Driver to drive?

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:49:37 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group. So you have your
wish.

What's happened to the group is electronic wannabees and has-beens
posting a lot of off-topic crap and pretending to be experts on things
they are not and can't be called on.

I've done a little reading up on radiosondes... I used to buy surplus
ones when I was a kid, so they interest me. There's some interesting
stuff about the IR absorption of the "white" thermistor capsules that
are generally used these days. They tend to - surprise, surprise -
read high.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:49:58 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

After the holidays I plan to buy...

http://jfteck.com/

And make some additional modifications.

...Jim Thompson
..well, they lie in saying no extra monthly charges,as caller ID service
is an extra monthly charge.

It's not my problem that you are so cheap that you don't have
caller-ID.

And stop whining... is there anyone who really needs to call you
anyway ?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Help save the environment!
Please dispose of socialism responsibly!

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:59:26 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:55:35 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:21:10 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:48:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear. One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further. Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment. Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause. But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view. The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them. First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two? I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them. I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two. So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill. But that's what it takes -- work. Are you willing to do that
with me?

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions. It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design?

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design, John?

Note that this rejoinder shows that "interesting" is in the eye of the
beholder. I'm a hobbyist and I want to see _education_, especially
aka the way Winfield Hill would encourage cooperative and creative
approaches on occasion here. You may have other interests. Others,
still others.

Your quip also means nothing about when you are going to _demonstrate_
your interest in seeing climate discussions end here; that it wasn't
just feigned clap-trap. For one, I'd be very glad to see ignorant
climate comments from people who _should_ know better cease here.

So *you* are presuming to educate *us*?

Hilarious.

I said I'd like _you_ to be good to your own word. I'm a hobbyist. I
would actually like to see less of what you claim you also don't want
to see and more of what I could enjoy learning about. I'd like to see
more of what you _know_ about and a lot less of what you are so
profoundly ignorant of. One has value. The other does not.

If you imagine it is hilarious to agree with you about where this
group should focus, then have at it.

Care to lead us to _your_ claimed promised land? Or will this group
remain a vent for fascist political/climate discussion?

"Fascist" is in the eye of the beholder.

Circuits, on the other hand, either work or don't. Perhaps that's too
rigid a standard for some people.

Lead, John. Lead. You write continually here on climate.

I do not.

What's clear is that you like to pretend to take a high road and, in
fact, don't. A pronounced case of feet of clay.

You and Sloman are the climate floggers here.

Bull. You need only look in the mirror or look at eeyore or a few
others here. What a load of crap you try to foist, with this comment.
As though anyone would fail to see that you are merely projecting your
own behavior onto others.

None of us have any control over you. That's your problem to solve.
But if you were sincere, and I now know you aren't, you could at least
cease your own ignorant banter on the subject of climate. Perhaps it
is because you have a serious self-confidence problem and being a "big
man" in a small pond suits your ego better. I don't know. But one
thing I do know. You like to pretend some kind of piousness about
your own behavior, when almost every day you put to shame your own
pretences. So I don't buy any of your misdirection and pointing
elsewhere.

Look to yourself, John.

I used to post on the subject, not because I felt it was appropriate
here but because I saw __others__ posting out of ignorance that
reached a level of willfulness that shocked me, given my prior sense
of respect for those posting here. Actually, if you go back, you will
see that I'm respectful at first. I suggested some study and provided
sources. You folks did your own damage to yourselves, quite frankly.
Climate wasn't something I felt belonged here.

I don't fault Sloman, at all. Cripes, look at the willful ignorance
he's dealing with and the inability of others to cease their own
posturing on climate issues about which they know little or nothing.

I have one and only one focus when it comes to climate discussion here
-- to encourage you and others to __work__ for their opinions. This
is because I value hard-earned _knowledge_, not an exposition of
ignorance. This is a sci.* group, after all. It would be nice if the
tenor of posters held to that. As I sometimes put it, "An equal right
to an opinion is not a right to an equal opinion."

What I see instead is blind ideological discussion and claims that
others are the ones being ideological when it's really just the
reverse -- a matter of sad projection and denial on your part and the
part of others posting like you here. You aren't informed on the
subject. You write out of ideology. You claim it isn't because of
that. But it is, because you simply are NOT informed about the
subject and cannot be speaking from a position of comprehensive
knowledge here. The use of politics and ideology damns your own
statements for what they are -- ideological, not informed. It clouds
everything.

If this group is going to be trashed by you and others posting on
climate like you, I'd like to see at least some serious engagement
showing a willingness to _WORK_ for your opinion on climate. I grant
you've worked for an opinion in electronics design. So? That doesn't
qualify you to speak on climate. Especially when you've spent zero
serious effort studying published results or going out into the field
to do practical, real-world work in the area.

An equal right to an opinion is not a right to an equal opinion. You
want to have an equal opinion on climate? Work for it. Show that you
have. You'd expect that from electronics designers. I expect it from
you and others posting on this subject. And being an engineer does
NOT qualify you to pontificate on science, though certainly your field
depends upon good science for its practical, mental approximations.

I occasionally
poke fun at people who are obscessed about climate and apparently know
little about electronics.

You do what makes you feel good to do. So? What else is new.

I expect better in a sci.* group than "feel good" commentary about
subjects you know very little about.

They need to rant about something they can't
be called on, and use climate as an excuse to insult other people and
proclaim their superiority. If they said anything serious about
electronics they'd be subject to reality.

No, John. YOU are the one taking the superior position. My gosh,
what balderdash you spout! That you cannot see yourself, so blind to
your own pathetic behavior this way, and cast this onto others just
goes to show the remarkable power of projection in human psychology.

What a load you dump out.

You can't
control anyone else, but you do control yourself. Or one might want
to think so, anyway.

Of course I control other people. I don't want to, but sometimes I
have to.

Another change of subject. You can't control anyone else _here_. You
knew that I meant that. Felt like disagreeing just to disagree and
for no other reason.

I'm sure you enjoy the banter. You said as much earlier. So I will
just chalk this up to that. But it is meaningless. My point remains.
You can't control anyone else here. But you can control yourself. If
you truly want to see climate discussions here dwindle, make the
choice to change your own behavior and work to do what you say you
want to do.

Of course, you won't. Because you were lying about that. You want to
continue an ideological debate, project your own faults on others
because it makes you feel superior to do so, and will never work for
your opinion on it, either.

Jon

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:27:20 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:49:37 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group. So you have your
wish.

Jon

I spend a lot of my spare time reading on climate. And I read the 2
papers you suggested.

Unfortunately you take the alarmist position that failure to believe
that CO2 is the major cause of temperature change is ignorance and
lack of willingness to understand. Rather it is a case of where is the
evidence?

I take a hobbyist position about a field of science where I do not
have a comprehensive view. In other words, I follow the science -- I
don't presume to know better. Nothing to be shocked about.

It is strange of course that no one seems to have published a paper
demonstrating that CO2 is the major driver of temperature.
Deconstructing such a paper would be educational.

So select the topic you are willing to be comprehensive about and for
which you'd supply some serious work, and I may join your effort and
see where that takes us. And yes, it would be educational. However,
no ad hominem. It must be thorough-going and sincere.

Unfortunately you come across as a self important arrogant prick
rather than a genuine inquiring mind.

That's obvious projection on your part. I value informed opinion. You
think that's self-important. I think it's just valuing informed
opinions and not valuing ignorant ones. Nothing to be shocked about.

Jon

 

[Baron]

Robert Baer Inscribed thus:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"nuny@bid.nes" wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
Well i tried one of those recordings
onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmland the
marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least
2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a
"UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that
the call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the
so-called call annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning
the message was a blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..
You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you
and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

Answer the call, listen to the pitch, answer all the questions as
if
you want to buy what they're selling right up until you get to where
they want your credit card number or mailing address then say "just
a minute, I have to go to the bathroom; I'll be right back", then
lay the phone down and listen for the BEEP BEEP BEEP letting you
know they've disconnected, then hang up.

When they call back, apologize for the unreliable phone connection
and repeat the above procedure, with variations like interrupting
the caller to discuss your grandson's first tooth, your hernia
operation/ kidney stone/colostomy bag, how the
Liberals/Conservatives/Communists/ Christians/Muslims/Atheists are
ruining the country, or whatever amuses you. Eventually they'll
decide they're not going to be able to sell you anything and cross
your number off their list.

It may take a while, and the bastards may resell your number to
somebody else, but keep at it. AFAIK it's the only sure way to get
rid of them without going completely off-grid.


Or ask them how hard it is to set up a phone scam like theirs,
since
you're out of work.


* IMPOSSIBLE; they hang up immediately on line pick-up.

So their just number collecting !

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:24:07 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:49:37 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group. So you have your
wish.


What's happened to the group is electronic wannabees and has-beens
posting a lot of off-topic crap and pretending to be experts on things
they are not and can't be called on.

False. I am a hobbyist (not a wannabee) and would very much enjoy
seeing ignorant climate discussions quite simply disappear forever
from here. And I'd _love_ to see some experts here discuss what they
know and constructively educate others who don't know as much.

What's so funny about your reply here is that while you are
complaining about others who don't know as much as you want to say you
know about electronics, you are at the very same time insisting on
posting your own quite ignorant, ideological opinions about climate
science. __YOU__ are the wannabee, here. Projection seems to be your
principal trait.

I've done a little reading up on radiosondes... I used to buy surplus
ones when I was a kid, so they interest me. There's some interesting
stuff about the IR absorption of the "white" thermistor capsules that
are generally used these days. They tend to - surprise, surprise -
read high.

And this "little reading" makes you an expert on climate science, does
it? It may qualify you as "hobbyist." Just as my "little reading" on
electronics qualifies me as a hobbyist here. At least I have some
practice behind me, as well, on this subject.

To return to the point, I'd like to see informed discussion in a sci.*
group -- most especially electronics here -- and I'd love to less
pretentiousness from you about your "high road" when you really are
one of the key people egging along exactly what you say you don't
want. Put in the serious work needed to have a comprehensively
informed opinion on any facet of climate science and I'll gladly read
it ... even here.

I don't think a sci.electronics group _must_ only discuss electronics.
But I do think it should focus on scientifically informed opinion.
Obviously you disagree, since you continually post ignorant opinions
on the subject of climate. I think it is reasonable in a sci.* group
to ask people to work for their opinions. Obviously you disagree,
since you refuse to work for yours on climate.

My position is simple and pristine. I value informed opinion and
don't value ignorant opinion. That's why _I_ am here.

Jon

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:47:08 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 27, 6:24 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:49:37 -0800, Jon Kirwan





j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group.  So you have your
wish.

What's happened to the group is electronic wannabees and has-beens
posting a lot of off-topic crap and pretending to be experts on things
they are not and can't be called on.

I've done a little reading up on radiosondes... I used to buy surplus
ones when I was a kid, so they interest me. There's some interesting
stuff about the IR absorption of the "white" thermistor capsules that
are generally used these days. They tend to - surprise, surprise -
read high.

From a climate wannabee who posts a lot of off-topic crap and wants to
pretend that a small inaccuracy in the outptus of some radio-sondes
undermines the case for anthropogenic global warming.

Yes, I see we both saw John admit his own severe case of projection.
He tells others they post off-topic, while doing so himself. He then
here admits his own wannabee status on climate in a reply where he is
falsely projecting that very same thought onto others. It's almost as
though he has a severe blind spot that no amount of clues others may
hand him will fix. Even the simplest of cases like this, where the
entire effect is found within a single post of his, he cannot seem to
see.

He really needs to get a mirror and take a good hard look into it.

Jon

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:20:22 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:27:20 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:49:37 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group. So you have your
wish.

Jon

I spend a lot of my spare time reading on climate. And I read the 2
papers you suggested.

Unfortunately you take the alarmist position that failure to believe
that CO2 is the major cause of temperature change is ignorance and
lack of willingness to understand. Rather it is a case of where is the
evidence?

I take a hobbyist position about a field of science where I do not
have a comprehensive view. In other words, I follow the science -- I
don't presume to know better. Nothing to be shocked about.

It is strange of course that no one seems to have published a paper
demonstrating that CO2 is the major driver of temperature.
Deconstructing such a paper would be educational.

So select the topic you are willing to be comprehensive about and for
which you'd supply some serious work, and I may join your effort and
see where that takes us. And yes, it would be educational. However,
no ad hominem. It must be thorough-going and sincere.

Currently I am looking at the causes of ice ages and interglacials.
Specifically Milankovitch. The concept is straight forward. A simple
question to answer is when should the next glacial period commence.

I've no doubt that someone has calculated this already. However it is
the sort of thing any engineer ought to be able to work out once they
have the data.

I am looking at this since, if Milankovitch's theory is correct, this
is the major climate forcing that dominates. 10C rise in 100 years is
not unknown.

If you are genuinely interested then respond to my email as it is not
relevent to this newsgroup. But don't expect me to progress quickly as
I am heavily committed. I assume your jonk@ address is valid.

Unfortunately you come across as a self important arrogant prick
rather than a genuine inquiring mind.

That's obvious projection on your part. I value informed opinion. You
think that's self-important. I think it's just valuing informed
opinions and not valuing ignorant ones. Nothing to be shocked about.

Jon

You assume ignorance when perhaps you should not.

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:00:11 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:20:22 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:27:20 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:49:37 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group. So you have your
wish.

Jon

I spend a lot of my spare time reading on climate. And I read the 2
papers you suggested.

Unfortunately you take the alarmist position that failure to believe
that CO2 is the major cause of temperature change is ignorance and
lack of willingness to understand. Rather it is a case of where is the
evidence?

I take a hobbyist position about a field of science where I do not
have a comprehensive view. In other words, I follow the science -- I
don't presume to know better. Nothing to be shocked about.

It is strange of course that no one seems to have published a paper
demonstrating that CO2 is the major driver of temperature.
Deconstructing such a paper would be educational.

So select the topic you are willing to be comprehensive about and for
which you'd supply some serious work, and I may join your effort and
see where that takes us. And yes, it would be educational. However,
no ad hominem. It must be thorough-going and sincere.

Currently I am looking at the causes of ice ages and interglacials.
Specifically Milankovitch. The concept is straight forward. A simple
question to answer is when should the next glacial period commence.

I have a number of papers on the subject. The more recent ones
demonstrate that fully apprehending Milankovitch cycles takes a fair
deal of study. Simple questions, by the way, usually beget complex
answers. And, what's really important is being sufficiently informed
to frame the _right_ questions.

I've no doubt that someone has calculated this already. However it is
the sort of thing any engineer ought to be able to work out once they
have the data.

"Any engineer?" Hardly. I studied celestial mechanics for a while
and I find the entire topic very interesting. I won't belabor it here
unless you feel you want to, but such things as special perturbations
due to a rotationally distorted Earth within the earth/moon system
poses an interesting challenge to some.

Some engineers, yes.

I am looking at this since, if Milankovitch's theory is correct, this
is the major climate forcing that dominates. 10C rise in 100 years is
not unknown.

Tell me what papers you are reading through. I'll source them and
read them, myself. When we can discuss it.

If you are genuinely interested then respond to my email as it is not
relevent to this newsgroup. But don't expect me to progress quickly as
I am heavily committed. I assume your jonk@ address is valid.

Yes, the address is valid. And feel free to use it. I very much
encourage _any_ serious discussion of science fact. Milankovitch is
considered to be the 'instigator' that, applied with other positive
feedbacks, yields the glaciation cycles we've taken as fact for the
last million (or two) years. Of course, it won't tell you what our
own contribution to greenhouse forcing means today. But it will tell
you about one facet of many about past cycles.

Unfortunately you come across as a self important arrogant prick
rather than a genuine inquiring mind.

That's obvious projection on your part. I value informed opinion. You
think that's self-important. I think it's just valuing informed
opinions and not valuing ignorant ones. Nothing to be shocked about.

Jon

You assume ignorance when perhaps you should not.

I don't presume it, I see it. Demonstrated mastery of the material
would change my opinion or cause me to admit my fault, or both. I
seek and value informed opinion. That should not be shocking to
anyone.

Jon

 

[nuny@bid.nes]

On Dec 27, 4:22 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:50:47 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
robertb...@localnet.com> wrote in
LqadnZvkH7yuRKvWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4...@posted.localnet>:

Howard Eisenhauer wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:25:50 -0800 (PST), "n...@bid.nes"
alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
   Well i tried one of those recordings onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmlandthe marketeers that
*Snip*
 You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

*Snip*
 Mark L. Fergerson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1waHJhb2wxo

LOL

Ahahahahahaha!

Exactly right!

The "cute little Mexican midget" was a little over the top though...


Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 27, 4:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:36:09 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 27, 12:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:49:37 -0800, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group.  So you have your
wish.

Jon

I spend a lot of my spare time reading on climate. And I read the 2
papers you suggested.

Unfortunately you take the alarmist position that failure to believe
that CO2 is the major cause of temperature change is ignorance and
lack of willingness to understand. Rather it is a case of where is the
evidence?

Or rather where is the evidence that you can understand?

It is strange of course that no one seems to have published a paper
demonstrating that CO2 is the major driver of temperature.
Deconstructing such a paper would be educational.

You may have to go back a bit to find such a paper. The idea has been
around for quite some time.

A theory is not evidence.

According to

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Kaplan, Lewis D. (1952). "On the Pressure Dependence of Radiative Heat
Transfer in the Atmosphere." J. Meteorology 9: 1-12.

nailed down that more CO2 will heat the atmosphere, while

Keeling, Charles D. (1960). "The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances
of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere." Tellus 12: 200-203.

made it clear that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere was going
up, and that a substantial proportion of the CO2 being generated by
burning fossil carbon was ending up in the atmosphere and not being
absorbed in the oceans.

Both of these are evidence-based papers, and provide crucial support
for Fourier's theory.

The idea of perpetual motion has been around for some time. But there
is no evidence for it. So has phlogiston theory.

Perhaps not, but anthropogenic global warming is a rather different
case. The idea of perpetual motion has failed every experimental test,
and phlogiston theory has been superseded by a better theory, while
anthropogenic global warming is supported by a large and coherent mass
of experimental evidence. We take you to it from time to time, but we
don't seem to be able to get you to absorb any of it - an interesting
example of neigh-saying.

Check out

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Fourier seems to have been the first to come up with the idea in the
1820's so you may have trouble getting hold of a copy of his paper to
deconstruct. I hope you can read the scientific French of the period -

Another daft comment. If it is only available in French it is hardly
part of the current "climate consensus".

Since it is the original source of the current climate concensus, as
the American Institute of Physics web-site makes clear to those with
the capacity to read, it is rather silly to claim that it isn't a part
of it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 27, 6:24 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:49:37 -0800, Jon Kirwan





j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:29:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered
rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the
basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an
engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a
means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then
most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second
educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and
instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group.  So you have your
wish.

What's happened to the group is electronic wannabees and has-beens
posting a lot of off-topic crap and pretending to be experts on things
they are not and can't be called on.

I've done a little reading up on radiosondes... I used to buy surplus
ones when I was a kid, so they interest me. There's some interesting
stuff about the IR absorption of the "white" thermistor capsules that
are generally used these days. They tend to - surprise, surprise -
read high.

From a climate wannabee who posts a lot of off-topic crap and wants to
pretend that a small inaccuracy in the outptus of some radio-sondes
undermines the case for anthropogenic global warming.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:02:53 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:59:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:55:35 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:21:10 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:48:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

snip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to address
this directly for you and you haven't even bothered to read them.
That's clear. One in 1969 and another 40 years later in 2009 which
supplements the topics, as well as going further. Nice bookends and
you never could have written the above if you so much as had glancing
familiarity with mathematics or had read even one of those two papers.

Just one time I'd like to see a single _informed_ statement from some
naysayer here instead of just pulling numbers out of butts and making
up, entirely out of whole cloth, what the randomly conjured number
then supposedly means in a situation they know nothing about.

Reminds me of a hillbilly joke, but it's too crass to post here.

Jon

Having now had a chance to read these articles I note they are nothing
to do with anthropogenic global warming.

It was about the "1% regulation looks OK" ignorant comment. Now, it
was conditioned by the "design specs" escape clause. But the only way
to get past ignorant comments like this is to ... work hard at gaining
a comprehensive view. The papers I mentioned _do_ help address
getting an education and they do deal with the idea of "regulation" in
a relatively large region of our planetary sphere.

Since you say you have read those two, you must realize by now that
there are a number of other papers referenced that are also needed in
order to apprehend them well enough to discuss informed opinions about
them. First off, would you be willing to discuss the details of just
these two? I'd like to cover some of the mathematics involved and
some detailed thoughts about the implications within them. I also
think it will be impossible to agree, without digging into many of the
other resources (as well as contacting some of the scientists who are
specialists in varying areas discussed in them), on at least some of
the aspects of these two. So we'd need to work hard and I don't
expect this to handed to either of us on a silver platter or as a
pill. But that's what it takes -- work. Are you willing to do that
with me?

If you are interested in the cyclic nature of arctic ice see:

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

I'm interested in seeing a cure to profound ignorance speaking here.
That means we each need to _work_ for our opinions. It's the _work_ I
am interested in seeing happen.

Join me?

Jon

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design?

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic
design, John?

Note that this rejoinder shows that "interesting" is in the eye of the
beholder. I'm a hobbyist and I want to see _education_, especially
aka the way Winfield Hill would encourage cooperative and creative
approaches on occasion here. You may have other interests. Others,
still others.

Your quip also means nothing about when you are going to _demonstrate_
your interest in seeing climate discussions end here; that it wasn't
just feigned clap-trap. For one, I'd be very glad to see ignorant
climate comments from people who _should_ know better cease here.

So *you* are presuming to educate *us*?

Hilarious.

I said I'd like _you_ to be good to your own word. I'm a hobbyist. I
would actually like to see less of what you claim you also don't want
to see and more of what I could enjoy learning about. I'd like to see
more of what you _know_ about and a lot less of what you are so
profoundly ignorant of. One has value. The other does not.

If you imagine it is hilarious to agree with you about where this
group should focus, then have at it.

Care to lead us to _your_ claimed promised land? Or will this group
remain a vent for fascist political/climate discussion?

"Fascist" is in the eye of the beholder.

Circuits, on the other hand, either work or don't. Perhaps that's too
rigid a standard for some people.

Lead, John. Lead. You write continually here on climate.

I do not.

What's clear is that you like to pretend to take a high road and, in
fact, don't. A pronounced case of feet of clay.

You and Sloman are the climate floggers here.

Bull. You need only look in the mirror or look at eeyore or a few
others here. What a load of crap you try to foist, with this comment.
As though anyone would fail to see that you are merely projecting your
own behavior onto others.

None of us have any control over you. That's your problem to solve.
But if you were sincere, and I now know you aren't, you could at least
cease your own ignorant banter on the subject of climate. Perhaps it
is because you have a serious self-confidence problem and being a "big
man" in a small pond suits your ego better. I don't know. But one
thing I do know. You like to pretend some kind of piousness about
your own behavior, when almost every day you put to shame your own
pretences. So I don't buy any of your misdirection and pointing
elsewhere.

Look to yourself, John.

I used to post on the subject, not because I felt it was appropriate
here but because I saw __others__ posting out of ignorance that
reached a level of willfulness that shocked me, given my prior sense
of respect for those posting here. Actually, if you go back, you will
see that I'm respectful at first. I suggested some study and provided
sources. You folks did your own damage to yourselves, quite frankly.
Climate wasn't something I felt belonged here.

I don't fault Sloman, at all. Cripes, look at the willful ignorance
he's dealing with and the inability of others to cease their own
posturing on climate issues about which they know little or nothing.

What's hilarious is that you and Sloman declare anything you don't
approve of as "ignorance." This is the absurd Gorian "the science is
settled" arrogance. How much experience do you have in simulation
chaotic nonlinear systems?

I have one and only one focus when it comes to climate discussion here
-- to encourage you and others to __work__ for their opinions.

Dynamic systems are my business.

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 27, 8:54 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:02:53 -0800, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:59:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:55:35 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:33:20 -0800, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:21:10 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:48:26 -0800, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:39:23 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:50:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:25:47 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:28:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

<snip>

Lead, John.  Lead.  You write continually here on climate.

I do not.

What's clear is that you like to pretend to take a high road and, in
fact, don't.  A pronounced case of feet of clay.

You and Sloman are the climate floggers here.

Bull.  You need only look in the mirror or look at eeyore or a few
others here.  What a load of crap you try to foist, with this comment.
As though anyone would fail to see that you are merely projecting your
own behavior onto others.

None of us have any control over you.  That's your problem to solve.
But if you were sincere, and I now know you aren't, you could at least
cease your own ignorant banter on the subject of climate.  Perhaps it
is because you have a serious self-confidence problem and being a "big
man" in a small pond suits your ego better.  I don't know.  But one
thing I do know.  You like to pretend some kind of piousness about
your own behavior, when almost every day you put to shame your own
pretences.  So I don't buy any of your misdirection and pointing
elsewhere.

Look to yourself, John.

I used to post on the subject, not because I felt it was appropriate
here but because I saw __others__ posting out of ignorance that
reached a level of willfulness that shocked me, given my prior sense
of respect for those posting here.  Actually, if you go back, you will
see that I'm respectful at first.  I suggested some study and provided
sources.  You folks did your own damage to yourselves, quite frankly.
Climate wasn't something I felt belonged here.

I don't fault Sloman, at all.  Cripes, look at the willful ignorance
he's dealing with and the inability of others to cease their own
posturing on climate issues about which they know little or nothing.

What's hilarious is that you and Sloman declare anything you don't
approve of as "ignorance." This is the absurd Gorian "the science is
settled" arrogance. How much experience do you have in simulation
chaotic nonlinear systems?

You may feel that way, because you exhibit a great deal of ignorance
of climate issues, and get called on it, and still arrogantly retail
the same wilful ignorance again and again.

For instance, what makes you think that simulating a heavy marine
turbine, with one rotor and a single gas path is of any particular
relevance to simulating the multiple air flows from the equator to
poles and back again? Do tell us.

I have one and only one focus when it comes to climate discussion here
-- to encourage you and others to __work__ for their opinions.

Dynamic systems are my business.

But not any dynamic system that looks much like the weather heat-
transfer paths across our planet.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <en5fj5hee89bihqoqcnt28vd1e0qh6rnac@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote
in part:

I've done a little reading up on radiosondes... I used to buy surplus
ones when I was a kid, so they interest me. There's some interesting
stuff about the IR absorption of the "white" thermistor capsules that
are generally used these days. They tend to - surprise, surprise -
read high.

What sort of IR absorbtion do these have, then?

Google does not turn up anything on:

radiosonde "thermistor capsule"
radiosonde "thermistor capsules"

And if they read high, would they not also read high in the levels of
the atmosphere *cooled* by greenhouse gases?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:54:04 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:02:53 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

snip
I have one and only one focus when it comes to climate discussion here
-- to encourage you and others to __work__ for their opinions.

Dynamic systems are my business.

And you go around being the pot calling the kettle black, saying that
others "proclaim their superiority." You routinely pretend at your
own superiority, claiming expertice in anything you choose to talk
about for a moment. Your ability at projection knows no bounds!

And of course it is yet another change of subject, which has nothing
to do with your ignorance about climate science. I can at least rely
upon that each and every time.

You are neither a scientist nor an active climate scientist. And so
far as I've been able to tell so far, never truly put your shoulder to
the wheel of any discipline within it. Live with it or change it.

Jon

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:37:08 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <en5fj5hee89bihqoqcnt28vd1e0qh6rnac@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote
in part:

I've done a little reading up on radiosondes... I used to buy surplus
ones when I was a kid, so they interest me. There's some interesting
stuff about the IR absorption of the "white" thermistor capsules that
are generally used these days. They tend to - surprise, surprise -
read high.

What sort of IR absorbtion do these have, then?

Google does not turn up anything on:

radiosonde "thermistor capsule"
radiosonde "thermistor capsules"

And if they read high, would they not also read high in the levels of
the atmosphere *cooled* by greenhouse gases?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

I posted on that before:

Message-ID: <if23j5h87ul9lfsr97m0n6ue1ck3giijl2@4ax.com>

but goodling radiosonde thermistor accuracy

works better.

Apparently radiosonde temperature measurement gear has changed a lot
in recent years, and the dreaded "corrections" are still under debate.

Radiosonde data is one of the confirmations often cited to justify
other (corrected) AGW temperature-rise data. It would be remarkable if
it turned out that radiosonde data is incorrect or improperly adjusted
such as to agree with other incorrect measurements. Stranger things
have happened.

Measuring air temperature turns out to be non-trivial. I'm currently
waiting for the epoxy to set on a thin-film 1K platinum RTD, at the
end of a spool of RG-174, potted into a piece of soda straw. That will
go into a niche on the north side of the cabin.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:19:30 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:54:04 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:02:53 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

snip
I have one and only one focus when it comes to climate discussion here
-- to encourage you and others to __work__ for their opinions.

Dynamic systems are my business.

And you go around being the pot calling the kettle black, saying that
others "proclaim their superiority." You routinely pretend at your
own superiority, claiming expertice in anything you choose to talk
about for a moment. Your ability at projection knows no bounds!

Strange observation. I often ask questions, or express uncertainty
about stuff I'm not sure of, and learn from other people. My position
on AGW is that there's a reasonable chance that Al Gore has got it
wrong.

And of course it is yet another change of subject, which has nothing
to do with your ignorance about climate science. I can at least rely
upon that each and every time.

You are neither a scientist nor an active climate scientist. And so
far as I've been able to tell so far, never truly put your shoulder to
the wheel of any discipline within it. Live with it or change it.

Jon

The issue isn't whether I'm competant to accurately simulate the
planet's climate. The question is whether anyone is. Some systems are
simply impossible to simulate well, like weather and turbulent flow.
And maybe climate.

I am an electronics designer, and this is sci.electronics.design. Most
electronic circuits simulate fairly well, at least well enough to be
useful if you know the limitations.

John

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:05:43 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

snip
The issue isn't whether I'm competant to accurately simulate the
planet's climate. The question is whether anyone is. Some systems are
simply impossible to simulate well, like weather and turbulent flow.
And maybe climate.

No, that's just you reframing the issue. The issue is whether or not
you've spent a lick of your personal life's blood to place you in a
position to say anything on climate. And, of course, if you are being
no less than disingenuous when you pretend otherwise or instead point
your fingers elsewhere when you should be looking first to yourself as
one of the continual "climate floggers" around here.

You aren't in a position to speak on what climate science is or is
not, John.

I am an electronics designer,

Granted.

and this is sci.electronics.design.

One might not guess this from the posting statistics here. Or from
your sometimes comments about your own wish to focus on electronics
design discussions while at the same moment and in fact the same day
"speaking out of both sides of your mouth." I actually want what you
say you want. And I didn't jump into discussions on climate in this
group until seeing so much ignorance and ideology in manifest view.

There comes a moment when someone needs to call it like it is.

Most electronic circuits simulate fairly well

I would phrase this as "the electronic circuits that the preponderance
of electronics designers work on simulate fairly well." I can't speak
to "most ... circuits" per se and I don't know that you can. But I
think it is probably true that few active electronics designers have
the kind of specialized knowledge that exceeds the capabilities of the
best simulators, today. But if you insist...

at least well enough to be useful if you know the limitations.

By and large. I think simulation is something to help you check
yourself, much like a spell-check may. But you do need to know why
you are doing what you are doing, I'd hazard to say.

Of course, we are on about a different subject. Which is the usual
fare with you.

Jon

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:00:53 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:05:43 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

snip
The issue isn't whether I'm competant to accurately simulate the
planet's climate. The question is whether anyone is. Some systems are
simply impossible to simulate well, like weather and turbulent flow.
And maybe climate.

No, that's just you reframing the issue. The issue is whether or not
you've spent a lick of your personal life's blood to place you in a
position to say anything on climate. And, of course, if you are being
no less than disingenuous when you pretend otherwise or instead point
your fingers elsewhere when you should be looking first to yourself as
one of the continual "climate floggers" around here.

You aren't in a position to speak on what climate science is or is
not, John.

I am an electronics designer,

Granted.

and this is sci.electronics.design.

One might not guess this from the posting statistics here. Or from
your sometimes comments about your own wish to focus on electronics
design discussions while at the same moment and in fact the same day
"speaking out of both sides of your mouth." I actually want what you
say you want. And I didn't jump into discussions on climate in this
group until seeing so much ignorance and ideology in manifest view.

There comes a moment when someone needs to call it like it is.

You flatter yourself.

Most electronic circuits simulate fairly well

I would phrase this as "the electronic circuits that the preponderance
of electronics designers work on simulate fairly well." I can't speak
to "most ... circuits" per se and I don't know that you can.

I can. You can't.


But I

think it is probably true that few active electronics designers have
the kind of specialized knowledge that exceeds the capabilities of the
best simulators, today. But if you insist...

I design all sorts of stuff that can't usefully be simulated,
especially with Spice. That's a lot more fun than siccing LT SPice on
opamps and 555's.

at least well enough to be useful if you know the limitations.

By and large. I think simulation is something to help you check
yourself, much like a spell-check may. But you do need to know why
you are doing what you are doing, I'd hazard to say.

Of course, we are on about a different subject. Which is the usual
fare with you.

Are you accusing me of straying off topic because I discuss
electronics in s.e.d.?

John