling! what crackpots, haw haw!
then look up what they say about AGW; yep, they still are sticking
with their "it's cooling, there's no agw" story. well, i guess they
were wrong then, but correct now, eh?

Now you're showing how you decide what to 'believe': whether they
agree with you and if you perceive they don't you invent attacks even
though you have no idea what the people think.

Many of the original 'global cooling' proponents are now 'global
warming' proponents.

Can you cite who argued cooling in 1970's and more recently argued
warming afterwards? I suspect that the "scientist count" having done both
is very small, since by all 3 of the major indices of global temperature
that cover pre-1978 (all 3 of which go back at least to 1880) the
1950's-through-1970's stretch had slight global warming that since
accelerated.

Ok, lets do your "find the names of the scientists time cites." Cited
in the Monday, Jun. 24, 1974 Times "Another Ice Age?" article was
George J. Kukla.

Take this October 19, 1981 NY Times "EVIDENCE IS FOUND OF WARMING
TREND" article

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us/evidence-is-found-of-warming-
trend.html?sec=technology&amp;spon=&amp;pagewanted=all

Well, shazzam, "The new study was conducted by George J. Kukla.."

One person who changed mind from 1974 to 1981, and I sense correction

You can 'sense' all you like but that wasn't the point. The point was
people who knee jerk ridicule and denigrate anyone they disagree with.

And just so we're clear, my original point in showing the multiple,
reversed, predictions wasn't to denigrate them as 'tools of the oil
industry' or some such 'evil' conspiracy but to show they have a
common characteristic. Namely the folly of blind 'linear tend'
predictions.

from erroneously sensing a cooling trend as of 1974 that all 3 of the
major determinations of global temperature trend show to have not have
existed after a lowpoint around 1949-1950.
The 1949-1950 lowpoint notably had single-year and smoothed global
temperature only being lowest since 1934.

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

Another was

I snip from that point due to sensing that I said how it is and was well
enough at this point

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[riverman]

On May 5, 7:46 pm, William Hughes &lt;wpihug...@hotmail.com&gt; wrote:

It is not clear what the "aim point" is.  

Good point. I had an intuitive understanding for what I meant, but
upon closer introspection, I see that it is not clearly stated.

What about "the intersection of the radius containing the rabbit and
the edge of the pool, regardless of the direction of the rabbit's
motion"? Would aiming for that be synonymous to the strategy of the
agent moving to decrease the angular separation (between the rabbit
and the tangent line that defines the instantaneous direction of
motion of the agent?). What about just saying 'the agent moves to
minimize the distance between himself and the rabbit'?

--riverman

 

[M Rath]

Jim Thompson wrote:

I've not done anything on paper, but isn't this simply a variation of
the pursuit curve problem... the rabbit swims along a vector defined
by the agent's position and the center-point of the pond?

M Rath wrote:

I writing a coordinate output computer program for an outward spiral...but
my compiler is acting up.

Delphi console mode is not recognizing "Readln" after a simple loop in the
main program...

 

[flipper]

On Tue, 5 May 2009 23:11:36 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article &lt;54ovv41udhfdku861epmhbg0tje7a7thma@4ax.com&gt;, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:43:40 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
freedom_guy@example.net&gt; wrote:

On Sun, 03 May 2009 04:11:22 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Some REAL science at last, notably illustrating that the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere is nearly already at saturation level and more can
contribute very little to temperature rise.

Anthropogenic Global Warming was debunked in the 1970's. That's why they
changed the name to "Climate Change".

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Earth Day 1970

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If
present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder
for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in
the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into
an ice age."

Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Chilling sharply for about 20 years as of 1970?

All three major indices of global surface temperature trend show the
world to have warmed slightly during that time stretch. Kenneth Watt must
have been out to lunch.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

SNIP other statements of global cooling and possible coming ice age
dating back to early and mid 1970's

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

If you want to argue with Watt circa 1970 then be my guest but, as
before, it's not my job. I do suspect he didn't have access to data
compiled some 30years afterward but what significance you think this
has is beyond me.

 

[M Rath]

Somebody wrote this:

In real life, the rabbit leaps from the pond and slaughters all
concerned with his "big, nasty teeth," despite Tim the Enchanters'
best efforts to warn them.

And then William Hughes wrote this:

Unless of course the agent is armed with a holy hand grenade. ;^)
And can count to three.

But I don't know who wrote the following:

Well...you people don't understand Federal police work. Let the rabbit run.
Then coerce a witness into connecting the rabbit to the crime. Finally issue
an APB for the rabbit...and after that it's just a matter of time before
regional police are calling the Federal police with the capture.

(And a cable news columnist who is a former prosecutor sometimes points out
someone saying that they can "make the case" and that when knowing that the
case is not true. So the adversarial justice system sometimes gets confused
with the adversarial political system.)

Well...in the movie "Day of the Jackel"...they said "get a name...then we
have a passport...then we have a face...and after that it's just basic
police work..."

So they get you with your papers...and the politicians love systems that
make them look smart and capable.

So where did that rabbit get its shots ?

 

[William Hughes]

On May 6, 12:33 am, riverman &lt;myronb...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:

On May 5, 7:46 pm, William Hughes &lt;wpihug...@hotmail.com&gt; wrote:



It is not clear what the "aim point" is.

Good point. I had an intuitive understanding for what I meant, but
upon closer introspection, I see that it is not clearly stated.

What about "the intersection of the radius containing the rabbit and
the edge of the pool, regardless of the direction of the rabbit's
motion"?

A useful point, but the name "aim point" seems odd
as the point has no dependence on the direction of the rabbit's
motion. (It is certainly not the meaning that Tim Little
ascribes to "aim point")

Would aiming for that be synonymous to the strategy of the
agent moving to decrease the angular separation (between the rabbit
and the tangent line that defines the instantaneous direction of
motion of the agent?).

Yes.

Note:
Angular separation: Take a polar coordinate system centered at the
circle.
The angular separation is the angular difference between the
rabbit's
angular coordinate and the agent's angular coordinate.

What about just saying 'the agent moves to
minimize the distance between himself and the rabbit'?

Equivalent to minimizing the angular separation
(noting that the agent's motion is constrained to be outside or on the
boundary of the disk of radius r, otherwise, as Richard Heathfield
points
out, splash).

- William Hughes

 

On May 5, 12:25 pm, flipper &lt;flip...@fish.net&gt; wrote:

On Tue, 5 May 2009 02:53:49 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On May 5, 9:47 am, flipper &lt;flip...@fish.net&gt; wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:43:40 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

freedom_...@example.net&gt; wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 04:11:22 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

&lt;snipped antique journalism&gt;

The difference between current scientific opinion and the pre-1975
opinions that made it into the newpapers is a great deal of scientific
data,

There's certainly been a lot more data but some things haven't changed
one whit. And one of those constants is a perpetual predilection to
believe whatever the current 'disaster prediction' is.

I don't think that you can claim that journalists understand enough of
the stuff that they write up to actually "believe" it. They feel the
need for an end-of-the-world story and chase up a scientist to give
them a thoey around which they can construct such a story.

The difference between then an now, is that anthropogenic global
warming has been investigated in great detail, and there's loads of
scientfic evidence to show that it is really happening.

quite a lot of it collected from satellites in orbit.

Which show global temps flattened and then declined for the past
decade.

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

doesn't show anything of the sort. The recent fluctuations in global
temperature are obiously more of the same sort of short term
fluctuations that we've been seeing since there were enough
temperature record around the world to give us a global average
temperature.

Not to mention error correction shows 1998 was not the
"hottest year on record." That record is still held by the 1930's.

You are talking about the "hottest year on record in the United States
of America" and not for the world as a whole, which is what we happen
to be talking about.

Manu Loa was collecting CO2 data from 1959, but it took a few years
befor they had accumulated enough data to be able to be confident that
CO2 was rising steadily from year to year.

No, what happened is the 'anti-technology' 'anti-humanity' fanatics
changed their mind on which conjecture to promote.

The majority of people who are worried about anthropogneic global
warming are not anti-technology or anti-humanity - they want better
techology that will satisfy our needs for power without loading up the
atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The
lunatic fringe of the "green" move,ment may think otherwise, but who
cares what the lunatic fringe thinks.

It was aerosols and
light 'dimming' agents when things looked like cooling but when the
temperature trend reversed they needed something else,

The temperature trend didn't just reverse at random - we got it to
reverse by installing scrubbers in the smoke stacks of coal and oil
fired power station to remove the sulphur dioxide that was creating
the aerosols.

You want to claim that, oh, NOW you 'know' but they were JUST as
adamant back then that all their doom and gloom predictions were
:undeniable? and  "unavoidable," and that 3/4 of the planet would be
starving in 2000, if not earlier, Making it to 2000 was the 'rosy'
outlook.

The editor must have wanted a particularly powerful "gloom and doom"
article that day.
I've been reading the science pages for some fifty years now and
anthropogenic global warming is the first end-of-world story with any
staying power

Frankly, I have yet to see so much as a 'Climate Change Theory'
proposed. All that comes out are speculations.

You haven't been reading the right journals - as is obvious from the
uninformed content of your posts. There is a accepted body of theory
about climate change - enough to explain what has been going on for
the last few million years with some confidence, and enough to makes
sense of the little we do know about the more remote past from the
geological data.

The fact that we have an explanatory theory that fits the facts that
we know about doesn't mean that we can make detailed predictions about
the climate of the future - that requires some facts that we don't
know about yet, some of which are in the process of being collected.

Even so, any prediction - not matter how detailed - is always going to
be a speculation. Science is a process of generating and testing
falsifiable hypotheses, not collecting the truth on sets of clay
tables that have been signed by god.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[riverman]

On May 6, 12:40 pm, Richard Heathfield &lt;r...@see.sig.invalid&gt; wrote:

riverman said:

snip

What about just
saying 'the agent moves to minimize the distance between himself
and the rabbit'?

Splash!

LOL. Within, of course, the constraints of the stated problem.
"...a rabbit in the middle of a pond, an agent who can run
around the shore four times as fast as the rabbit can swim."

Let's not let all this precision affect our accuracy, shall we?


--riverman

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Wed, 6 May 2009 01:18:53 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article &lt;fhh005p2iq4itdvh7cgj168nisvr8gr21a@4ax.com&gt;, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009 14:32:56 -0700 (PDT), z &lt;gzuckier@snail-mail.net
wrote:

On May 4, 1:29 pm, Raveninghorde &lt;raveninghorde@invalid&gt; wrote:

The antartic ice  is above long term trend:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

and the arctic ice is below long term trend
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

And put the two together and global ice is above long term trend.

No, sum of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is below long term trend:

Arctic has "long term trend" (probably since 1979) of losing 500,000
square kilometers per decade, and antarctic has same "long term trend" of
gaining 100,000 square kilometers per decade.

That means the world has "same long term trend" of losing 400,000 square
kilometers per decade.

Toal sea ice +275,000 sq.km

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png

Arctic sea ice -461,000 sq.km

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.arctic.png

Antarctic sea ice +806,00 sq.km

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.antarctic.png

So the arguement is over reference points and time scales.

SNIP a stretch otherwise getting 2 quotation symbols pwer line

Current UAH anomaly for April is 0.09C. No sign of AGW.

When is the warming due to start?

That is .09 degree warmer than some post-1979 baseline, according to the
least-warming-showing of the "Big 5" indices of global temperature trends,
in a dip that may turn out to be merely 1 month long.

I suspect you got this from:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

and I post the link because I see it confirming more than refuting the
.128 degree/decade (K/C, not F) "probably slope of best-fit-straight-line"
(my words) reported in:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

I do see fair chance that .128 degree/decade is a bit overweighted by
minimizing "RMS deviation" from a straight line giving overweighting to
the 1998 El Nino and the 1884 La Nina. As an alternative, I give fair
chance that minimizing "average deviation from straight line" reduces the
slope to about .11 degree K/C per decade - which may tell the 1979 to
March 2009 history more accurately.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[riverman]

On May 5, 7:46 pm, William Hughes &lt;wpihug...@hotmail.com&gt; wrote:

If the agent chooses a simpler strategy, run in the direction that
decreases
the angular separation  (if the angular separation is 0, do not move;
if the angular separation is 180 degrees, run clockwise)
then the rabbit cannot cause the agent to reverse
direction if the rabbit is more than 1/4 of the radius from the
center.
Indeed this second strategy is easily seen to be optimal for the
agent.

             

What do you mean by 'optimal for the agent', since it leads to the
rabbit escaping with the least travelled distance. I'd say its optimal
for the rabbit. Strange if it turned out to be optimal for both!

I can see that this strategy will work with any size pool, as the
distances and velocities are all relative. But what if the pool is
reduced to a POINT (as in a limit?) Who wins then?

--riverman

 

On May 6, 7:35 am, flipper &lt;flip...@fish.net&gt; wrote:

On Wed, 6 May 2009 03:17:34 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don

Klipstein) wrote:
In article &lt;ris105t0gm8fvqm6l1m47bcu7n87ig7...@4ax.com&gt;, flipper wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 12:03:02 -0700 (PDT), z &lt;gzuck...@snail-mail.net
wrote:

On May 5, 3:47 am, flipper &lt;flip...@fish.net&gt; wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:43:40 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

freedom_...@example.net&gt; wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 04:11:22 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

&lt;snipped antique journalism&gt;

 One person who changed mind from 1974 to 1981, and I sense correction

You can 'sense' all you like but that wasn't the point. The point was
people who knee jerk ridicule and denigrate anyone they disagree with.

I certainly don't knee-jerk ridicule everybody I disagree with, but
the denialists propaganda is so ridiculously inept that it would be
irresponsible not to ridicule it.

And just so we're clear, my original point in showing the multiple,
reversed, predictions wasn't to denigrate them as 'tools of the oil
industry' or some such 'evil' conspiracy but to show they have a
common characteristic. Namely the folly of blind 'linear tend'
predictions.

Really? At least one of the more interesting ones was based on the
risk of a chaotic bifurcation, which can only happen in a non-linear
system. We may still be in a position to turn the off the Gulf
Streaam.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[marcodbeast]

flipper wrote:

On Tue, 5 May 2009 11:26:39 -0500, "marcodbeast" &lt;its@casual.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 23:50:39 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com&gt; wrote:



flipper wrote:

"marcodbeast" &lt;its@casual.com&gt; wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

Success!

See...

http://analog-innovations.com/SED/TROLLFEEDER.jpg

Had to resort to NewsProxy until Agent gets a "References:"
filter.

Will now just add, to Agent...

999 Delete: Subject:TROLLFEEDER

Then I won't even see the "TROLLFEEDER" tag.

Someone tell NymNuts, it _is_ universal, presently covering
NymNuts, Eeyore and Slowman follow-ups.

So, as far as I'm concerned, these "folks" don't exist anymore
;-)

...Jim Thompson

JimBob Brainlees Fart's head finally exploded.

It has been quite enjoyable watching him sink deeper and
deeper into his stupidity based seclusion desires.

Have fun being a net recluse. That has to be one of the most
retarded acts ever performed.

I have to agree with you.

The USA claims to be so in favour of 'free speech' yet it's the
Americans here who don't want to hear views that are contrary to
their own.

That's how they retain their cockeyed worldview. The right wing
lie aquariums (Fox, CNS, Newsmax, WND, etc.) their keepers built
for them have one universal feature - they're designed from the
bottom up to make them think that any other info sources, where
they might hear actual facts, are out to get them. There is
literally no right wing k00khaus that doesn't expend quite a bit
of effort demonizing what they call the Mainstream Media, can't
have the dupes finding out they are in a fantasy world. =)

Congratulations on the near perfect emulation of a dog barking at
his own reflection.

DOPE !

A "dope" is someone who makes rash assumptions and then fantasizes
them into an alternate reality, like you just did.

"At any rate, during the 'Social Security Privatization' debate a
gaggle of Congressional Democrats came trotting down the steps to a
press microphone and announced they had 'discovered' the 'hidden
secret' to the President's plan. You see, when you take your up to 3%
out of the SS trust fund and invest it in your 'private' account then
you get the interest from the private account but... but... but...
here's the 'secret' the President won't tell you... you do NOT get
interest from the SS trust fund you took the money out of!!!

My jaw dropped. No kidding? You don't get interest from an account
you don't have the money in? That's the 'secret'? Naw, I couldn't
have heard that right. But, fortunately, each and every one of them
got their turn at the mic telling the same story.

Now, I have to either think each and every one of them are
certifiable idiots, eeehhh could beeee, or that they knew darn
good and well they were babbling nonsense but babbled it anyway
because, hey, if it works...."

You write that liefest, did you? lol


mirror bark bark bark bark

Coward.

 

[Bob Larter]

riverman wrote:

On May 5, 7:46 pm, William Hughes &lt;wpihug...@hotmail.com&gt; wrote:

If the agent chooses a simpler strategy, run in the direction that
decreases
the angular separation (if the angular separation is 0, do not move;
if the angular separation is 180 degrees, run clockwise)
then the rabbit cannot cause the agent to reverse
direction if the rabbit is more than 1/4 of the radius from the
center.
Indeed this second strategy is easily seen to be optimal for the
agent.



What do you mean by 'optimal for the agent', since it leads to the
rabbit escaping with the least travelled distance. I'd say its optimal
for the rabbit. Strange if it turned out to be optimal for both!

I can see that this strategy will work with any size pool, as the
distances and velocities are all relative. But what if the pool is
reduced to a POINT (as in a limit?) Who wins then?

--riverman

It seems obvious to me that the rabbit will end up describing a spiral
path, as it will constantly be trying to stay 180 degrees away from the
agent.
The agent will move so as to to stay at the same angle as the rabbit,
&amp; the rabbit will be trying to stay 180 degrees away from the agent. A
spiral is the obvious result, ending up with the rabbit hitting the
shore a whisker away from the agent. (Alternatively, the rabbit could
desribe a zig-zag path, but the end-result would be the same.)


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------