Driver to drive?

[David Lesher]

"christofire" <christofire@btinternet.com> writes:

Although it doesn't answer any of your questions directly, you might be
interested to read http://www.yorkemc.co.uk/research/railways/report.pdf
which discusses the EMC, or EMI as you put it in (b), aspects of overhead
electrification in some European systems. It explains that in the 'booster
transformer' system, the periodic lineside transformers act as common-mode
chokes which force the return current to flow in an elevated ancillary
conductor rather than the traction rails and the earth, and this reduces the
cross-sectional area of the current loop that can cause interference. See
Fig. 21.

Thanks! Interesting read. From what I've seen elsewhere, the booster
transformer scheme is not in wide use; it's the autoformer one that is.

In a quick pass, I didn't see mention of the rail isolation. AFAIK,
railroad rails are NOT at ground. They are above ground via a "WeeZ
Bond" AF choke so that AC track signaling can work. A further reason for
separate return is the cathodic protection issue; the report mentions the
unique 4th rail London Underground approach.


--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 14, 1:37 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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.

A rather foolish generalisation. The climatologists who would seem to
be the original greenies do have to do sums, even if James Arthur
can't follow them. They do have nitwit followers, in the same way that
global warming sceptics - who can also do sums - have denialist
followers who don't.

The politicians who do control national budgets don't have the time to
do those kinds of sums, which is why they invented the IPCC, who have
access to people who can. James Arthur has silly ideas about the
competence of climatologists in general, which presumably includes the
IPCC, but since he doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference
between a climate model and a weather model (not that he's willing to
admit this) his opinions aren't to be taken seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Sylvia Else wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Dec 11, 12:46 am, 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?

Sort of. The mindless majority will keep on burning fossil carbon and
the the earth will count the CO2 molecules and warm up appropriately.
Your grand-children will be able to read the outcome from their
thermometers, if their civilisation still retains the capacity to
build thermometers.

The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

Sylvia.

The science isn't the issue. Its how it will be used.

I don't totally disagree with some of the hypothesis of AGW. But its the
mechanisms being put into place, and how they are being put there that
bother me.

If AGW is real, to what degree it is occurring, and how resources should be
allocated to solve the problems, should be decided by the market, to the
greatest extent possible. I like systems of 'cap and trade' being proposed.
But I'm bothered by the fact that some of the carbon credits being proposed
for trading based on forest conservation, for example, are going to have
value if those forests are in third world countries, but not here in the
USA. So what is being proposed is a financial transfer from wealthy
economies (like ours) to the third world. That's welfare, plain and simple.
While I'm not against welfare for the needy, I think we should just call a
spade a spade, hand them cash and be done with it.

In one rather perverse sense, paying third world countries to keep land out
of productive use actually falls right into line with what some of our
major corporations, like ADM would prefer. Paying them not to compete.

--
Paul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 14, 11:18 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:57:55 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@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.

Too true. Although they can be rlieable if propoerly used - Bell Labs
invented them for use in telephone exchanges, and they worked well in
that particular application for many years, until semiconductors
finally took over.

Mercury wetted reed relays are nicer - if you can live with the
restriction on orienatation.

They don't bounce, they last ten times as long as conventiaonal reeds,
and their contact resistance is lower and more stable. the one time I
got to use them was in the scan range switching in the Cambridge
Instruments EBMF 10.5 electron beam microfabricator. The machine I
worked on went off to Fairchild and made the masks for their !00K and
300k ECL parts, which I very happily used a few years later.

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.

I spent about six months in that job - four of us resigned on the same
day, which provoked the chairman of the board to come down and have a
talk with all four of us. The firm was promptly reorganised, and
worked rather better thereafter.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 14, 10:41 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:38:06 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@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.

This was a reference to Ravinghorde, not John Larkin.

John Larkin doesn't seem to have the self-control to take the time to
work out the tree structure of a thread in which he feels that he has
been insulted.

<snipped a fair chunk of irrelevant bluster>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:43:59 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

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

Bill, stop hiding.

I am still waiting for your explanation of temporal mechanics.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:07:15 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<34268b9d-aaeb-43f2-9e4c-70b5021df39c@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>:

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>?

As Bohr said. prediction is difficult, and predicting the future is
very difficult. The sea level may rise faster than you think. and you
may live longer than you expect.

snipped one Jan less comprehensible comments

Well if that was uncomprehensible, for you, then you really need help.

Until the sea dikes had to be so high - and corrrespondling wide -
that they's have to fill the country.

You are still twisting and turning it seems.

Jan, you should have worked out by now that I don't take you
seriously, and wouldn't waste the time required to discover a
plausible prediction to embed in an posting aimed at you.

Well I do not take you seriously either, you should have noticed.
Warming weenies are just manipulted neural nets, trained the wrong way.

Global Warming, I love it!

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

Someone obviously hasn't heard about air-conditioning. Dutch summer
don't get all that warm, but they do get humid, and air-condtioners
are a great - if energy-intensive - way of getting the humidity down
to bearable levels. Since I now spend the Dutch summer in Sydney
(where it is usually warmer, even it it is winter there) I don't have
to bother.

Hardly anyone in The Netherlands has an aircondition unit, but everyone has a heater.
You should know that.
Also I think you have _never_been_ near a sea dike, as you would have seen how much
space there is.
Humidity never was a problem here, ridiculous.
You are demonstrating to be an idiot.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 14, 11:24 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:11:28 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@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.

IIRR the European trillions are aimed at serious economic development
of sustainable power sources. Since the money now being spent doesn't
seem to prevent a steady influx of economic refugees (most of whom
have to spend a lot more than the starving millions can command), I'm
fairly sure that you haven't a clue about the subject.

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.

The Rhine used to do something like that. It has now been "canalised"
and flows rather faster, so the silt makes it all the way to the sea.

The problem with building up the dikes is that 2mm on the height is at
least 12mm on the width - the seaward side needs a slope of 1:6 or
shallower to survive erosion by storm waves, plus solid protection
agains erosion

http://icce2008.hamburg.baw.de/downloads/intern/Paper/BookOfAbstracts/0863_Peters.pdf

Building up the country by 2mm per year isn't all that practical. 27%
of the country and 60% of the population live below sea-level - some
quite a way below sea-level. The lowest point is 7 metres below sea
level. Building the entire country up to sea-level would submerge some
valuable real estate in dirt, which wouldn't suite the inhabitants any
better than having it flooded with sea water.

And, of course 2mm per year probably isn't enough. Current rates are
closer to 3mm per year, and if the ice continues to slide off the
Antarctic and the Greenland ice sheets at an ever-increasing rate as
it is at the moment, life could get more complicated still.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 13, 12:17 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:11:28 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
5b81e4d2-9dad-4c5e-bee5-d4c99b99b...@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>?

As Bohr said. prediction is difficult, and predicting the future is
very difficult. The sea level may rise faster than you think. and you
may live longer than you expect.

<snipped one Jan less comprehensible comments>

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.

Until the sea dikes had to be so high - and corrrespondling wide -
that they's have to fill the country.

You are still twisting and turning it seems.

Jan, you should have worked out by now that I don't take you
seriously, and wouldn't waste the time required to discover a
plausible prediction to embed in an posting aimed at you.

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.

Someone obviously hasn't heard about air-conditioning. Dutch summer
don't get all that warm, but they do get humid, and air-condtioners
are a great - if energy-intensive - way of getting the humidity down
to bearable levels. Since I now spend the Dutch summer in Sydney
(where it is usually warmer, even it it is winter there) I don't have
to bother.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Eeyore]

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/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE9yAlgtiBwD9CGDL281
[
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

I think you'll find the UK has more than 1700 'scientists' whatever they
are.

A recent Daily Mail poll showed just 13% of their readers believed in
AGW, down from ~ 30% a few months back.

'Climategate' is going to kill AGW. I intend to email the University in
question to 'quarantine' the CRU and call in a Police IT Forensics team.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Sylvia Else wrote:

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

As I have often mentioned, early consensus in science is almost
invariably WRONG. Even scientists will jump to conclusions too easily
before examining the actual evidence more closely.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:07:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:24 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:11:28 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@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.

IIRR the European trillions are aimed at serious economic development
of sustainable power sources. Since the money now being spent doesn't
seem to prevent a steady influx of economic refugees (most of whom
have to spend a lot more than the starving millions can command), I'm
fairly sure that you haven't a clue about the subject.

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.

The Rhine used to do something like that. It has now been "canalised"
and flows rather faster, so the silt makes it all the way to the sea.

The problem with building up the dikes is that 2mm on the height is at
least 12mm on the width - the seaward side needs a slope of 1:6 or
shallower to survive erosion by storm waves, plus solid protection
agains erosion

http://icce2008.hamburg.baw.de/downloads/intern/Paper/BookOfAbstracts/0863_Peters.pdf

Building up the country by 2mm per year isn't all that practical. 27%
of the country and 60% of the population live below sea-level - some
quite a way below sea-level. The lowest point is 7 metres below sea
level. Building the entire country up to sea-level would submerge some
valuable real estate in dirt, which wouldn't suite the inhabitants any
better than having it flooded with sea water.

And, of course 2mm per year probably isn't enough. Current rates are
closer to 3mm per year, and if the ice continues to slide off the
Antarctic and the Greenland ice sheets at an ever-increasing rate as
it is at the moment, life could get more complicated still.

Finally some people are starting to make a little sense:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/15/soot_bigger_than_co2/

Particulates are evil in many ways, but would be relatively easy to
control. As noted, the alarmists don't want any relatively easy
solutions, they want crisies that require massive taxation and major
redesign of the world's economy to fix.

So we're about to have a new category of denialist, CO2 haters who
refuse to believe that particulates are a bigger problem. I assume we
can chalk you up as a charter member.

John

 

[Eeyore]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Dec 11, 12:46 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

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

Sort of. The mindless majority will keep on burning fossil carbon

So why am I working on an energy saving heating device for all types of
buildings using several various heating methods ? I'll tell you. CO2 is
irrelevant but preserving fuel resources is very important in the long
term. Why waste energy pointlessly ?

My home has just been refurbished, incorporating special wall treatments
that most builders have no knowledge of where possible to reduce heat loss.

and the the earth will count the CO2 molecules and warm up appropriately.

CO2 is IRRRELEVANT.

Your grand-children will be able to read the outcome from their
thermometers, if their civilisation still retains the capacity to
build thermometers.

TWIT !

 

[Eeyore]

Sylvia Else wrote:

The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

Nor by 'celebrities' either.

Graham

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 13, 11:43 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:37:46 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@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.

There was a war on. Weather observations do tend to get disrupted when
this happens, even before the enemy starts dropping bombs - as
happened on the 14th Feburary 1942

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?"

The usual natural variation?

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

By the time of the bombing there were ten fighters (probably
Wirraways, basically a locally built North American NA-16 trainer) in
Darwin, and presumably some meteorological support staff. The military
would have had an immediate interest in the weather measurements,
which presumably motivated the move.

http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/100119

Bear in mind that while the Japanese didn't declare war until the 8th
December 1941, the British and the Australians had long been anxious
about their territorial amnbitions and miltiary build-up.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Eeyore]

Bill Sloman wrote:

Sure, the suckers who have fallen for the Exxon-Mobil funded denialist
propaganda seem to be a little more numerous, but they are distinctly
short on good arguments.

Whereas the warmingists have NO valid arguments. At a time of
unprecedented CO2 levels in the atmosphere in recent times, the
temperature has been totally stable for the last 10 years. And yet the
warmingists are screaming "we must do something NOW or the sky will fall
down and the sea will engulf us".

Actually, sea level has droped 2mm in the same time frame as the Ice
Caps continue to GROW ! Yes, the EU satellites say so. That's REAL science.

Graham

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 15, 10:22 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:43:59 +0000, Raveninghorde





raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:37:46 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@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

Bill, stop hiding.

I am still waiting for your explanation of temporal mechanics.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't entirely unexpected. The
military build-up in Darwin started rather before the 8th December
1941, and the weather station presumably moved to the airport when the
Australian fighter aircraft (such as they were) were moved up there.

I'm sorry to have to have delayed yur education, but I've been busy
getting an elective cine-angiogram. Computer access was limited both
during, and before and after the procedure, so you've had to wait your
turn.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Eeyore]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Dec 11, 12:56 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

True. Scientific questions are usually decided by a concensus of
scientists who have all looked at the question in some detail, and end
up agreeing - give or take a few contarians who won't agree with any
majority, on principle - on the evidence and the arguments.

NO. It's agreed by many scientists performing the same experiment(s) and
validating the results. Of course they can't do that when the IPCC and
CRU won't release the data from the experiments.

You are UTTERLY CLUELESS. You don't even understand how science operates.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote

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

Sylvia.

Yes, science works that way, you vote for the politicians,
they decide an agenda, and assign scientists to support that agenda.
And the agenda is set by what the Captains of Industry need at that moment,
usually more money.
Purely democratic, as you decide what products you buy from the captains of industry.
wait, lemme read this again, hey...
??
Oh well, it is 1 o'clock at night
Sorry.

Vaclav Klaus (the Czech President who wants to debate AGW with Al Gore
who refuses) spoke at the international conference on climate change in
NY in Mar 2008. He concluded as follows .....

At 08:07 into the vid

" I am afraid that we have to restart discussion about the very nature
of government and the relationship between the individual and society. "

< Applause for 9 seconds )

" Now this concerns the whole (of) mankind not just the citizens of one
particular country."

< short comment about the inevitable collapse of Communism >

" To sum up, it is not about climatology, it's about freedom. This
should be the main message of our conference. "

< Ovation >

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0oVdGPAZ3A


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Dec 11, 3:04 am, John Larkin wrote:

Science used to rely on experiment.

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

Physics in particular also relies on repeatable OBSERVATIONS.

Name a single observation that the warmingists can show is even real,
never mind repeatable.

Graham