Driver to drive?

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 03:22:54 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:48:52 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10738343/Forecasters-find-new-formula-for-long-range-weather.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Thing is, it's easy to build a model that "simulates" past data. That can be
done with extreme accuracy... by polynomial curve fitting, for example. Heck,
Excel can do that. The more challenging thing to do is create a model that
predicts the unknown future.

---
As opposed to the known future?
---

Thing is, it will be some time before this model is proven wrong. And when it's
proven wrong, somebody will announce an improved version.

---
So what's your point?

It happens all the time in the real world; just take a look at how
Einstein's work overshadows Newton's where Newton couldn't go.

F=MA is usually accurate to parts per billion, for any sorts of materials. At
relativistic speeds, it needs to be tweaked. Monday, the forcast here was for
dry weather; Tuesday, we had pounding rain and hail.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 April 2014 01:28:43 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 08:44:37 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/04/2014 02:48, John Larkin wrot

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10738343/Forecasters-find-new-formula-for-long-range-weather.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

You should be aware that the Telegraph science is written by people with
almost no understanding of the subject. One of their previous science
journalists couldn't even plagiarise text books reliably!

How about Met Office, via the Times?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4051876.ece

The Times is a British Murdoch newspaper. It employs British science journalists (who typically haven't studied any science at university) and - like very other Murdoch newspaper - presents the output of the denial propaganda machine as news.

Thing is, it's easy to build a model that "simulates" past data. That can be done with extreme accuracy... by polynomial curve fitting, for example. Heck,

Only by a mathematical ignoramus like you who futzes with the numbers.

Overfitting data is one of *the* most common mistakes and you have
previously demonstrated that you don't understand why it goes haywire.

Done right, it doesn't go haywire. A good curve fit can beautifully predict the past.

Obviously. The "going haywire" bit happens as you move outside the period you fitted - earlier or later..

UK Met Office know what they are doing and their forecasting models are
world leading. How else would you propose to train up a forecasting
system other than by comparing its results against historical data (and
then with new data as and when it is observed)?

How do you know that it's not effectively curve fitting? But to answer your
question, publish its daily weather forecasts and see how it does.

John Larkin hasn't noticed that this isn't a daily weather forecast - which is susceptible to the "butterfly effect". "Broadbrush" long-term forecasts are more constrained by the thermodynamics, and can be less susceptible to small changes in initial conditions.

Excel can do that. The more challenging thing to do is create a model that
predicts the unknown future.

Strictly the Excel charting polynomial fit in all versions apart from
out-of-the-box XL2007 can create accurate polynomial fits. The version
used in the spreadsheet is intrinsically numerically unstable and almost
never gives a correct least squares fit even for a cubic. It isn't
massively far out unless you have an X axis with data that starts well
away from the origin (calendar dates for instance).

Microsofts official response was "business users do not care".

Thing is, it will be some time before this model is proven wrong. And when it's proven wrong, somebody will announce an improved version.

You don't get on with maths do you? Science is all about building and
testing predictive models of the world to determine how it all works.

Predictive models should predict! These sorts of things get publicity now, and
nobody remembers years later.

Since you don't understand what it's claiming to predict in the first place, you'd be exactly the kind of nobody who wouldn't remember years later.

You didn't correctly understand what was being claimed when you re-posted the article, so whatever you are going to remember is going to be reliably wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Geoff]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
news:bq1jg6F8cenU1@mid.individual.net:

On 2/04/2014 3:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I have the circuit whose LTSPICE text is given below. The
voltage sources and voltage controlled switches are only
there to set the initial voltages on the capacitors. Thus
the circuit of interest consists of two capacitors and two
resistors.

I've been trying to determine an equation that describes
the voltage on C2 as it varies with time, but with my
limited mathematical skill, haven't been able to. I end up
with differential equations that contain the voltage on C1
as well, in a way that I can't substitute for.

Any thoughts?

Sylvia.

Actually, never mind. It involves solving simultaneous
differential equations. I'll just have to read up on that.

Sylvia.

Or get into the S-domain and use Laplace maths, which should get
you some time domain equation at the end. Don't ask me the
details though, its been a long time

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 April 2014 06:08:53 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 4:22:54 AM UTC-4, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:48:52 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

It's likely that we are witnessing a historical political perversion
of the scientific community, the greatest ethical blunder in the
history of science. I feel priviliged to witness this in my lifetime.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece

John Larkin thinks he can make fatuous statements like that because he's a gullible sucker for the output of the denialist propaganda machine.

The only "ethical blunders" around are being made by the likes of Lord Lawson of Blaby who have been paid to retail pernicious nonsense by the fossil carbon extraction industry, as a retail merchant of doubt.

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

A decade or so ago, he would have been telling us - for money - that smoking wasn't nearly as bad for your health as scientists claim. Now he is being bribed to tell us that CO2 isn't quite as bad for the planet as science suggests.

John Larkin is gullible enough to believe him and the other ignorant stooges that the fossil carbon extraction industry is paying to mislead the ignorant.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 April 2014 07:47:52 UTC+11, Neon John wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:08:53 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

It's likely that we are witnessing a historical political perversion
of the scientific community, the greatest ethical blunder in the
history of science. I feel priviliged to witness this in my lifetime.

I think you're approximately correct. Substitute "religious" for
"political" and you'll be spot-on. After all the "green movement" has
become a religion with all the ceremony, blind beliefs, code phrases
and other accoutrements of religions including the hateful
disparagement of non-believers.

It's not "non-believers" who are being disparaged, but people - like Lord Lawson of Blaby - who don't know much about the subject and present denialist nonsense that suits the fossil carbon extraction industry as if they knew what they were talking about.

No difference than when the Catholic church defined what was
scientifically true and those who disagreed frequently found
themselves headless.

There's one significant difference. The Catholic Church was relying on their interpretation of the Bible to justify their stance. The Bible is a collection of traditional knowledge assembled over a few thousand years without any plan to address questions about astronomy.

The scientific community has made up it's mind on the basis of data collected with the aim of finding out what's going on.

The Green movement - as a whole - tends to misuse that data, but it doesn't go in for the misrepresentation and downright lying that you get from the fossil carbon extraction industry's propaganda machine.

As to the greatest, I dunno. The Phlogiston theory of combustion hung
in there for several centuries, even for a long time after Lavoisier
proved it wrong and proved the oxidation theory correct.

It hung around popular culture. The scientific community moved on rather more quickly.

Society is really no less stupid and scientifically illiterate than
when they burned witches.

This religious perversion will certainly be the most costly, both in
monetary costs and in lives lost.

If the denialist machine stops us from tackling CO2 emissions for long enough to let the global temperature rise to get to 4C, it may well be responsible for
a human population crash from the current seven billion to less than one billion.

That would be spectacular. I'm fairly sure that we - collectively - aren't going to be that stupid, but the evidence presented by this usegroup is less than comforting.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 April 2014 08:06:50 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:47:52 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:08:53 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

It's likely that we are witnessing a historical political perversion
of the scientific community, the greatest ethical blunder in the
history of science. I feel priviliged to witness this in my lifetime.

I think you're approximately correct. Substitute "religious" for
"political" and you'll be spot-on. After all the "green movement" has
become a religion with all the ceremony, blind beliefs, code phrases
and other accoutrements of religions including the hateful
disparagement of non-believers.

No difference than when the Catholic church defined what was
scientifically true and those who disagreed frequently found
themselves headless.

As to the greatest, I dunno. The Phlogiston theory of combustion hung
in there for several centuries, even for a long time after Lavoisier
proved it wrong and proved the oxidation theory correct.

Society is really no less stupid and scientifically illiterate than
when they burned witches.

Most scientists, too.

As if John Larkin had a clue.

This religious peversion will certainly be the most costly, both in
monetary costs and in lives lost.

That's why it's the biggest ethical blunder in the history of science:
because it will kill millions of people.

If the latest IPCC report is to be taken seriously, the failure to take anthropogenic global warming seriously has the potential to kill billions of people - not mere millions. They talk about a human population crash from the current seven billion to less than one billion. That would take a couple of generations, and would primarily reflect severely reduced fertility, but it would involve a lot of people starving to death, because agriculture wouldn't work in a warmer world the way it does now.

John Pollyanna Larkin assure us that agriculture would work better, but he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.

It's bizarre that it's fine to question relativity and quantum
mechanics and the speed of light and the structure of the universe,
but open-minded discussion of climate (of simulations of wildly
chaotic systems with unknown parameters and unknown forcings and bad
instrumentation) is severely suppressed. People are arguing that
questioning AGW theory is a criminal act. Sounds like Spain in 1600.

John Larkin still hasn't noticed that while weather is chaotic, climate isn't.
Farmers have been exploiting this for the past few thousand years, but John can't get his head around this simple distinction.

People aren't arguing that questioning AGW theory is a criminal act. It goes on all the time. What is criminal is misrepresenting the science in a way that impairs people's understanding of what is actually going on.

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

People - like Lord Lawson of Blaby - who are paid to mislead the public should be charged with fraud.

> It will be fun to see this play out.

I'm not amused by what I've seen so far.

Maybe we have too many scientists, as we arguably have too many
engineers. We have cranked up the quantity as we have cranked down the
quality.

Unfortunately, the only way of assessing scientific or engineering quality is by assessing the quality of the work that they do.

We are pretty good at selecting students who are going to be good at passing examinations. The SAT scores that do that well are less-than-reliable predictors of post-education performance, so if you want more good scientist or good engineers, you have to put more students through university and select the good ones by seeing how they perform after they have graduated.

There may be an element of diminishing returns here - for a start, students with lower SAT scores are more likely to drop out before they graduate - and some people will do what I did and find out that they should have studied engineering rather than science, or what you did when you found out that you were better at marketing than engineering.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 4:22:54 AM UTC-4, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:48:52 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10738343/Forecasters-find-new-formula-for-long-range-weather.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Thing is, it's easy to build a model that "simulates" past data. That can be
done with extreme accuracy... by polynomial curve fitting, for example. Heck,
Excel can do that. The more challenging thing to do is create a model that
predicts the unknown future.

---
As opposed to the known future?
---

Obviously. Lots of things are predictable, knowable, and known.

Cheers,
James Arthur

It's likely that we are witnessing a historical political perversion
of the scientific community, the greatest ethical blunder in the
history of science. I feel priviliged to witness this in my lifetime.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Geoff]

Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
news:aj3pj99b8pkkt9ghd71r8dsm5d5sptivuj@4ax.com:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 22:09:50 +0000 (UTC), Geoff
public@email.com> wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
news:bq1jg6F8cenU1@mid.individual.net:

On 2/04/2014 3:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I have the circuit whose LTSPICE text is given below.
The voltage sources and voltage controlled switches are
only there to set the initial voltages on the
capacitors. Thus the circuit of interest consists of two
capacitors and two resistors.

I've been trying to determine an equation that describes
the voltage on C2 as it varies with time, but with my
limited mathematical skill, haven't been able to. I end
up with differential equations that contain the voltage
on C1 as well, in a way that I can't substitute for.

Any thoughts?

Sylvia.

Actually, never mind. It involves solving simultaneous
differential equations. I'll just have to read up on
that.

Sylvia.



Or get into the S-domain and use Laplace maths, which
should get you some time domain equation at the end. Don't
ask me the details though, its been a long time

Yep, that's the correct way.

Replace C's with an impedance value 1/(Cs), where "s" is
the Laplace variable, then simply write a transfer
V(OUT)/V(IN)

You'll get a second order equation which must be
partial-fraction expanded, then you can write down the time
domain by observation.

I do it automatically... trying to explain it is hard :-(

I'll look for a write-up... must have it around here
somewhere.

The technique, BTW, is courtesy of Oliver Heaviside... not
Laplace.

...Jim Thompson

I remember Heaviside being mentioned occasionally in maths
class in college. I just looked him up in wiki. What a
character, and to think he coined words like impedance and
permeativity.

 

It would be an interesting exercise to build a small but complex system and issue a challenge to climate modelers to model and predict the behavior of the system... Then check the predictions with measurements. We need to think of a sufficiently complex system that can be built and measured. Remember the biosphere?

Mark

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 April 2014 09:43:40 UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 4/2/2014 5:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:11:05 -0400, Phil Hobbs
hobbs@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 4/2/2014 3:08 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 4:22:54 AM UTC-4, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:48:52 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

<snipped John Larkin being out of touch with reality>

"Ethical blunder" is right up there with "terminological inexactitude."

Both sound like Bad Things to me.

Yup. In accordance with the national genius that Americans have for
euphemisms.

"Terminological inexactitude" is not an American euphemism.

Winston Churchill seems to have invented it, back in 1906

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

It was taken up by the UK house of Commons as way of saying an MP was lying without using the word "lie" which is prohibited as "unparliamentary language".

"Bad Things" isn't - in this case - a euphemism. but rather a symptom of an popular American habit of imprecision in language. John Larkin takes this to extremes by posting mendacious nonsense which he's been suckered into accepting by the none-too-convincing wiles of the denialist propaganda machine.

If he could do real scepticism, also known as critical thinking, he'd be less vulnerable to this kind of rubbish, but he wasn't paying attention during those of his undergraduate lectures which were supposed to get him started on this.

Too busy "doing engineering", from what he tells us.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 April 2014 11:18:43 UTC+11, mako...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It would be an interesting exercise to build a small but complex system and issue a challenge to climate modelers to model and predict the behavior of the system... Then check the predictions with measurements. We need to think of a sufficiently complex system that can be built and measured. Remember the biosphere?

Don't be silly. We aren't in the business of finding out whether climate modellers know what they are doing - they are just as sceptical about the results of their models as any climate change sceptic, with the difference that their scepticism is evidence-based, rather than a bought-and-paid for incredulity purchased by the fossil-carbon extraction industry.

The trick is getting the limited amount of credible information that can be extracted from the models, rather than any kind of precise prediction.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Neon John]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:08:53 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

It's likely that we are witnessing a historical political perversion
of the scientific community, the greatest ethical blunder in the
history of science. I feel priviliged to witness this in my lifetime.

I think you're approximately correct. Substitute "religious" for
"political" and you'll be spot-on. After all the "green movement" has
become a religion with all the ceremony, blind beliefs, code phrases
and other accoutrements of religions including the hateful
disparagement of non-believers.

No difference than when the Catholic church defined what was
scientifically true and those who disagreed frequently found
themselves headless.

As to the greatest, I dunno. The Phlogiston theory of combustion hung
in there for several centuries, even for a long time after Lavoisier
proved it wrong and proved the oxidation theory correct.

Society is really no less stupid and scientifically illiterate than
when they burned witches.

This religious peversion will certainly be the most costly, both in
monetary costs and in lives lost.

John
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.fluxeon.com
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:47:52 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:08:53 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:


It's likely that we are witnessing a historical political perversion
of the scientific community, the greatest ethical blunder in the
history of science. I feel priviliged to witness this in my lifetime.

I think you're approximately correct. Substitute "religious" for
"political" and you'll be spot-on. After all the "green movement" has
become a religion with all the ceremony, blind beliefs, code phrases
and other accoutrements of religions including the hateful
disparagement of non-believers.

No difference than when the Catholic church defined what was
scientifically true and those who disagreed frequently found
themselves headless.

As to the greatest, I dunno. The Phlogiston theory of combustion hung
in there for several centuries, even for a long time after Lavoisier
proved it wrong and proved the oxidation theory correct.

Society is really no less stupid and scientifically illiterate than
when they burned witches.

Most scientists, too.

This religious peversion will certainly be the most costly, both in
monetary costs and in lives lost.

That's why it's the biggest ethical blunder in the history of science:
because it will kill millions of people.

It's bizarre that it's fine to question relativity and quantum
mechanics and the speed of light and the structure of the universe,
but open-minded discussion of climate (of simulations of wildly
chaotic systems with unknown parameters and unknown forcings and bad
instrumentation) is severely supressed. People are arguing that
questioning AGW theory is a criminal act. Sounds like Spain in 1600.

It will be fun to see this play out.

Maybe we have too many scientists, as we arguably have too many
engineers. We have cranked up the quantity as we have cranked down the
quality.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 4/2/2014 3:08 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 4:22:54 AM UTC-4, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:48:52 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10738343/Forecasters-find-new-formula-for-long-range-weather.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Thing is, it's easy to build a model that "simulates" past data. That can be
done with extreme accuracy... by polynomial curve fitting, for example. Heck,
Excel can do that. The more challenging thing to do is create a model that
predicts the unknown future.

---
As opposed to the known future?
---

Obviously. Lots of things are predictable, knowable, and known.

Cheers,
James Arthur

It's likely that we are witnessing a historical political perversion
of the scientific community, the greatest ethical blunder in the
history of science. I feel priviliged to witness this in my lifetime.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece




"Ethical blunder" is right up there with "terminological inexactitude."

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:11:05 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<hobbs@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 4/2/2014 3:08 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 4:22:54 AM UTC-4, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:48:52 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10738343/Forecasters-find-new-formula-for-long-range-weather.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Thing is, it's easy to build a model that "simulates" past data. That can be
done with extreme accuracy... by polynomial curve fitting, for example. Heck,
Excel can do that. The more challenging thing to do is create a model that
predicts the unknown future.

---
As opposed to the known future?
---

Obviously. Lots of things are predictable, knowable, and known.

Cheers,
James Arthur

It's likely that we are witnessing a historical political perversion
of the scientific community, the greatest ethical blunder in the
history of science. I feel priviliged to witness this in my lifetime.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece




"Ethical blunder" is right up there with "terminological inexactitude."

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Both sound like Bad Things to me.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 22:09:50 +0000 (UTC), Geoff <public@email.com>
wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
news:bq1jg6F8cenU1@mid.individual.net:

On 2/04/2014 3:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I have the circuit whose LTSPICE text is given below. The
voltage sources and voltage controlled switches are only
there to set the initial voltages on the capacitors. Thus
the circuit of interest consists of two capacitors and two
resistors.

I've been trying to determine an equation that describes
the voltage on C2 as it varies with time, but with my
limited mathematical skill, haven't been able to. I end up
with differential equations that contain the voltage on C1
as well, in a way that I can't substitute for.

Any thoughts?

Sylvia.

Actually, never mind. It involves solving simultaneous
differential equations. I'll just have to read up on that.

Sylvia.



Or get into the S-domain and use Laplace maths, which should get
you some time domain equation at the end. Don't ask me the
details though, its been a long time

Yep, that's the correct way.

Replace C's with an impedance value 1/(Cs), where "s" is the Laplace
variable, then simply write a transfer V(OUT)/V(IN)

You'll get a second order equation which must be partial-fraction
expanded, then you can write down the time domain by observation.

I do it automatically... trying to explain it is hard :-(

I'll look for a write-up... must have it around here somewhere.

The technique, BTW, is courtesy of Oliver Heaviside... not Laplace.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 4/2/2014 5:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:11:05 -0400, Phil Hobbs
hobbs@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 4/2/2014 3:08 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 4:22:54 AM UTC-4, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:48:52 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10738343/Forecasters-find-new-formula-for-long-range-weather.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Thing is, it's easy to build a model that "simulates" past data. That can be
done with extreme accuracy... by polynomial curve fitting, for example. Heck,
Excel can do that. The more challenging thing to do is create a model that
predicts the unknown future.

---
As opposed to the known future?
---

Obviously. Lots of things are predictable, knowable, and known.

Cheers,
James Arthur

It's likely that we are witnessing a historical political perversion
of the scientific community, the greatest ethical blunder in the
history of science. I feel priviliged to witness this in my lifetime.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece




"Ethical blunder" is right up there with "terminological inexactitude."

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Both sound like Bad Things to me.

Yup. In accordance with the national genius that Americans have for
euphemisms.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 April 2014 20:31:14 UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Apr 2014 09:58:46 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in <hp9%u.1$GP2.0@fx36.am4>:
On 02/04/2014 20:08, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 4:22:54 AM UTC-4, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:48:52 -0700, John Larkin wrote

<snip>

Perhaps, but it is the deniers for hire that have sold their souls first
to big tobacco and now to the fossil fuel lobby and who have prostituted
their scientific credentials to the highest bidder.

Not that Lord Lawson of Blaby has any to prostitute. He was the UK Chancellor who wrecked the UK economy under Thatcher, and now seems dead set on doing the same service for the whole planet.

> You are such an increadible ying moron in not only this field but many others you lie about.

There's not a lie in there that I can detect - and Jan won't be able to find one either. He'll find statements he disagrees with and will try to label them as lies, in the same way that krw does, but - like krw - he won't bother trying to find any evidence that suggests that any of the statements that he disagrees with are actually wrong.

> You are the one making a buck out of public fear for things that have nothing to to with anything.

Why do you thing he is making a buck out of the legitimate anxieties about climate change?

> The taxes you pay is the bribe for those in power, you know propose any taxes if you can find something, and you have friends in that realm.

Somewhat demented logic, even for Jan.

Climate will always change, and has, on a regular predictable basis:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm

This is a reference to the Milankovitch cycles. What Jan does not seem to be aware of is that the ice ages are now coming and going on a roughly 100,000 year cycle - not the 41,000 years of the Milankovitch cycles.

Presumably we've been having Milankovitch cycles for the past few billion years, but we didn't start getting the current series of regular ice ages until only 2.6 million years ago, and they started out on a 41,000 year cycle, switching to the current 100,000 years cycles only a million years ago.

Working out how the tiny Milankovitch changes in insolation produce the relatively dramatic difference between ice ages and interglacials has been difficult. There are several positive feedback mechanisms involved, one of them being atmosphere CO2 level, which switches from 180 ppm in an ice age to about 270ppm in an interglacial. It's 400ppm now - higher than it has been for about 20 million years. We can document the effect that this having, and predict the long term consequences, but Jan ignores this information.

> the bad thing is that you (should) know that.

Jan's ignorance is more extensive and more complacent.

You are like green-pees, probably one of their suppliers.
You should be locked up and put to work in Siberia!

I don't much like Green Peace myself - their style of argument has a lot in common with Jan's. Lots of emotion and few facts.

Eventually it will be impossible for anyone with a even a shred of
scientific credibility to claim that AGW is not happening.

Sun will go out, eventually, oh me oh my, idiot!

PS before that it seems you will fry a bit, not that that bothers me in the least.

The Sun will become a red giant, and fry whatever we've evolved into by then in about five billion years. Anthropogenic global warming is a problem now (though not one that Jan is sufficiently well-informed to be aware of) and has every prospect of getting a lot worse, if we don't slow down the rate at which we dig up and burn fossil carbon. We could engineer a human population crash in a century or so if we were a sufficiently complacent bunch of morons.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 3/04/2014 3:17 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

SPICE has an initial condition function for what you want:

The .ic directive allows initial conditions for transient analysis to be specified. Node voltages and inductor currents may be specified. A DC solution is performed using the initial conditions as constraints. Note that although inductors are normally treated as short circuits in the DC solution in other SPICE programs, if an initial current is specified, they are treated as infinite-impedance current sources in LTspice.

Syntax: .ic [V(<n1&gt=<voltage>] [I(<inductor&gt=<current>]

Example: .ic V(in)=2 V(out)=5 V(vc)=1.8 I(L1)=300m

Useful to know. Thanks.

Sylvia.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 02/04/2014 20:08, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 4:22:54 AM UTC-4, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:48:52 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10738343/Forecasters-find-new-formula-for-long-range-weather.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Thing is, it's easy to build a model that "simulates" past data. That can be
done with extreme accuracy... by polynomial curve fitting, for example. Heck,
Excel can do that. The more challenging thing to do is create a model that
predicts the unknown future.

---
As opposed to the known future?
---

Obviously. Lots of things are predictable, knowable, and known.

And one of them is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of
burning fossil fuels on a business as usual basis. I suspect this will
continue until the damage done to the climate is absolutely irrefutable.

When the public finally notice that AGW is a real problem that cannot be
ignored politicians will try to blame scientists for not explaining it
to them clearly enough. This is already predictable.

It's likely that we are witnessing a historical political perversion
of the scientific community, the greatest ethical blunder in the
history of science. I feel priviliged to witness this in my lifetime.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece

Perhaps, but it is the deniers for hire that have sold their souls first
to big tobacco and now to the fossil fuel lobby and who have prostituted
their scientific credentials to the highest bidder.

Eventually it will be impossible for anyone with a even a shred of
scientific credibility to claim that AGW is not happening.

Unfortunately, by then we will have set in train serious sea level rises
that will swamp some major coastal cities in the longer term.

Even that probably won't be enough to convince rabid right whingers like
you from insisting that it isn't happening.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown