Driver to drive?

[Bob Larter]

William Hughes wrote:

On May 5, 9:16 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
legg wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2009 17:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Mark-T
MarkTanne...@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?
At least it makes more 'sense' than the duck and the fox.
There's no reason for the duck to leave the pond.
The only problem I see with the elaborate solution is the assumption
that the obviously ill 'killer' rabbit will react in any way to the
presence of suits around the pond's periphery. After all, a rabbit
with any sense wouldn't be in the middle of a pond in the first place.
RL
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.
Unless of course the agent is armed with a holy hand grenade. ;^)

And can count to three.

NOT FOUR!

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

 

[Bob Larter]

M Rath wrote:

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...

Well, that sure sucks!

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

 

[Bob Larter]

ggherold@gmail.com wrote:

On May 5, 4:34 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:09:06 -0700 (PDT), ggher...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 4, 8:01 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
How's this?
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/PAD5.JPG
This diode is roughly +-20 fA at +-0.1 volts!
John
Looks sweet! 10's of fA to 1 uA. What diode is that?
George Herold
It's a Vishay PAD5, in SOT-23. I think it's actually a jfet spec'd to
be used as a diode. It's not very good at higher currents... 1.5 volts
drop at 10 mA.

Someone. Win or Phil H, noted that transistors are better diodes than
diodes. Looks like fets are also better diodes than diodes.

JOhn

Thanks John, An npn transitor used as a diode is 'ideal' down to the
1nA or perhaps 100 pA range. Lower currents than that and it becomes
'non-ideal' See Sze "Physics of Semi-devices" Chapeter 3.

Maybe now that John's built his fA meter, he can test a few transistors
& FETs out for us. ;^)


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

 

[Bob Larter]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 05 May 2009 23:22:38 GMT, the renowned Charlie E.
edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

On Tue, 05 May 2009 16:05:01 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Tue, 05 May 2009 19:05:43 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Mon, 04 May 2009 21:06:26 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:
elucify@gmail.com> wrote in

'swhy I like I2C so much -- wiring up discrete chip select logic (not
to mention bus lines) is a PITA.
Yes, i2c is cool, I was one of the early adaptors...
I once drove myself nuts trying to find an I2C "standard" - the best I can
figure is, you make up your own!

Cheers!
Rich
You're probably thinking of SPI. I2C is well defined.
Well, I spent two months trying to talk to a I2C color sensor, before
finally giving up on it! Found one major bug in the PIC I2C
libraries, and the sensor kept giving nonsense data back...

Charlie

Hey, I didn't say everyone implements the standard* perfectly.

The PIC series has a long-standing hardware bug in slave mode.

Oh great. I had been thinking that PICs would make good I2C slave chips.
What sort of problems are there?


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

 

[Bob Larter]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

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.

Exactly.

If you're like me, & grew up with red LEDs that were reasonably visible
at 20mA, you'd have trouble picking them from modern LEDs at 500uA.

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

 

On May 5, 4:34 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:09:06 -0700 (PDT), ggher...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 4, 8:01 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
How's this?

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/PAD5.JPG

This diode is roughly +-20 fA at +-0.1 volts!

John

Looks sweet!  10's of fA to 1 uA.  What diode is that?

George Herold

It's a Vishay PAD5, in SOT-23. I think it's actually a jfet spec'd to
be used as a diode. It's not very good at higher currents... 1.5 volts
drop at 10 mA.

Someone. Win or Phil H, noted that transistors are better diodes than
diodes. Looks like fets are also better diodes than diodes.

JOhn

Thanks John, An npn transitor used as a diode is 'ideal' down to the
1nA or perhaps 100 pA range. Lower currents than that and it becomes
'non-ideal' See Sze "Physics of Semi-devices" Chapeter 3.

George Herold

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:47:49 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

ggherold@gmail.com wrote:
On May 5, 4:34 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:09:06 -0700 (PDT), ggher...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 4, 8:01 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
How's this?
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/PAD5.JPG
This diode is roughly +-20 fA at +-0.1 volts!
John
Looks sweet! 10's of fA to 1 uA. What diode is that?
George Herold
It's a Vishay PAD5, in SOT-23. I think it's actually a jfet spec'd to
be used as a diode. It's not very good at higher currents... 1.5 volts
drop at 10 mA.

Someone. Win or Phil H, noted that transistors are better diodes than
diodes. Looks like fets are also better diodes than diodes.

JOhn

Thanks John, An npn transitor used as a diode is 'ideal' down to the
1nA or perhaps 100 pA range. Lower currents than that and it becomes
'non-ideal' See Sze "Physics of Semi-devices" Chapeter 3.

Maybe now that John's built his fA meter, he can test a few transistors
& FETs out for us. ;^)

I did just test an NPN RF transistor as a diode, just for fun. At +-
0.1 volts, I'm seeing ballpark 20 fA currents, pretty much at my
resolution limits. At +-0.2 volts, it's well below 1 pA. I'm seeing a
beautiful log curve from about 1 pA up into the microamps at least.

I'd somewhere got the impression that RF transistors are leaky, but
apparently not. I guess small junctions are just less leaky than big
ones.

Anybody can do this!

John

 

[Nobody]

On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:50:18 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

The PIC series has a long-standing hardware bug in slave mode.

Oh great. I had been thinking that PICs would make good I2C slave chips.
What sort of problems are there?

http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80132f.pdf

 

[RHRRC]

I'm looking for ideas on how to make an LED flash so brightly at a low
duty cycle that it's reasonably bright--maybe even close to what it
would be if it were on DC.

I'm building a project where I need to flash white LEDs very brightly
30-50 times a second at about a 0.4% duty cycle.....



With a 0.4% duty cycle you will need to produce 250 times as much output
over that time to equal the same as it would appear on d.c. (unrealistic!!)

However if low output devices like the ones you are using are ok on dc
(giving 0.13Cd) try some high output devices (Lumileds, Cree, Seoul Semi)
with optics if necessary (the optics are readily available for many of these
devices.

Powering leds @ 1amp (or more) is quite straightforward and is
commonly/cheaply done in some Infra-Red remote controls.

Use a decent high gain at current device such as the ZTX689B (amongst plenty
of others)

put led as collector load to +ve, ~0.7ohm emitter to ground, small npn:-
emitter to gnd, base to ZTX emitter, collector to ZTX base . (gives curent
limiting @~1amp)

Resistor from ztx base to uP (the ztx will need only a few mA from your uP
to switch 1 amp)

The duty cycle is so low that unless your supply volts are too large the ztx
will stand the power dissipation. Any 6V 1amp supply ok- just ensure there
is a low impedance (*not* a standard electrolytic) decent sized electrolytic
across the supply.



hope this helps

 

[William Hughes]

On May 6, 4:12 am, riverman <myronb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 5, 7:46 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> 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',

Optimal in the sense that if there is any strategy that will
stop the rabbit from escaping this strategy will.

since it leads to the
rabbit escaping with the least travelled distance.

Not under any assumptions I can come up with
(If the rabbit uses a sure escape strategy, the
distance travelled will be identical as long as the
agent does not stand still).
What assumptions justify this claim?
What strategy would lead to the rabbit escaping with
a longer travelled distance?

I'd say its optimal for the rabbit.

No, the optimal strategy for the rabbit is
for the agent not to move. (If the agent does
not move the rabbit swims
along a radius, if the agent moves
the rabbit does not swim along a radius).

- William Hughes

 

[William Hughes]

On May 6, 1:41 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Nope, when the rabbit is close enough to a point on shore
that he can reach it before the agent, the rabbit will
take a straight line path. It no longer matters if it
is 180 degrees from the agent.

- William Hughes

 

[mich]

On 2 mayo, 20:15, Mark-T <MarkTanne...@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?

--
Mark

Beacause the sped of agents is four times the rabbits speed, then the
rabbit get away.

The rabbit escapes if speed of agents is <= Pi+1.

 

[z]

On May 5, 10:42 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:

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

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-tre...

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

Where did Kukla say "Global cooling is coming?" The Time piece says
"When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-
Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite
weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of
the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the
increase has persisted ever since." Ever since meaning 3 years.

It's clear that his paper which Time is referencing is describing a
year-to year persistence, not decade to decade. He concludes "The
links between the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land surfaces must
be better understood before the role of snow and ice can be thoroughly
explained and exploited for long-range weather forecasting. But it is
clear that snow, hitherto almost overlooked in synoptic meteorological
reports, must be important in the mechanism of weather changes." What
he's concluding is that snow coverage, and therefore albedo,
constitutes a noticeable positive feedback for climate change. And as
you point out, as he's investigated this for the last 30 years, he's
finding it points to long term warming probability, as the snow
coverage inevitably gets smaller despite short term (year to year)
fluctuations.

Another was Kenneth Hare.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SE....

So much for your knee jerk character assassinations.-

Please. I was worshipping Hare while you were still learning science
from the tobacco companies.

Kenneth Hare is quoted in the Time piece regarding the famine issue,
saying that "I don't believe that the world's present population is
sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
I.e., if the then current drought continues people will go hungry,
with no reference to cooling. In fact, what Hare said re cooling at
that time, quoted elsewhere, was: "The slow cooling trend in parts of
the northern hemisphere during the last few decades is similar to
others of natural origin in the past, and thus whether it will
continue or not is unknown".

Now, let's look at who Time magazine does cite as their expert who
sees looming cooling: Reid A. Bryson. "The University of Wisconsin's
Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other
particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel
burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and
heating the surface of the earth." That would be the same Reid Bryson
widely quoted as saying in 2007: "You can go outside and spit and have
the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

In fact, here's "Einstein" Inhofe's "U.S. Senate Dissenting Scientist
Report" of December 20, 2008:
"One of the "Fathers of Meteorology," Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding
chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin
(now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal
in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970s (See Time
Magazine's 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see
Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) has now
converted into a leading global warming skeptic."

There, that's logic for you. (Also, excellent English. More evidence
that if you can't put your thoughts into coherent words, you don't
have coherent thoughts). He's "converted" from "promoting the coming
ice age scare" to being "a global warming skeptic". Yeah, that's damn
near a 360 degree turnaround, eh? (note for climate "skeptics": that's
a joke. if you don't see why, stop posting stuff). And what a
brilliant argument they were trying for and missing; he was wrong 35
years ago, so we ought to listen to him now.

The other proponent of global cooling Time cites? Donald Oilman. And
what's he say? "Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the
National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the
cooling trend may be only temporary"

In fact, where does Time go from that? Next sentence: "But all agree
that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on
the earth's climate. "

And, based on this scientific consensus, Time concludes: "Whatever the
cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if
not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the
amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic
balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road
to another ice age within only a few hundred years." When the most
damning scientific opinion they can find is that "dust might be
blocking sunlight", and another guy who thinks it may be temporary.

 

[Dave]

On May 6, 2:35 pm, mich <micheletro...@graduate.org> wrote:

On 2 mayo, 20:15, Mark-T <MarkTanne...@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?

--
Mark

Beacause the sped of agents is four times the rabbits speed, then the
rabbit get away.

The rabbit escapes if speed of agents is <= Pi+1.

Actually, the rabbit can escape if the agent's speed is less than
4.6033388487517003525565820291030165130674..., which exceeds pi + 1.

Dave

 

[Dave]

On May 6, 12:41 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:

riverman wrote:
On May 5, 7:46 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> 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,
& 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.)

Please give the greatest agent speed for which the rabbit can escape
using this strategy.

Dave

 

On May 6, 3:32 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:47:49 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com
wrote:





ggher...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 5, 4:34 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:09:06 -0700 (PDT), ggher...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 4, 8:01 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
How's this?
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/PAD5.JPG
This diode is roughly +-20 fA at +-0.1 volts!
John
Looks sweet!  10's of fA to 1 uA.  What diode is that?
George Herold
It's a Vishay PAD5, in SOT-23. I think it's actually a jfet spec'd to
be used as a diode. It's not very good at higher currents... 1.5 volts
drop at 10 mA.

Someone. Win or Phil H, noted that transistors are better diodes than
diodes. Looks like fets are also better diodes than diodes.

JOhn

Thanks John,  An npn transitor used as a diode is 'ideal' down to the
1nA or perhaps 100 pA range.  Lower currents than that and it becomes
'non-ideal'  See Sze "Physics of Semi-devices" Chapeter 3.

Maybe now that John's built his fA meter, he can test a few transistors
& FETs out for us. ;^)

I did just test an NPN RF transistor as a diode, just for fun. At +-
0.1 volts, I'm seeing ballpark 20 fA currents, pretty much at my
resolution limits. At +-0.2 volts, it's well below 1 pA. I'm seeing a
beautiful log curve from about 1 pA up into the microamps at least.

I'd somewhere got the impression that RF transistors are leaky, but
apparently not. I guess small junctions are just less leaky than big
ones.

Anybody can do this!

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting! The only thing Sze says about the low current region is
the following. "To improve the current characteristics in the low-
current region, the trap densities in the depletion region and at the
semiconductor surface must be reduced." I guess people have gotten
good at this.

I most admit there is something intriguing about currents so small
that you can almost count each electron as it goes by. 20fA ~ 1e/10us

George

 

[James Arthur]

flipper wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:50:14 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 21:06:41 -0500, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:


I'll do you even better. Data shows the world has been in a warming
trend since it exited the LIA.

I suppose that's why it's no longer the LIA. You know, cold... ice
age.... warmer... not ice age.
Geez, quit getting technical. I hate it when people get technical.

John


Hehe. Yeah, I've been accused of that before

At the risk of even further technical confusion, AGW proponents often
claim a desire to "save the planet."

Well, if that's what they want then they're working in the wrong
direction because we are currently on the cold, cold, depleted CO2,
side of the planetary life range.

If you look over the past 500 million years, only 1 or 2C lower, and
150 or so ppm less CO2, is associated with large scale gaciation and
mass extinctions with 10C to 12C warmer, and 1600ppm more CO2, being
the periods of flourishing life and maximum bio diversity.

Or, to put it bluntly, we're only 1C to 2C of cooling, and a smidgen
less CO2, away from a planetary catastrophe exceeding even biblical
proportions but we're quite a ways down from being hot enough for the
historical 'life giving' bio diversity planet lovers so often speak
of.

This program suggests--and finds geologic evidence to support--
that a comet hit plunged the earth into a deep freeze, causing
the last great extinction.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/clovis/

"NARRATOR: Thirteen-thousand years ago, the Earth's climate was not
unlike ours today. But then, suddenly, it changed radically. It was
mysteriously thrown back into the Ice Age, and some of the greatest
animals that have ever lived vanished:[...]"

Maybe we should start a strategic CO2 reserve, just in case...

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 11 May 2009 02:57:51 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <quac05tgmikapg8c8bvh9m658bk479tbom@4ax.com>, flipper wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 22:44:18 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <c0jvv49hplqsci0o3dm8hci8qq15s9tarq@4ax.com>, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009 14:32:56 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net
wrote:

On May 4, 1:29 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> 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

No, you mean it's below the cherry picked cyclical peak.

This is one reason why I wouldn't trust a 'climate change' advocate to
tell me if it were raining outside. They always cherry pick some
cyclical peak to compare against. If it's temperature they pick the
end of the little ice age and then, oh my, oh my, it's gotten warmer.

The past decade was warmer than even Loehle's reconstruction of the
medieval warm period.

That's not true and you're playing the same game of cherry picking
your data. In this case you're altering Loehle's reconstruction with
alternate proxies because you don't like the results his proxies
produced.

PLease try on your own to splice smoothed global HadCRUT-3 onto Loehle's
"Corrected Global Temperature Reconstruction" at any year both existed.

When I want to know what 'his' graph is I look at 'his' graph.

Quick, without looking, which are the 'gold standard'? Mann PC1
bristlecones or Ababneh bristlecones or Indigirka tree rings?

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002711.html

I think it's good enough to splice smoothed global HadCRUT-3 onto
Loehle's "Corrected Global Temperature Reconstruction" at 1890, 1900,
1920, or the (IIRC) 1925 termination pouint of Loehle's "Corrected Global
Temperature Reconstruction".

His corrected graph covers the same time frame as the original and you
'adjusting' it is not 'his' graph.

Hey, no kidding? I guess that's why it's no longer an ice age, eh?

Here they pick a 1978 peak but sssshhhh... don't talk about anything
prior. Like that the current ice shrinkage is NOTHING NEW and
completely within cyclical bounds.

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/pdf/50yr_web.pdf

As of no later than the latest year mentioned in that article, which is
2000. Arctic sea ice accomplished much, maybe most of its post-1979
shrinkage after 2000.

"Maybe" isn't science." Show me an honest reconstruction over the last
200 years, for starters, and not some cherry picked 'down from a
peak'.

Can you cite good measurements of Arctic sea ice coverage going back to
before 1979?

Not my job.

Going as far back as when the good measurements first
started is not cherrypicking.

It is when you make claims based on an obviously limited dataset.

You can wag, wave, and dance as many jigs as you like but it's plain
old deceitful, pure and simple.

And while you're at it, let's see about that NASA report on how arctic
circulation has changed as well as the massive volcanic activity that
happens to coincide with the accelerated loss around 1998-2000.

Massive volcanic activity normally cools the globe.

Ain't talking about 'the globe'. We're talking about a
(euphemistically speaking) billion tons of ice on top of a billion
tons of red hot magna gushing under it.

Last time I saw mention of volcanic activity being blamed by
AGW-denialists for melting of Arctic sea ice, that was supposed by the
denialists to be the cause of the predicted-possible (did not occur)
2008 clearing of Arctic sea ice all the way from the "Northeast Passage"
(which rarely clears through) to the North Pole.

I don' know when you 'saw' whatever it is you don't explain but maybe
you should check on the volcanic 'surprise' they recently discovered.

My web search efforts (including "volcano") spawned by hearing that made
it known to me that the unusually great meltdown of 2008 (short of record)
was caused by a change of state of the Arctic Oscillation.

Which I mentioned up there where I said NASA.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[flipper]

On Sun, 10 May 2009 20:08:23 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 20:59:47 -0500, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:50:14 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 21:06:41 -0500, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:


I'll do you even better. Data shows the world has been in a warming
trend since it exited the LIA.

I suppose that's why it's no longer the LIA. You know, cold... ice
age.... warmer... not ice age.

Geez, quit getting technical. I hate it when people get technical.

John


Hehe. Yeah, I've been accused of that before

At the risk of even further technical confusion, AGW proponents often
claim a desire to "save the planet."

Well, if that's what they want then they're working in the wrong
direction because we are currently on the cold, cold, depleted CO2,
side of the planetary life range.

If you look over the past 500 million years, only 1 or 2C lower, and
150 or so ppm less CO2, is associated with large scale gaciation and
mass extinctions with 10C to 12C warmer, and 1600ppm more CO2, being
the periods of flourishing life and maximum bio diversity.

Or, to put it bluntly, we're only 1C to 2C of cooling, and a smidgen
less CO2, away from a planetary catastrophe exceeding even biblical
proportions but we're quite a ways down from being hot enough for the
historical 'life giving' bio diversity planet lovers so often speak
of.

I have noted here before that the planet is running out of CO2. In
another 50 million years or so, most plant life as we know it will be
unable to survive. We were put here to dig up all that sequestered
carbon and get it back into circulation.

John

Might have a point. Maybe that's Goddess Earth's reason for us being
here, eh?

 

[Eeyore]

Andrew wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote
Eeyore wrote:
In 30 years, the largest figure according to your choice of smoothing
etc and data source is about 0.2C.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/07/april-global-temperature-anomal...

Graham

-So what? You keep on getting excited about short term noise, as if it
-said anything about the long term trend generated by the build up in
-C02 in the atmosphere.

Whe whole AGW hypothesis is based on short term data.

Graham