Driver to drive?

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:15:54 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In <ccb44845-5bfa-4353-bb02-b5bbac009123@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 22, 11:34 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 4:55 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On 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.

This is a serious misreading of what I was saying, as would be obvious
to anybody who had gone on to read the substance of what I wrote. The
Wikipedea discussion of the University of Alabama at Hintsville's
(UAH) correction from 5.1 to 5.2 points out that

/quote

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that
they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data
measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated
by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the
satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade,
compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ą 0.06 °C per decade.
The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as
noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with
each other.

Christy et al. (2007) find that the tropical temperature trends from
radiosondes matches closest with his v5.2 UAH dataset.[17]
Furthermore, they assert there is a growing discrepancy between RSS
and sonde trends beginning in 1992, when the NOAA-12 satellite was
launched[18]. This research found that the tropics were warming, from
the balloon data, +0.09 (corrected to UAH) or +0.12 (corrected to RSS)
or 0.05 K (from UAH MSU; ą0.07 K room for error) a decade.

/end quote

Since the corrections were based on a more thorough analysis of the
way orbital decay affects the satellite observations, this isn't
Finagle factoring, but a way of making better sense of the data. That
the improved processing brings the results better into line with
independent observations of the same regions is a bonus and provides
some confidence that the investigators have finally concentrated their
attention on aspects of the data processing that needed it.

Or, alternatively, calls into question the utility of satellite-based
surface temperature inferences, since these have to made through
numerous interface layers & obstructions.

Either they're reliable indicators of surface temp. and we're not
warming, or they're not reliable.

Regardless, their version doesn't inspire confidence: that they a)
measured and published wrong data and b) _now_, _this time_ they've
really got it right.

SNIP from here

I doubt the radiosonde data was tweaked. I have yet to hear a complaint
about the radiosonde data.

Meanwhile, the UAH index, more specifically the one for lower
troposphere, are by Christy and Spencer - as in the Spencer at
www.drroyspencer.com. Is anyone here going to call him a warmingist?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Click to expand...
Most of the older radiosondes weren't very accurate. They used a
temperature-dependant audio oscillator in their transmitter, and the
ground station measured the frequency. I used to buy the vacuum-tube
versions for a few dollars when I was a kid.

www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~swrhgnrj/presentations/radiosondes.ppt

Even newer ones have issues...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=18&ved=0CCcQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wmo.int%2Fpages%2Fprog%2Fwww%2FIMOP%2Fmeetings%2FUpper-Air%2FSystems-Intercomp%2FDoc3-1(1)UKMetO.ppt&ei=D44xS8TFDIKYsgPPoMm9BA&usg=AFQjCNFZtitQYsUjFWDqougKAUUiCKVPyw&sig2=b7pZ_lhUaVvwnXgFtp00Hg

Seems as though air temperature is hard to measure.

John
 
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:26:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:23:13 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote
in news:edfqi5tk6b3jj2sh5qrvn3iv4vftvrk8pf@4ax.com:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:46:19 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker
wrote in news:31upi51l18hmuhtn1mf20lv9fuhef5khc0@4ax.com:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:12:32 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker
wrote in news:l1fni5pg0rp6f64r3mbcb6apmg0to677ue@4ax.com:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:11:47 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote in
news:ch7ni5ptab13kvhcr28uo31qb03l86685d@4ax.com:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:02:05 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in
news:t6pli5taujnq2pqp7rqh084udrbgfoomhs@4ax.com:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:05:15 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:44 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
What do you mean "get the encryption right"? I understood that
there was no encryption at all.

I just assumed that, since it is the US military, employing a
drone to do semi-stealth reconnaisance, that a basic requirement
would be that young kids who probably earn < $100/month should
not be able to intercept the stealth video. My bad.

Maybe they should leave it as it is. That way, the terrorists
could put it up on YouTube. Maybe there is a Hollywood show in
it...

Perhaps it was intentional. They can sell electronics to the
terrorists. Who knows what backdoors lurk...

"So You Think You Can Out-Run A Hell-Fire Missile."

"Smile! You're on Candid Camera!"


the US now has a very small Air-Ground Missile in development;it's
called Spike(not the Israeli Spike ATGM),and is 2 ft long,5.3 lb
total and has a 1 lb warhead,electro-optical guidance.It's
intended to take out unarmored/lightly armored vehicles or single
rooms in buildings and not cause a lot of collateral damage.
A soldier can carry three missiles and launcher,and it can also be
carried on the drones.

it's like a small model rocket.

http://defense-update.com/products/s/spike_laser.htm

That's the sort of thing I recommend to stop "hot pursuit"
situations...

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/321871

Stop on an officer's order or we make you stop ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Heck,-I- want a launch rail on MY car.

Anybody have plans for a rail gun ?:)

...Jim Thompson

Spike is "fire and forget",so it locks on the target's image.
Easier to aim.
but 5 grand a shot,though....
unless you can engineer a really low cost seeker.


I may build a model rocket copy of Spike,I've got an unfinished
airframe of the right size.

Heh,cops would FREAK if they saw a missile on a launch rail on top of
a car! Maybe put a red LED in the nose,people would think it's a
seeker...

GRIN

What would it cost to make a scaled-down TOW missile?

...Jim Thompson

a "model rocket" like an Estes or Aerotech,or a working guided missile?

(the TOW Anti-Tank Guided Missile[ATGM] is wire-guided,trails a pair of
wires that provide guidance to the missile.)

I know. I know. _Many_ of my hybrids circuits are in the TOW...
remember it was Hughes _Tucson_.



FYI,here's more on the Navy Spike;
http://tinyurl.com/ybn9xt9

...Jim Thompson

well,you don't want to have wires dragging from your car after you've taken
care of some MFFY driver up ahead. ;-)

that's why Spike is so appropo;
you lock in their image,launch,and Spike does the rest on it's own,you are
free to leave...with no wires trailing.And Spike's small warhead means
little "collateral damage". it actually blows up INSIDE the vehicle. :)
it's also a FAST little missile.600 MPH in 1.5 sec.



MFFY; "Me First,F-You".

I have in mind some stationary targets ;-)

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...
That rules you out. Your ass cheeks never stop clappin' together
(that's what the smell is, folks).
 
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:07:38 -0800, Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:55:44 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip
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.

Before I want to use LTSpice, I'd like to do a sit-down mental walk
through of a design -- one that places first priority considerations
first and moves forward from there. I can do that with the basic
degenerative common-emitter voltage amplifier, with or without
bootstrapping. And the nice thing is that then LTSpice pretty much
nails my paper calcs, in those cases. Which lets me 'discover' more
subtle factors where the observed performance wasn't part of my
earlier theorizing. But at least the basics were right. I don't like
to work out the basics by 'hacking' with LTSpice.

Jon
Click to expand...
Do note that the output of the quasi-complementary is one CE (CS for fet)
and one CC (CD for fet). Most of the issue is in generating correct drive
for both of them at the same time.
 
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com
wrote:

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony :) isn't cracked?

rick jones

None of their stuff has ever been cracked.

There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that
circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY
General Instrument crypto schema.
Click to expand...
Circumnavigated?
 
On 12/22/2009 9:18 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com
wrote:

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony :) isn't cracked?

rick jones

None of their stuff has ever been cracked.

There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that
circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY
General Instrument crypto schema.

Circumnavigated?
Click to expand...
Went around, I think. Like claiming the lock on the safe is
unpickable, but the hinge pins can be easily pulled. Nobody will bother
to break a weak code when the back door is open.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com
 
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:53:52 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:50:16 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:52:39 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:34:06 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:03:12 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:41:39 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:58:58 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 18, 2:19 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

snip

Design any interesting circuits lately?

John's regular get out of jail free card, usually played after a long
post explaining why he is free to post denialist nonsense, while the
people who respond to point out that he doesn't know what he is
talking about should confine themselves to electronics.

I've been around the group long enough to have seen this card played
by John, time and time again. It's a highly predictable knee-jerk,
now. Rather than deal with his own overflowing ignorance.

Jon

Sloman is probably the single most-frequent poster to this group and
is literally 99% off-topic. And virtually every one of his posts
contains pompous insults. He is never helpful, never amusing, never
hopeful, never has ideas; he hasn't done interesting electronics in
decades and probably never will again.

Pick your friends as you will.

Who's picking friends here? I still suspect you were giving me a
bunch of bull about the holier-than-thou high road you want to take
here when you, on the same very day, continue the very thing you were
saying you don't want to encourage.

Jon

WTF is wrong with you? Do you have insufficient drama in your life?
This is an electronics design discussion group, not some self-help
online neurosis therapy clinic.

John

John you just made it to first class jerk on this one.

Tell us more about that exponential RTD thing.

John
Click to expand...
It is r'= r(25)*e^(kT). What is so difficult about that?
See the Arrhenius relationship.
 
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:38:47 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:53:52 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:50:16 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:52:39 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:34:06 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:03:12 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:41:39 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:58:58 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 18, 2:19 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

snip

Design any interesting circuits lately?

John's regular get out of jail free card, usually played after a long
post explaining why he is free to post denialist nonsense, while the
people who respond to point out that he doesn't know what he is
talking about should confine themselves to electronics.

I've been around the group long enough to have seen this card played
by John, time and time again. It's a highly predictable knee-jerk,
now. Rather than deal with his own overflowing ignorance.

Jon

Sloman is probably the single most-frequent poster to this group and
is literally 99% off-topic. And virtually every one of his posts
contains pompous insults. He is never helpful, never amusing, never
hopeful, never has ideas; he hasn't done interesting electronics in
decades and probably never will again.

Pick your friends as you will.

Who's picking friends here? I still suspect you were giving me a
bunch of bull about the holier-than-thou high road you want to take
here when you, on the same very day, continue the very thing you were
saying you don't want to encourage.

Jon

WTF is wrong with you? Do you have insufficient drama in your life?
This is an electronics design discussion group, not some self-help
online neurosis therapy clinic.

John

John you just made it to first class jerk on this one.

Tell us more about that exponential RTD thing.

John


It is r'= r(25)*e^(kT). What is so difficult about that?
See the Arrhenius relationship.
Click to expand...
What's the value of k?

John
 
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:18:59 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com
wrote:

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony :) isn't cracked?

rick jones

None of their stuff has ever been cracked.

There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that
circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY
General Instrument crypto schema.

Circumnavigated?
Click to expand...
Yes, but only that system, and only until they found out.
 
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:23:02 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
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.

Go and look at the sourcewatch link if you want more.
It isn't that hard to find the others.

I am not going to risk a personal libel suit from a "denier for hire" or
a front organisation with infinitely deep pockets by naming living
individuals. In the UK international libel actions are now commonplace,
very expensive and extremely frivolous. The odds are stacked heavily in
favour of the plaintiff and defence is extremely costly with no prospect
of getting costs back even if you successfully defend the action.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6898172.ece

California has banned libel tourism, other states are considering it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/04/libel-tourism-press-freedom

As we do not have the same right to free speech as you enjoy I will not
name living individuals.

Regards,
Martin Brown
Click to expand...
Gosh, and the UK likes to be called the cradle of free speech.
 
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:49:52 -0700, Eric Jacobsen
<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/22/2009 9:18 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com
wrote:

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony :) isn't cracked?

rick jones

None of their stuff has ever been cracked.

There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that
circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY
General Instrument crypto schema.

Circumnavigated?

Went around, I think. Like claiming the lock on the safe is
unpickable, but the hinge pins can be easily pulled. Nobody will bother
to break a weak code when the back door is open.
Click to expand...

That is not what happened either, ya dope.

The chips were being fabbed in greater number than those being sold to
the set top box makers, and that meant that hot chips were going out the
back door ... of the fab house. That has nothing to do with breaking
any code anywhere.
 
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:45:19 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Stranded wire does vary somewhat in total conductor cross-sectional
area for a given gauge size, but I don't think that is unique to AWG
wire.

For example, depending on stranding, an AWG 24 wire can be 384 to 475
circular mils in x-sectional area. 404 is the nominal area for a solid
AWG 24, so it's -5% to +18%.
Click to expand...
Ahh.

I wasn't thinking about stranded wire, in fact I never refer to stranded
wires in that way.

I'd say:

7/32 AWG
10/34 AWG
19/36 AWG
41/40 AWG

rather than just "24AWG".

It pays to be specific when instructing a wireman ;-(

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)
 
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:36:17 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 22, 10:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:34 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



On Dec 22, 4:55 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On 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.

This is a serious misreading of what I was saying, as would be obvious
to anybody who had gone on to read the substance of what I wrote. The
Wikipedea discussion of the University of Alabama at Hintsville's
(UAH) correction from 5.1 to 5.2 points out that

/quote

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that
they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data
measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated
by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the
satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade,
compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ą 0.06 °C per decade.
The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as
noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with
each other.

Christy et al. (2007) find that the tropical temperature trends from
radiosondes matches closest with his v5.2 UAH dataset.[17]
Furthermore, they assert there is a growing discrepancy between RSS
and sonde trends beginning in 1992, when the NOAA-12 satellite was
launched[18]. This research found that the tropics were warming, from
the balloon data, +0.09 (corrected to UAH) or +0.12 (corrected to RSS)
or 0.05 K (from UAH MSU; ą0.07 K room for error) a decade.

/end quote

Since the corrections were based on a more thorough analysis of the
way orbital decay affects the satellite observations, this isn't
Finagle factoring, but a way of making better sense of the data. That
the improved processing brings the results better into line with
independent observations of the same regions is a bonus and provides
some confidence that the investigators have finally concentrated their
attention on aspects of the data processing that needed it.

Or, alternatively, calls into question the utility of satellite-based
surface temperature inferences, since these have to made through
numerous interface layers & obstructions.

Either they're reliable indicators of surface temp. and we're not
warming, or they're not reliable.

Regardless, their version doesn't inspire confidence: that they a)
measured and published wrong data and b) _now_, _this time_ they've
really got it right.



 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.

Consilience is using one /technique/ as a reference to improve
another, grinding one straight edge against another to make both
truer.

Which is exactly what happend here

Adjusting your data to match your theory?

The UAH were adjusting their data processing, not their raw data, to
correct for problems that other investigators had demonstrated to be
signficant.

The only theory involved here is the one that says the same lump of
gas should have the same temperature at the same time if you measure
it with several different instruments by several different techniques.

But they tweaked their data to match tweaked data.  That corrupts
both.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_d...

 Adjusting multiple data
sets so they agree, corrupting all so that none is true?

If that had been what was going on, it would have been reprehensible.

Sir Mr. Raveninghorde posted some quotes and sources to that effect.

Ravinghorde has a long history of misunderstanding the sources that he
quotes. See if you can find what he thought he could rely on.
Click to expand...
Just because you misunderstand what I understood doesn't mean I don't
understand what you misunderstood.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

In this article, reprinted from The American Thinker, two eminent
Professors reveal just one of the many seamy stories that emerge from
the Climategate emails. A prejudiced journal editor conspires with
senior IPCC scientists to delay and discredit a paper by four
distinguished scientists demonstrating that a central part of the
IPCC’s scientific argument is erroneous.
 
On Dec 22, 10:14 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 1:06 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 22, 6:29 pm, John Larkin
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.

John's post?  Not libel.  READ_ME_HARRY.TXT says as much, and, in the
USA, truth is an absolute defense.
Click to expand...
The choice of corrections isn't arbitrary, so the claim isn't true, no
matter what jokes irritated and frustrated scientists may have made
about the never-ending process of finding ever-better corrections.

You and John may think you have an absolute defense, but this merely
reflects your depressing ignorance about the area.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Dec 22, 10:28 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:06:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman



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

This isn't sufficiently public?

Sue me!
Click to expand...
You haven't libelled me. The chance that the scientists that you have
libelled will discover the libel is remote, and the chance that if
they did discover the libel, they'd then figure that you were rich
enough to justify launching a lawyer at you is probably equally low.
Jim Thompson might report you to the relevant people, but most of us
have got some sense of proportion.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Dec 23, 2:16 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:14:16 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 22, 1:06 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 6:29 pm, John Larkin

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.

John's post?  Not libel.  READ_ME_HARRY.TXT says as much, and, in the
USA, truth is an absolute defense.

IOW, Slowman doesn't like what John said so, like the good Europeon he
is, issues a threat of bankruptcy for daring to state an inconvenient
truth.
Click to expand...
The whole point is that what John claimed isn't true - corrections
aren't arbitrary - and John and Arthur are living in a fools paradise
if they think that some misinterpreted chunk of text is an "absolute
defense".

I'm not threatening anybody - just pointing out one of the dangers of
recycling ignorant misconceptions.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Dec 22, 10:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:34 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



On Dec 22, 4:55 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On 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.

This is a serious misreading of what I was saying, as would be obvious
to anybody who had gone on to read the substance of what I wrote. The
Wikipedea discussion of the University of Alabama at Hintsville's
(UAH) correction from 5.1 to 5.2 points out that

/quote

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that
they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data
measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated
by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the
satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade,
compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ą 0.06 °C per decade.
The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as
noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with
each other.

Christy et al. (2007) find that the tropical temperature trends from
radiosondes matches closest with his v5.2 UAH dataset.[17]
Furthermore, they assert there is a growing discrepancy between RSS
and sonde trends beginning in 1992, when the NOAA-12 satellite was
launched[18]. This research found that the tropics were warming, from
the balloon data, +0.09 (corrected to UAH) or +0.12 (corrected to RSS)
or 0.05 K (from UAH MSU; ą0.07 K room for error) a decade.

/end quote

Since the corrections were based on a more thorough analysis of the
way orbital decay affects the satellite observations, this isn't
Finagle factoring, but a way of making better sense of the data. That
the improved processing brings the results better into line with
independent observations of the same regions is a bonus and provides
some confidence that the investigators have finally concentrated their
attention on aspects of the data processing that needed it.

Or, alternatively, calls into question the utility of satellite-based
surface temperature inferences, since these have to made through
numerous interface layers & obstructions.

Either they're reliable indicators of surface temp. and we're not
warming, or they're not reliable.

Regardless, their version doesn't inspire confidence: that they a)
measured and published wrong data and b) _now_, _this time_ they've
really got it right.



 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.

Consilience is using one /technique/ as a reference to improve
another, grinding one straight edge against another to make both
truer.

Which is exactly what happend here

Adjusting your data to match your theory?

The UAH were adjusting their data processing, not their raw data, to
correct for problems that other investigators had demonstrated to be
signficant.

The only theory involved here is the one that says the same lump of
gas should have the same temperature at the same time if you measure
it with several different instruments by several different techniques.

But they tweaked their data to match tweaked data.  That corrupts
both.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_d...

 Adjusting multiple data
sets so they agree, corrupting all so that none is true?

If that had been what was going on, it would have been reprehensible.

Sir Mr. Raveninghorde posted some quotes and sources to that effect.
Click to expand...
Ravinghorde has a long history of misunderstanding the sources that he
quotes. See if you can find what he thought he could rely on.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On 12/22/2009 9:18 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones
rick.jones2@hp.com
wrote:

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony :) isn't cracked?

rick jones

None of their stuff has ever been cracked.

There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that
circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY
General Instrument crypto schema.

Circumnavigated?

Went around, I think. Like claiming the lock on the safe is
unpickable, but the hinge pins can be easily pulled. Nobody will bother
to break a weak code when the back door is open.
Click to expand...
I would have written "circumvented", but now I understand. Thanks.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
 
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:32:22 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 23, 2:16 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:14:16 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 22, 1:06 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 6:29 pm, John Larkin

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.

John's post?  Not libel.  READ_ME_HARRY.TXT says as much, and, in the
USA, truth is an absolute defense.

IOW, Slowman doesn't like what John said so, like the good Europeon he
is, issues a threat of bankruptcy for daring to state an inconvenient
truth.

The whole point is that what John claimed isn't true - corrections
aren't arbitrary - and John and Arthur are living in a fools paradise
if they think that some misinterpreted chunk of text is an "absolute
defense".

I'm not threatening anybody - just pointing out one of the dangers of
recycling ignorant misconceptions.
Click to expand...
Threaten me all you like, if it spices up your life.

John
 
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:31:31 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 22, 10:28 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:06:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman



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

This isn't sufficiently public?

Sue me!

You haven't libelled me. The chance that the scientists that you have
libelled will discover the libel is remote, and the chance that if
they did discover the libel, they'd then figure that you were rich
enough to justify launching a lawyer at you is probably equally low.
Jim Thompson might report you to the relevant people, but most of us
have got some sense of proportion.
Click to expand...
Lunatic.

Sue me for that, too.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top