Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
centuries is weather, not climate. Climate starts at kiloyears. For furtherIn <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f313@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote in part:
On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP to edit for space
That is what the politicians are trying to make it. Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?
They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.
The scientific case was never opened, it always political. Decades and even
At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.
I do not do well with arguments that sufficiently proving existence of
AGW is strong evidence that the magnitude thereof argued by those arguing
it exists is also true. As a result, I am somewhat skeptical of need for
expensive economy-hindering political solutions, especially any that
support new securities among the bazillions of modern ones that have low
relevance to net creation of wealth.
SNIP from here
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Go and look at the sourcewatch link if you want more.On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:49:31 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Make no mistake NATURE will be the final arbiter on this issue.
With the regards to the same published people being involved with tobacco defenders
and being AGW skeptics, please do provide names and publications and dates. Please
note that the implication that science for hire can (and has been) be used against
AGW as well.
OK. Allowing for the UK being the libel law tourism capital of the world
(something which has brought the UK legal profession into disrepute) and
the litigious nature of the USA I will name only one key player who is
now dead (the dead cannot sue for libel).
Take a look at the later work of Frederick Seitz who was once an
excellent solid state physicist and educator but after his retirement he
sold his soul to R J Reynolds as a denier for hire on tobacco smoke. His
official biography in the mainstream press is very kind:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3523253.ece
The Washington Post makes his deep involvement with the tobacco industry
slightly clearer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503524.html
The public disclosure of tobacco related documents shows hard evidence:
http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/508263286-3286.html
It is also worth knowing what Phillip Morris thought of him:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hwj53e00/pdf;jsessionid=FC140D71858F79431662F7E03E333274
The links from any of the usual source watch sites will allow you to
easily work out who are the other "deniers for hire" today, and also
which are the front organisations for their propaganda. Here is the
sourcewatch link to get you started if you want to find out more:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz
They are not all complete liars and charlatans but you do not have to
look that hard to find other tobacco "deniers for hire" in the game.
They are an incestuous little bunch so the links are not hard to find.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Hmmm. This "tobacco denier", became to "AGW denier". One instance. Care to
try some more? Please remember that AGW'ers are being accused of "science for
hire" as well.
Before I want to use LTSpice, I'd like to do a sit-down mental walksnip
I haven't done a quasi-complementary in a long time. I would have to
study up on some existing working circuits. LTSpice will be really
handy for that.
Completely missing the point that I was making, that the current CO2On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:49:59 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:22 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:36:54 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Slomanwrote in part:
On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP to edit for space
That is what the politicians are trying to make it. Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?
They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.
At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.
A problem here is what is meant by AGW.
If you mean all man made impacts on the climate I am not so sure that
the science is settled.
If you mean the case for CO2 and other green house gas warming then
yes there is an understood mechanism.
If you include the feedbacks, positive and negative then I don't see
the case as closed.
I do not do well with arguments that sufficiently proving existence of
AGW is strong evidence that the magnitude thereof argued by those arguing
it exists is also true.
This is the real debate.
The bulk of debate over climategate, Briffa, hockey sticks etc is
about paleoclimatology. Until there is a reliable reconstruction of
past temperatures we have no way of knowing if recent temperature
changes are unusual.
The hockey stick debate is over the past thousand years. That isn't
paleoclimatology - the orginal Greek prefix "paleo" means ancient,
primitive and old but the modern meaning comes closer to "pre-
historic" and the hockey stick debate is about historical climates,
albeit using archeological tools.
The ice core data goes back a lot further and is subject to a lot less
debate. It does represent a genuine global average - as evidenced by
the fact that the Greenland ice cores - as far as they go - tell the
same story as the longer Antartic ice cores, though the Antarctic ice
cores do go back further.
I'll agree on that point which means we are agreed that Greenland Ice
cores are representative of global temepratures.
The ice core data does make it clear that the recent temperature
changes are unusual, essentially because they are coupled with an
extraordinary increase in atmospheric CO2 level, which hasn't been
accompanied by anything like the temperature rise that would have been
expected to accompany it on the basis of the recorded association
between temperature and CO2 level.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2...
The latest point is 95 years before present with a temperature of
-31.59C. The warmest point is 7817 before present, or about 5800BC
with a temperature of -28.70 or 2.9C higher than the most recent. So
even allowing Central Greenland to have warmed 1.5C since 1905 we are
still nowhere near the peak for the Holocene.
There are also other peaks warmer than present. So recent temperatures
are not unusual for the holocene.
At least part of the evidence for the speed of change during theWe do understand why we haven't yet seen the temperature rise that
history would have led us to expect, though because we are now
extrapolating into CO2 levels that aren't represented in the ice core
data (but do seem to correspond to levels that can be deduced from
geological data) we can't predict exactly how much more warming we've
already stored up for ourselves.
A problem with reconstructions is that the further back you go the
more the temperature record becomes an average, often with data points
more than a hundred years apart.
This isn't strictly true. the discussion of the onset and end of the
Younger Dyras -11,500 to 12,800 years ago - talks about significant
changes occuring over periods of as little as five years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
Note the NOAA data points are 17 years apart for 7817 bp so do average
out ther data. For example an El Nino year like 1998 would not have
much impact on the figure.
Loehle seems to have missed the Arctic lake sediments which Mann andLoehle analysed all the non tree ring reconstructions he could find.
From memory a number of these had widely dispersed data points,
something like 300 years in one case.
Since when is every belief religous? I believe in Ohms Law - at leastI still need to be convinced that AGW is significant compared to the
natural climate variations.
Obviously, but you clearly don't have access to much of the scientific
evidence, as I've just made clear. If you could have brought yourself
to learn a bit more about the subject before making up your mind, your
opinion might have carried some weight.
As a result, I am somewhat skeptical of need for
expensive economy-hindering political solutions, especially any that
support new securities among the bazillions of modern ones that have low
relevance to net creation of wealth.
Agreed.
Much as I hate to disagree with Don Klipstein, I think his recent
conversion to a belief
Bill reverts to religious language and accuses Don of apostasy.
Try reading the history of the construction of the scientific case.On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:36:54 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Slomanwrote in part:
On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP to edit for space
That is what the politicians are trying to make it. Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?
They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.
The scientific case was never opened, it always political.
Climate can change in a few years. The Younger Dryas event is a caseDecades and even centuries is weather, not climate. Climate starts at kiloyears. For
further information look at the previous serious (5 degrees C) change in temperature.
John Larkin disregards physics once again. More CO2 in the atmosphereOn Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:36:54 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Slomanwrote in part:
On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP to edit for space
That is what the politicians are trying to make it. Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?
They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.
At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.
Or maybe even the sign.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.htmlOn Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:49:31 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi..demon.co.uk> wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
--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.
Indeed some of the same practitioners have been working as Exxon
sponsored denialists that were involved in keeping the suckers smoking
tobacco. Their product is spreading uncertainty in the public mind to
prevent people making a rational informed decision. It was so bad at one
point that the UK's premier scientific society wrote an open letter to
Exxon complaining about them deliberately misrepresenting the science..
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/L....
(facsimile of the actual letter)
There is some point in scientists standing up to be counted on this one
rather than ceding the high ground to handful of ultraright US free
market think tank spokesmen who pretend that the science is unclear. It
is curious that extremes of left and right both deny climate science.
In the UK it was the right wing Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
that first put the issue on the agenda so we do not have the same rabid
political polarisation of the issue as in America.
But for reasons of "balance" TV debates frequently put up one denialist
and one mainstream scientist for a discussion without making it clear
that there is a big difference in the validity of their arguments. The
denialist arguments are well honed to appeal to the general public with
a cunning mixture of half truths and plausible lies. Pretty much the
same happens with UFO abductees - and the devil has all the best tunes.
I don't really like petitions, but scientists do have to stand up for
the truth. I am reminded of 100 authors against Einstein and his retort
"Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!".
Make no mistake NATURE will be the final arbiter on this issue.
With the regards to the same published people being involved with tobacco defenders
and being AGW skeptics, please do provide names and publications and dates. Please
note that the implication that science for hire can (and has been) be used against
AGW as well.
OK. Allowing for the UK being the libel law tourism capital of the world
(something which has brought the UK legal profession into disrepute) and
the litigious nature of the USA I will name only one key player who is
now dead (the dead cannot sue for libel).
Take a look at the later work of Frederick Seitz who was once an
excellent solid state physicist and educator but after his retirement he
sold his soul to R J Reynolds as a denier for hire on tobacco smoke. His
official biography in the mainstream press is very kind:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3523253.ece
The Washington Post makes his deep involvement with the tobacco industry
slightly clearer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR200...
The public disclosure of tobacco related documents shows hard evidence:
http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/508263286-3286.html
It is also worth knowing what Phillip Morris thought of him:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hwj53e00/pdf;jsessionid=FC140D7185....
The links from any of the usual source watch sites will allow you to
easily work out who are the other "deniers for hire" today, and also
which are the front organisations for their propaganda. Here is the
sourcewatch link to get you started if you want to find out more:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz
They are not all complete liars and charlatans but you do not have to
look that hard to find other tobacco "deniers for hire" in the game.
They are an incestuous little bunch so the links are not hard to find.
Hmmm. This "tobacco denier", became to "AGW denier". One instance. Care to
try some more? Please remember that AGW'ers are being accused of "science for
hire" as well.
Try this - with whatever NPN and PNP transistors suit you.On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:19:40 -0800, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Design any interesting circuits lately?
Let's just take you at your word that you sincerely mean to avoid
discussing climate here and that you will do your part to avoid _any_
further ignorant comments about a subject you haven't spent any time
at. I'll buy it for the next day or so, until I see otherwise. So
let's go with that.
So what's interesting?
I'm thinking about using the headphone jack output (since it often
disables the speakers on many of the audio systems we have, unlike the
line outputs) and conditioning that signal (controlled by the existing
volume control in the device I attach to) for a specialized 2-3 watt
output amplifier (into 8 ohm speakers let's say, so about 5V peaks)
that auto-mutes in a settable 1-15 minutes. No volume control on the
unit, itself -- depending instead on the input signal which does have
a volume control. (I may need to have a front end that can be adapted
easily by the change of a single pot, for example, to accomodate
variations between headphone jacks.)
I have designed my own common-emitter amplifier stages (including one
or two with emitter to base bootstrapping to stiffen the input) for
voltage gain and have done a class-A pair of complimentary emitter
followers for output drive before. (I think I've got my terms right,
but then I'm just a modest hobbyist.) I'd like to do a quasi-
complimentary output stage this time. (For personal education.) And
I need to do some thinking about the first stage that needs to mediate
between the headphone jack output and the intermediate stage (which
I'm kind of thinking about using a diff-amp pair for, prior to the
quasi-comp output stage.) I'd love some constructive thoughts,
questions, and input. The circuit needs to detect significant changes
on the input level to manage the auto-mute. Care to offer some
constructive ideas? I know a little and I may get there on my own
after some more learning, but there's a lot I can learn from you
without as many mistakes along the way, yes? Suggest some directions
and I'll pony something up and let you know what I find out. I'd like
to stay with what I know better -- BJTs. No ICs or opamps. (I am not
looking for high fidelity. It's Petula Clark, for gosh sake.)
Meantime, show me you are serious about moving the group (which only
5% of those using the internet even know about, and far, far fewer
still ever bother to even look at) away from drawn out ad hominems and
uninformed commentary on the quality of climate science. I'd be very,
very happy to see the subject entirely dropped from the group where
essentially noone has spent a nickel's worth of their own time on it,
anyway. None of it is really worth listening to. And I really like
learning electronics. I really do.
Thanks. I see this web page where Figure 2 reminds me of your circuitTry this - with whatever NPN and PNP transistors suit you.
snip
The pot at U1 lets you set up the standing current current through the
output stage; the "synthetic diode" formed by U1, R5 and Q3 is trimmed
to match the Vbe dropped across Q1 and Q2 plus about 200mV to give you
a standing current of about 10mA through Q4 and Q5.
It is a good idea to thermally bond Q1, Q2 and Q3 - they never get
that hot, but if Q1 and Q2 do get warm, this then lowers the Vbe of Q3
and reduces the standing current.
The version of this I built more thirty years ago now worked well for
many years - I'd grafted it on to TI discrete audio amplifier design
that didn't protect the base-emitter junctions in the pre-amplifier
against reverse bias and I eventually got sick of finding, replacing
and protecting the succession of degraded transistors that stopped the
pre-amplifier from working right over the years, but it's still down
in the basement waiting for a burst of enthusiasm.
You're being more provincial than pedantic there. ;-)Fred Abse wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
DaveC wrote:
The coil in an industrial electromagnetic clutch (connecting the flywheel to
the drive mechanism) has gone open-circuit. So it is being rewound by a motor
rewind shop.
I was just informed that the original wire was about 12 ga. (maybe slightly
larger; original was metric) but it was rewound using 10 ga.
Why do Americans persist in using stupid AWG that no-one else in the
world uses except to entertain you ?
Have you never heard of mm^2 ?
Metric magnet wire (enameled copper wire to you)
Well, it IS used for things other than magnets. To be pedantic it's *enamelled* btw.
http://wires.co.uk/acatalog/cu_enam.html
is usually specced in diameter, rather than cross sectional area.
Or both.
Graham
On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.
Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense".
Consilience is using one /technique/ as a reference to improvethis particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.
Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 both show a proper synthetic diode - I couldn'tOn Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:34:21 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Try this - with whatever NPN and PNP transistors suit you.
snip
The pot at U1 lets you set up the standing current current through the
output stage; the "synthetic diode" formed by U1, R5 and Q3 is trimmed
to match the Vbe dropped across Q1 and Q2 plus about 200mV to give you
a standing current of about 10mA through Q4 and Q5.
It is a good idea to thermally bond Q1, Q2 and Q3 - they never get
that hot, but if Q1 and Q2 do get warm, this then lowers the Vbe of Q3
and reduces the standing current.
The version of this I built more thirty years ago now worked well for
many years - I'd grafted it on to TI discrete audio amplifier design
that didn't protect the base-emitter junctions in the pre-amplifier
against reverse bias and I eventually got sick of finding, replacing
and protecting the succession of degraded transistors that stopped the
pre-amplifier from working right over the years, but it's still down
in the basement waiting for a burst of enthusiasm.
Thanks. I see this web page where Figure 2 reminds me of your circuit
-- obviously filled out with part values, though.
http://sound.westhost.com/project12.htm
I had been thinking more like the Figure 1 case, though. In earlier
days NPNs were better and designs emphasized them. In my own junk
box, I've a lot more NPN BJTs that PNP and for that reason I prefer an
emphasis on NPN over PNP.
Douglas Self always seems to use a long-tailed pair input stage, asNeither of those schematics on the above web page use a long tailed
pair diff amp, which I'd also like to play with more in the voltage
gain part of the amplifier design. And I need to condition the output
of a phono-jack as the very first stage. For that, I need to learn
more about the output drivers used for them and what things to worry
about.
No it doesn't. If from a volcano, the dust in the air lowersOn Dec 20, 4:27 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:36:54 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Slomanwrote in part:
On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP to edit for space
That is what the politicians are trying to make it. Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?
They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.
At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.
Or maybe even the sign.
John Larkin disregards physics once again. More CO2 in the atmosphere
means higher global temperatures.
Or perhaps the increased velocity of communications and pressure toOn Dec 21, 4:57 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:15:01 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:22:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:26 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:57:15 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
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
Kind of difficult when Hansen et al., keep adjusting the data from what
the satellite reported to what they want it to have reported.
Try reading the raw satellite data sometime. And note that the biggest
recent correction to satellite data was made by Roy W Spencer and John
Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, under a certain
amount of external pressure
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.
Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense". In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.
Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.
You should always be a little bit wary of consilience. It can also mean
the application of the tricky correction factors in such a way as to get
the "right" answer according to established experimental procedures.
Looking for *why* there is a difference is *very* important.
That in the Wikipedia article, if you can be bothered to read it
carefully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
A graph of speed of light with error bars is a sobering one in this
respect. Initial estimates were good but as the techniques became ever
more sophisticated and based on evacuated waveguides one of the top
experimentalists made a tiny error in applying a dispersion correction
taking the true answer outside the formal error bars. Successive
experimenters then refined the technique still further narrowing the
error bars without spotting the fundamental systematic error. ISTR it
was noticed around 1945 when another method gave a new answer.
A version of Shewarts graph updated is online at
http://www.sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightindex.shtml
Note how the step response is underdamped, with a period of roughly 40
years. Light doesn't work this way, but people do.
The UAH data got corrected in rather less than 40 years. People may be
getting better, or - more likely - the temperature distribuiton up
through the atmosphere is of more immediate interest that seven and
eighth significant digits of the speed of light.
This is a serious misreading of what I was saying, as would be obviousOn Dec 19, 10:29 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.
Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense".
Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to,
subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you
actually got, gives you the result you really wanted.
Which is exactly what happend hereIn
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.
Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.
Consilience is using one /technique/ as a reference to improve
another, grinding one straight edge against another to make both
truer.
The UAH were adjusting their data processing, not their raw data, toAdjusting your data to match your theory?
If that had been what was going on, it would have been reprehensible.Adjusting multiple data
sets so they agree, corrupting all so that none is true?
A totally perverse misinterpretation, most likely based on ignorantThat's the
opposite. Kind of a liar's version of cross-checking, a perversion of
proof by multiple independent proofs.
Which is a fair description of your post. You claim to understand theThat's just plain cheating.
That is the basic point about University of Alabama at Huntsville'sBill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:22:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:26 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:57:15 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati....@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
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
Kind of difficult when Hansen et al., keep adjusting the data from what
the satellite reported to what they want it to have reported.
Try reading the raw satellite data sometime. And note that the biggest
recent correction to satellite data was made by Roy W Spencer and John
Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, under a certain
amount of external pressure
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.
Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense". In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.
Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.
You should always be a little bit wary of consilience. It can also mean
the application of the tricky correction factors in such a way as to get
the "right" answer according to established experimental procedures.
Looking for *why* there is a difference is *very* important.
The UAH corrections look more like 1945 than 1922.A graph of speed of light with error bars is a sobering one in this
respect. Initial estimates were good but as the techniques became ever
more sophisticated and based on evacuated waveguides one of the top
experimentalists made a tiny error in applying a dispersion correction
taking the true answer outside the formal error bars. Successive
experimenters then refined the technique still further narrowing the
error bars without spotting the fundamental systematic error. ISTR it
was noticed around 1945 when another method gave a new answer.
A version of Shewarts graph updated is online athttp://www.sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightindex.shtml
It was around 1945 that a new method with the corrections all applied
correctly came into play. I forget who the experimentalist that skewed
the distribution from 1922 onwards. During that period there was
considerable interest in the numerological conjecture that the fine
structure constant might be exactly 1/137. We now know it isn't.
That in the Wikipedia article, if you can be bothered to read itOn Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:15:01 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:22:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:26 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:57:15 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati....@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
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
Kind of difficult when Hansen et al., keep adjusting the data from what
the satellite reported to what they want it to have reported.
Try reading the raw satellite data sometime. And note that the biggest
recent correction to satellite data was made by Roy W Spencer and John
Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, under a certain
amount of external pressure
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.
Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense". In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.
Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.
You should always be a little bit wary of consilience. It can also mean
the application of the tricky correction factors in such a way as to get
the "right" answer according to established experimental procedures.
Looking for *why* there is a difference is *very* important.
The UAH data got corrected in rather less than 40 years. People may beA graph of speed of light with error bars is a sobering one in this
respect. Initial estimates were good but as the techniques became ever
more sophisticated and based on evacuated waveguides one of the top
experimentalists made a tiny error in applying a dispersion correction
taking the true answer outside the formal error bars. Successive
experimenters then refined the technique still further narrowing the
error bars without spotting the fundamental systematic error. ISTR it
was noticed around 1945 when another method gave a new answer.
A version of Shewarts graph updated is online at
http://www.sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightindex.shtml
Note how the step response is underdamped, with a period of roughly 40
years. Light doesn't work this way, but people do.
We know that you'd like to think so. If you said that in aOn Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:48:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 21, 4:57 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:15:01 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:22:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:26 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:57:15 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
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
Kind of difficult when Hansen et al., keep adjusting the data from what
the satellite reported to what they want it to have reported.
Try reading the raw satellite data sometime. And note that the biggest
recent correction to satellite data was made by Roy W Spencer and John
Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, under a certain
amount of external pressure
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.
Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense". In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.
Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.
You should always be a little bit wary of consilience. It can also mean
the application of the tricky correction factors in such a way as to get
the "right" answer according to established experimental procedures.
Looking for *why* there is a difference is *very* important.
That in the Wikipedia article, if you can be bothered to read it
carefully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
A graph of speed of light with error bars is a sobering one in this
respect. Initial estimates were good but as the techniques became ever
more sophisticated and based on evacuated waveguides one of the top
experimentalists made a tiny error in applying a dispersion correction
taking the true answer outside the formal error bars. Successive
experimenters then refined the technique still further narrowing the
error bars without spotting the fundamental systematic error. ISTR it
was noticed around 1945 when another method gave a new answer.
A version of Shewarts graph updated is online at
http://www.sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightindex.shtml
Note how the step response is underdamped, with a period of roughly 40
years. Light doesn't work this way, but people do.
The UAH data got corrected in rather less than 40 years. People may be
getting better, or - more likely - the temperature distribuiton up
through the atmosphere is of more immediate interest that seven and
eighth significant digits of the speed of light.
Or perhaps the increased velocity of communications and pressure to
publish has changed the time response. The real issue is whether
experimental results are influenced by the numbers from other
experimenters, or by desired results, namely by psychological
pressures. In the AGW case, it sure looks like it is, because the
choice of "corrections" is arbitrary.
Have you lookd at the numbers involved in the differences in the air"Manufacturing consensus."
The thing about the light speed measurements is that they started in
the 1% or so error range and converged down to the ppb range, and no
researcher could ever question previous measurements to more than a
few parts per thousand, later parts per million. Even air temperature
measurements are still all over the place, and climate theory needs
not just temperatures now, but accurate temperature histories over
hundreds or thousands of years. The situations are very different.
But the dust doesn't stay up in the air for all that long - nowhereOn Dec 22, 7:32 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 20, 4:27 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:36:54 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Slomanwrote in part:
On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP to edit for space
That is what the politicians are trying to make it. Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?
They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.
At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.
Or maybe even the sign.
John Larkin disregards physics once again. More CO2 in the atmosphere
means higher global temperatures.
No it doesn't. If from a volcano, the dust in the air lowers
temperatures.
Since we've got lots of history of the prompt and sustained effects ofDitto for combustion particulates ('global dimming'), a-
bomb debris, agriculture dust, offset by albedo effects, offset
by....the unknowable.
This isn't sufficiently public?On Dec 22, 6:29 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:48:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 21, 4:57 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:15:01 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:22:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:26 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:57:15 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
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
Kind of difficult when Hansen et al., keep adjusting the data from what
the satellite reported to what they want it to have reported.
Try reading the raw satellite data sometime. And note that the biggest
recent correction to satellite data was made by Roy W Spencer and John
Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, under a certain
amount of external pressure
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.
Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense". In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.
Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.
You should always be a little bit wary of consilience. It can also mean
the application of the tricky correction factors in such a way as to get
the "right" answer according to established experimental procedures.
Looking for *why* there is a difference is *very* important.
That in the Wikipedia article, if you can be bothered to read it
carefully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
A graph of speed of light with error bars is a sobering one in this
respect. Initial estimates were good but as the techniques became ever
more sophisticated and based on evacuated waveguides one of the top
experimentalists made a tiny error in applying a dispersion correction
taking the true answer outside the formal error bars. Successive
experimenters then refined the technique still further narrowing the
error bars without spotting the fundamental systematic error. ISTR it
was noticed around 1945 when another method gave a new answer.
A version of Shewarts graph updated is online at
http://www.sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightindex.shtml
Note how the step response is underdamped, with a period of roughly 40
years. Light doesn't work this way, but people do.
The UAH data got corrected in rather less than 40 years. People may be
getting better, or - more likely - the temperature distribuiton up
through the atmosphere is of more immediate interest that seven and
eighth significant digits of the speed of light.
Or perhaps the increased velocity of communications and pressure to
publish has changed the time response. The real issue is whether
experimental results are influenced by the numbers from other
experimenters, or by desired results, namely by psychological
pressures. In the AGW case, it sure looks like it is, because the
choice of "corrections" is arbitrary.
We know that you'd like to think so. If you said that in a
sufficiently public forum, you'd be - very rightly - sued for libel.