Driver to drive?

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 12, 4:32 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:52:25 +0200, Paul Keinanen <keina...@sci.fi
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

You really will have to stop getting your "facts" from Exxon-Mobil
funded web-sites.

Once some of these web sites publish something that you agree with.

How do you react ?

Sloman's perceptions and reasoning are overwhelmed by his emotions;
that's obvious from his posts.

An entertaining observation.

That's one reason he can't design good electronics.

John Larkin indulging in wish-fulfilment again.

Most people trained (I won't say "educated") to be scientists are
rotten electronics designers.

Too true. I've got a couple of comments published in the Review of
Scientific Instruments that say pretty much exactly that.

That's because electronics design is
sufficiently complex to transcend simple reasoning, but the scientist
types can't get past rules-based thinking and are too impressed by
precedent.

Actually, most bad electronic design by physicists reflects an
imperfect assimilation of the rules, and unfamiliarity with relevant
precedents (aka the state of the art), but John wants to construct an
argument, and isn't going to let mere facts stand in his way.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=RSINAK000075000003000788000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

There's a direct analogy to modeling climate systems: some
people think simple computer models fed bad data can predict the
behavior of chaotic systems, some know better.

Others of course recognise that while weather is chaotic, climate is
rather more predictable, and construct climate models that aren't
susceptible to the butterlfy effect.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm

As usual, John's analogy fails because it attempts to cover areas that
he know little about - so little that he doesn't appreciate the extent
of his ignorance.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 12, 9:52 am, Paul Keinanen <keina...@sci.fi> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
You really will have to stop getting your "facts" from Exxon-Mobil
funded web-sites.

Once some of these web sites publish something that you agree with.

How do you react ?

Amazed.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 8:29 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:07:37 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown

But it is exactly the same sort of manufactured controversy as that about
the risks of smoking or not wearing a seat belt when driving.

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and statistical
analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable doubt. The case for
AGW is far weaker.

Not so. The "Smoking causes cancer" thing was proclaimed by the edict of a
group of 12 anonymous antismokers. Like with climategate, all of the
evidance that was contrary to Henry Waxman's antismokerist agenda was
suppressed.

Actually, Richard Doll is generally credited with producing the first
solid evidence of the connection, back in 1950

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

Henry Waxman was eleven at the time.

I know this, because I was a paralegal assistant during the big money grab
of the 1990's (my job title was "document coder"), and I saw thousands of
documents related to both the P. Lorillard and Philip Morris trials.

Clearly they brain-washed you before letting you in the door. Not that
there seems to have been a lot of brain to wash.

Waxman is the Harry Anslinger of the antismokerist era.

Harry Anslinger execised his influence rather earlier in the opinion-
forming process than Henry Waxman could have (unless he was a
particularly precocious eleven-year-old with strong links to the
British Medical Research Council).

I hear that now he's a major player in AGWism.

He does seem to be one of the authors of the Waxman-Markey Bill,
which would make him a "major player" in AGW in the same way that Al
Gore got to be the "inventor" of the Internet - at least for the under-
informed.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 12, 1:26 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:24:58 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
ae5ab312-8b61-4d33-8501-ff9cc4a36...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:





On Dec 11, 5:42 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:21:56 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
EkuUm.28005$gd1.18...@newsfe05.iad>:

It is a pity that your political blinkers prevent you from seeing that
evidence.

There is no evidence.
And even if the A in GW was significant, in the sense more then the 2 sig> >ma Sloman claims,
the solution is to have nuke power plants.
More power plants, CO2 production will not go down in this industrialised> > world.
An on top of that GW is not bad, I want more of it here, now,
palm trees, sunny beaches, property value increases, let's have it, kill > >the AGW weenies.
Kill the energy taxes,
And our friends the plants and trees like CO2 too
Give it to them!

Jan really does want his home to be submerged under the rising oceans.
Mine is some 30 metres above NAP - effectively, sea-level - so I'll
get the sunny beaches, plam trees and rising property values,

Then WTF are you complaining about all the time ?

The prospect of being flooded with stateless refugees, driven back to
the nearest high ground as the sea-level rises.

In particular, I don't look forward to having you camped on my
doorstep, telling me that I should have made it clearer to you that
anthropogenic global warming was real and that we should have done
something about it back when we had a chance of beating it, or a least
keeping it within bounds.

Going by the 1995 evacuations - when the Rhine got threateningly high
- every Dutch person in the affected areas will expect to be
accomodated by friends or acquaintances living on higher ground.

There won't be much of the Netherlands left on higher ground, so the
refugees will be forced to exploit rather remote acquaintances ...

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 10:31 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800, John Larkin





jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:10:32 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 11, 10:07 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown

|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all know
what
happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE...

[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago

LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement
defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of
hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. ....

Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.

--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Unfortunately in the public mind there is still controversy about
whether or not AGW is happening. The science is now pretty well settled.
We are changing the atmosphere by measurable amounts and in the long
term it will have consequences - mostly for low lying populous areas
like London, Tokyo, New York, and New Orleans (not worth rebuilding)..
And in some cases whole countries like Bangladesh on a river delta.

But it is exactly the same sort of manufactured controversy as that
about the risks of smoking or not wearing a seat belt when driving.

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and
statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable
doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.

John

The problem with AGW is that, whatever it amounts to, it's buried in
the noise of ordinary variation.

There's little doubt we've been warming since the last big glaciation,
~12-18k years ago.  If man's adding to that, it's subtle.  And,
because the changes are noisy and small, the interpretation is
subjective.  The alleged AGW component is <0.5% of total insolation.
Meanwhile, we can't accurately model 20% factors.

Scientific consensus?  How?  There's been no peer review w.r.t. the
CRU, the treemometers...  Those agreeing have never seen the data, nor
the adjustments.  I doubt anyone's double-checked the models' source
code either.  So, when others concur, what exactly are they adding?
Zip.[1]

Here's something man *has* been adding to:
(graph of historical adjustments to the raw temperature data, from
NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_d....

Good grief, the adjustments *are* the AGW warming curve.

John

I am surprised you're surprised.

For one example of a trick see:

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

This is an entertaining exercise in examining raw data. The author
obviously didn't ask anybody why the Darwin temperature records might
have needed to be adjusted, or why they seemed to be a bit odd in
1941.

Most Australians would have been able to explain why records don't
look too good in 1941.

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/darwinbombing/

Had the author gone as far as running a Google search on "Darwin 1941"
he would have found this item right at the
top of the list.

Japanese bombs do happen to be a slightly more credible explanation
than the one the author seems to fancy, but they don't happen to
generate anything like the same number of conspiracy theory brownie
points, so he didn't bother to search hard enough to find this
tolerably salient explanation.

It does seem possible that this less-than-intrepid investigator missed
a few other - more mundane - events. Darwin has got a lot bigger over
the years, and the houses have acquired air-conditioners, so the
phrase "urban heat island" might have showed up in a report by someone
who was less deeply into conspiracy fantasies.

<snipped the south american stuff - some Bolivian with relevant local
knowledge might be equally unimpressed with it>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Dave wrote:

On Dec 11, 12:24 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Science used to rely on experiment.

And honesty.

and Integrity ...... :--\

And clear thought.


--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[APR]

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

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

This is an entertaining exercise in examining raw data.

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

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

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

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:37:46 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 11, 10:31 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800, John Larkin


For one example of a trick see:

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

This is an entertaining exercise in examining raw data. The author
obviously didn't ask anybody why the Darwin temperature records might
have needed to be adjusted, or why they seemed to be a bit odd in
1941.

Most Australians would have been able to explain why records don't
look too good in 1941.

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/darwinbombing/

Had the author gone as far as running a Google search on "Darwin 1941"
he would have found this item right at the
top of the list.

Japanese bombs do happen to be a slightly more credible explanation
than the one the author seems to fancy, but they don't happen to
generate anything like the same number of conspiracy theory brownie
points, so he didn't bother to search hard enough to find this
tolerably salient explanation.

Bill, you got me there and it shows my ignorance of the science.
Please explain the temporal mechanics.

Japanese bombs in 1942 following Pearl Harbor in December 1941 means a
temperature correction is needed before the boming happened. And this
bombing caused: "The temperature dropped over a six year period, from
a high in 1936 to a low in 1941. The station did move in 1941 … but
what happened in the previous six years?"

Note the temperature measurment site moved in 1941, before the
bombing, from the bombed Post Office to the airport.

SNIP

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:11:28 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<5b81e4d2-9dad-4c5e-bee5-d4c99b99b5fb@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:

An on top of that GW is not bad, I want more of it here, now,
palm trees, sunny beaches, property value increases, let's have it, ki=
ll =
the AGW weenies.
Kill the energy taxes,
And our friends the plants and trees like CO2 too
Give it to them!

Jan really does want his home to be submerged under the rising oceans.
Mine is some 30 metres above NAP - effectively, sea-level - so I'll
get the sunny beaches, plam trees and rising property values,

Then WTF are you complaining about all the time ?


The prospect of being flooded with stateless refugees, driven back to
the nearest high ground as the sea-level rises.

In particular, I don't look forward to having you camped on my
doorstep, telling me that I should have made it clearer to you that
anthropogenic global warming was real and that we should have done
something about it back when we had a chance of beating it, or a least
keeping it within bounds.

You are soooo unscientific, by the time the water is high enough to come over the dikes here, if ever, I will be long gone.
Did you know humans have a limited lifespan>?
Not any oil pipes connected to your heart will give you that much extra time to see the sea from your doorstep.
It once again shows your unscientific scare mongering, stimulated in you by the climate weenies media.

Going by the 1995 evacuations - when the Rhine got threateningly high
- every Dutch person in the affected areas will expect to be
accomodated by friends or acquaintances living on higher ground.

I do not live anywhere near that river.

There won't be much of the Netherlands left on higher ground, so the
refugees will be forced to exploit rather remote acquaintances ...

IIRC in a previous post you claimed The Netherlands would stay the way it is.
You are still twisting and turning it seems.

Global Warming, I love it!

Actually, when it gets warmer, people need less heating, and so will produce less CO2.
It is all self stabilising.

 

[John Larkin]

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

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

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

This is an entertaining exercise in examining raw data.

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

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

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

At last, some real climate science!

John

 

On Dec 12, 5:29 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

Just watching an article about a green energy scheme being presented
at Copenhagen.

Simply put a car going over a speed bump in the road will cause the
speed bump to move and generate electricity.

Have any of these guys heard of conservation of energy? Why do they
think this is a green scheme?

Greenies can't do sums. Or national budgets.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Dec 14, 5:50 am, "Cwatters"
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote in message

news:016a138d$0$23679$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION...

I wonder how Slowman will blather his way out of this ? And how will the
IPCC deny it's been 'fiddling the figures' and 'cherry picking' its
sources ?

Graham

I particularly liked their graph that uses tree ring data to prove
temperatures have really been falling for 50 years. Hard to believe someone
has been deliberately been messing with the calibration of all the
thermometers in the world. Perhaps they hired father Christmas to do it?

Which to believe?

a) That tree ring data is an accurate proxy for temperature
or
b) modern thermometers are accurate.

Thats a tough question for a Daily Mail reader.

Or go the CRU-crew's way and pick whichever sections of each (im)prove
your point.

I've got a quarter that always comes up heads, just as long as you
ignore the tails 'anomalies.'

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:17:12 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:11:28 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman

There won't be much of the Netherlands left on higher ground, so the
refugees will be forced to exploit rather remote acquaintances ...

IIRC in a previous post you claimed The Netherlands would stay the way it is.
You are still twisting and turning it seems.

Global Warming, I love it!

Actually, when it gets warmer, people need less heating, and so will produce less CO2.
It is all self stabilising.

Isn't Holland already below sea level?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:28:17 -0800) it happened Rich Grise
<richgrise@example.net> wrote in <pan.2009.12.14.20.28.16.179678@example.net>:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:17:12 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:11:28 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman

There won't be much of the Netherlands left on higher ground, so the
refugees will be forced to exploit rather remote acquaintances ...

IIRC in a previous post you claimed The Netherlands would stay the way it is.
You are still twisting and turning it seems.

Global Warming, I love it!

Actually, when it gets warmer, people need less heating, and so will produce less CO2.
It is all self stabilising.

Isn't Holland already below sea level?

Thanks,
Rich

Parts of it, yes, Amsterdam for example.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:38:06 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

This would be the insult part of your bluster-and-insult contribution.
Your contributions about the scientific status of anthropogenic global
warming is - of course - the bluster, since you seem to collect it all
from denialist web-sites, rather than coming up with original
nonsense.

Sheesh. This is an engineering group. Engineers can't afford to be
sloppy like climate scientists. They can't afford the sort of politics
seen with the CRU/realclimate team.

You don't seem to have worked on any decent-sized projects.

S1B booster for the moon rocket

C5A

New York subway system

Marine automation, commercial and military

Pipeline and power generation SCADA

Utility end-use load studies (over 100,000 channels in the field)

Cogeneration

Submetering

Laser controllers that expose some good fraction of the ICs made on
Earth

CEBAF/Jefferson Labs

Locomotive testing

NIF timing system and beam modulators

P&W Geared Turbofan

Sikorsky

JSF

Commercial aircraft power systems

B52 radar upgrades

U2 Dragon Lady. Got cool posters and patches.

C130 HUD

CERN, Max-Planck, BESSY, Sandia, Fermilab, SLAC, LLNL, Los Alamos,
NASA, Skunk Works, NIST, TRIUMF, Sincrotrone Trieste, Thales, BAE,
R-R, many others

NMR, several thousand systems so far

MRI

Tomographic Atom Probes, my only patent

ICCD cameras

Mine detection ground-penetrating radar. Well, we tried, as have lots
of others. Dogs work better.

Several projects that people won't tell me what's for. Who needs an 8
million line rotary encoder anyhow?

Lots of other stuff I can't remember at the moment.

Lots of new stuff.



How about you?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:57:55 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 12, 3:21 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:04 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:03:12 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:18:44 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:34 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:24:41 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:04 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100, Sylvia Else

syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all know what
happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE...
[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago

LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement
defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of
hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. ....

Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.

--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm
----

Cheers!
Rich

Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Sylvia.

Science used to rely on experiment.

Newton's astronomical experiments are famous, as are Darwin's
evolutionary experiments.

John Larkins opinions about science are at best superficial, and often
quite wrong - as here.

This is s.e.d., moron.

Does that make your foolish claim any less wrong? There are
experimental sciences and observational sciences, and both can produce
useful information.

But I spent the afternoon in the advanced misroscopy lab at UCSF
Mission Bay Campus, where I learned some interesting stuff about spin
transfer NMR. Had a few ideas, too, that weren't received with scorn.

Never upset the technician who builds your equipment.

They have a Bruker 800 MHz magnet with cryo probe that's about 14 feet
high. A big flat-grey ugly beast. When you pay a couple of megabucks
for something like this, one might expect a snazzier paint job.

This sort of equipment is sold on the basis of its specification
sheet. A snazzy paint job won't bring in any more customers.

Tell us about some interesting science that you're involved in.

There's nothing that you would understand.

In other words, nothing.

What you don't understand doesn't exist? Odd, since you "understand"
quite a lot of stuff that exists only in your fertile imagination.

If you;re doing science, tell us about it. Electronics ditto. This is
an electronics discussion group, not a bluster-and-insult venue.

I think you are 98% hot air and 2% old stories. By choice.

This would be the insult part of your bluster-and-insult contribution.
Your contributions about the scientific status of anthropogenic global
warming is - of course - the bluster, since you seem to collect it all
from denialist web-sites, rather than coming up with original
nonsense.

Excuse me, but this is an electronics design newsgroup. You don't dare
discuss electronics because it would be obvious that you don't know
much about it.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss those aspects of electronics where I do
have something to contribute. For instance, I wanted to use latching
reed relays back in 1979 in an application whrer the thermocouple
potentials between the iron-based reed material and the copper on the
PCB was embarrassing. It made the boss nervous, so we didn't do it,
and I never even got a latching relay to play with. This means that I
haven't got anything useful to tell you, and I know it, which isn't
quite the same as not knowing much about it.

Reeds are nasty little creatures. They have horrible thermals,
although you can take advantage of the pullin-dropout differential and
reduce the coil current steady-state. Worse is the horrible twang
signal they make for many milliseconds after pullin... it looks like a
bell being rung. And they are nowhere as reliable as usually claimed.

The little DPDT Omron and NEC telecom type relays, available as plain
or latched, are superb for low-level switching. SSRs are nice for
signal switching, too, but it's hard to beat a relay for specs.

I never let any boss tell me how to design stuff. I rarely allowed
them to tell me what to design.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:11:28 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 12, 1:26 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:24:58 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
ae5ab312-8b61-4d33-8501-ff9cc4a36...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:





On Dec 11, 5:42 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:21:56 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
EkuUm.28005$gd1.18...@newsfe05.iad>:

It is a pity that your political blinkers prevent you from seeing that
evidence.

There is no evidence.
And even if the A in GW was significant, in the sense more then the 2 sig=
ma Sloman claims,
the solution is to have nuke power plants.
More power plants, CO2 production will not go down in this industrialised=
world.
An on top of that GW is not bad, I want more of it here, now,
palm trees, sunny beaches, property value increases, let's have it, kill =
the AGW weenies.
Kill the energy taxes,
And our friends the plants and trees like CO2 too
Give it to them!

Jan really does want his home to be submerged under the rising oceans.
Mine is some 30 metres above NAP - effectively, sea-level - so I'll
get the sunny beaches, plam trees and rising property values,

Then WTF are you complaining about all the time ?


The prospect of being flooded with stateless refugees, driven back to
the nearest high ground as the sea-level rises.

Not in your lifetime. A more immediate danger is hungry refugees,
impoverished by the trillions we may spend on useless AGW mitigation,
funds diverted from serious economic development. The Europeans are
planning that already.

In particular, I don't look forward to having you camped on my
doorstep, telling me that I should have made it clearer to you that
anthropogenic global warming was real and that we should have done
something about it back when we had a chance of beating it, or a least
keeping it within bounds.

Going by the 1995 evacuations - when the Rhine got threateningly high
- every Dutch person in the affected areas will expect to be
accomodated by friends or acquaintances living on higher ground.

There won't be much of the Netherlands left on higher ground, so the
refugees will be forced to exploit rather remote acquaintances ...

How hard is it to build up the dikes by, say, 2 mm a year? Hell, you
could build up the entire country by 2 mm a year.

John

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <44a7331b-2c68-4ec1-aa40-51e99e59e3ee@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote in part:

While immoderate planetary warming produces global extinctions, and
the last dramatic excursion - the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum -
while falling short of being an extinction event, produced enough
population crashes to be noted as a period of rapid speciation, as the
survivors diversified into the new and different ecological niches
that opened up as the temperature went up, and closed down again when
it dropped back again some 20,000 years later.

It might have been a good thing for species diversity, but if it
happened now it would thin us out to hunter-gather densities, and
destroy. our current civilisation. The temperature spike involved was
about 6 deg. C - at the top end of the IPCC projections for the end of
this century.

It strongly appeared to me in the past couple years that models fitting
what has happened so far and IPCC projections fail to take into account
that (by my estimate) almost half the warming from the early 1970's to
2005 was due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. It appears to me
likely that another few percent of reported warming was from insufficient
filtering for growth of urban contamination of weather stations. And
roughly a third of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect so far was from
GHGs other than CO2 and whose concentration in the atmosphere stabilized
in the past decade or so.

I would expect warming this century to be close to the bottom end of
IPCC projections. I was saying something like 1.75 deg. C a few months
ago, before I learned how much of anthropogenic GHG increase we recently
stopped. Now I think something like 1.5 deg. C. And the next 20 years,
with AMO on the downswing and much less importantly solar output
decreasing, will probably have global temperature close to steady, maybe
extremely slightly decreasing.

After this century is another question - will the rise continue enough
due to lags and positive feedbacks to melt Greenland's icecap, as
solaractivity and the Milankovitch cycles are on a downswing?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <j4a5i5d17un4d23jamt8ab46a9fjaid9mj@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:10:32 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/
ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Good grief, the adjustments *are* the AGW warming curve.

Is this for USA 48 or for the world?

Meanwhile, the adjustment was at an upward rate in the 1979-1999
stretch of around .125 degree F per decade, at a time when global
temperature rise was reported to be at a rate around .19 degree C per
decade, make that .16 if the 1998 El Nino was merely a normal one.

In case this is for the USA 48, the UAH determination is decadal trend
for USA 48 of .24 degree C per decade for the 30 year 1979-through-2008
stretch even with warming being roughly stalled for the time being since
2001.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <kre5i5dnceua061e3fvmktdaoonsbffo50@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote
in part:

Or just posted on wattsupwiththat:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/
giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/#more-14001

I did check that out, and saw complaints related to what temperature
records were available in 2007 and what are available now.

My guess is that some Obama administration bumbler or like-minded IT
honcho is trying to help his political party or his side of AGW debate.
This is making GISS look "less scientific" in the eyes of those who were
not merely new to such data, AGW debates and the Internet as of after June
2007.

Although I don't consider wattsupwiththat.com to not be balanced, I
would like GISS or my congresscritter (other party) or the one with
district office 125 meters west of my day job (Obama party) to give me an
explanation for removal of data while Internet, server and data storage
costs are still on a decline.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)