Ask a question - edaboard.com
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Global warming?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15, 16, 17 Next
Raveninghorde
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:51 am
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:05:29 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:54:49 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:
raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:
SNIP
Quote:
The point is extreme cold is much more common than extreme heat. The
UK is currently in an extended period of temperatures below 0C. We had
-18C just 30 miles from here in Southern England. 38C below your 20C
optimum. We will never see temperatures 38C above, 58C.
And with extreme cold in Southern England thousands of homes were
without power. Which of course means no heating. And gas supplies are
now being cut off to industry to protect domestic users.
The UK government has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker. So now
the use of salt and grit to make the roads safe is being cut by 25%. B
all gas reserves. Hey we don't need to plan for cold the planet is
getting warmer. Bloody alarmist socialist idiots. This government
needs to be treated like their idols such as Mussolini or Ceausescu.
Do you think they actually cut back on gas and grit reserves because
they expected warmer winters?
I'd really not like to think that anyone could be that stupid.
John
If it wasn't a belief in AGW they are even stupider.
Last year, in the UK, it was a colder and snowier winter than the
rest of the decade. After problems with salt and grit for the roads a
comitteee reported in August on supplies. It was 15th December before
the government department responded, less than a week before this cold
snap started.
Keep in mind the Met Office, a major promoter of AGW, forecast a mild
winter.
/quote
Preliminary indications continue to suggest that winter temperatures
are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including
the UK. Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year for the
UK, but there is still a 1 in 7 chance of a cold winter.
What do we mean by average temperature?
As you would expect, temperatures can vary quite widely over the
winter. So we take an average for the whole season and measure against
that. The UK average for December to February from 1971-2000 is 3.7
°C.
/end quote
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm
At the end of December a Met Office spokeman defended the forecast
saying that with 2 months to go temperatures could well average above
3.7C. Idiot. This is after forecasting a BBQ summer which didn't stop
raining.
Mark
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:16 am
Quote:
And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple,
isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required
to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me.
Thanks for the entertainment.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required
to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me.
Thanks for the entertainment.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Yes, as a matter of fact...
my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough
knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the
global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that
the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions.
Mark
who where
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:20 am
Hey, wrong target. I'm a climate sceptic. maybe you meant those
comments for someone else? If not, you misunderstood my post big
time.
Hammy
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:24 am
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:27:45 -0500, Hammy <spam_at_spam.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <spam_at_spam.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman said
Bill Sloman said
Quote:
Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange
rate is truly irrelevant.
rate is truly irrelevant.
I would consider anything less then 10% GDP irrelevant.
Quote:
Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was
unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality.
unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality.
You seem to be a cherry picker as well as blind I said we had a
recession not that we were unaffected the whole world was. In
comparison to most developed Countries we got off lightly considering.
Quote:
That was then. This is now. The USA - your major trading partner - has
been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was
president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything,
{snip}
been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was
president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything,
{snip}
In a nut shell we could easily live without the EU the EU couldn't
live without us. As a matter of fact the EU wouldn't even exist
without us. I notice a few people here seem to hold a grudge against
North Americans is it because you know you owe us something you know
you could never repay. I can see how someone might harbour resentment
under the circumstances.
who where
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:25 am
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:37:59 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 8, 7:15 am, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:11:31 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 7, 2:15 pm, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex
bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
No damn way!
It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
I made 3 three-point shots while playing basketball today out of the 4 I
attempted. With a three point shot percentage of 75% I am therefore the
greatest basketball player who ever lived.
One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
points.
One should also be careful of making predictions on climate based on
data such as tree rings.
The life span of a tree is hardly equivalent to an eye blink when
compared to the time the earth has existed. Yet they are using this to
determine so called climate patterns. As far as geological data its
hardly precise usually its plus or minus a couple thousand years.
Since the interesting perturbation to the climate is the 100pmm rise
in atmospheric CO2 level over the past century (from around 280ppm to
around 385ppm), tree ring data does have about the right time scale to
allow us to compare curent climate changes to the climate changes that
were taking place immediately before the Industrial Revolution.
which is still a drop in the timescale bucket compared to the ice-age
period.
How can so-called credible scientists put forward their AGW arguments
with 100-odd years of data in a cycle of - what - 25,000 years?
That's like looking at about 1.44 degrees of a signal cycle and saying
what the rest of the cycle is.
The 100-odd years isn't the period that the scientists have been
studying, it is the period over which engineering has been introducing
a significant perturbation into the greenhouse effect that has kept
the earth warm enough to suit us over the past fifty thousand years
for which we've been around.
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:11:31 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 7, 2:15 pm, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex
bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
No damn way!
It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
I made 3 three-point shots while playing basketball today out of the 4 I
attempted. With a three point shot percentage of 75% I am therefore the
greatest basketball player who ever lived.
One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
points.
One should also be careful of making predictions on climate based on
data such as tree rings.
The life span of a tree is hardly equivalent to an eye blink when
compared to the time the earth has existed. Yet they are using this to
determine so called climate patterns. As far as geological data its
hardly precise usually its plus or minus a couple thousand years.
Since the interesting perturbation to the climate is the 100pmm rise
in atmospheric CO2 level over the past century (from around 280ppm to
around 385ppm), tree ring data does have about the right time scale to
allow us to compare curent climate changes to the climate changes that
were taking place immediately before the Industrial Revolution.
which is still a drop in the timescale bucket compared to the ice-age
period.
How can so-called credible scientists put forward their AGW arguments
with 100-odd years of data in a cycle of - what - 25,000 years?
That's like looking at about 1.44 degrees of a signal cycle and saying
what the rest of the cycle is.
The 100-odd years isn't the period that the scientists have been
studying, it is the period over which engineering has been introducing
a significant perturbation into the greenhouse effect that has kept
the earth warm enough to suit us over the past fifty thousand years
for which we've been around.
Ah, righto, you would have been comfortable through the last ice age
then?
Quote:
Given the amount of time they have started taken accurate measurements
sub 100 years I fail to see how any credible scientist can come to any
conclusion on climate. How do they know what is normal?
That is why they have been looking at the tree ring data, data from
Artic lake sediments, and - most informative so far - the ice core
data from the Greenland and Antarctic (Vostok) ice caps.
and below the ice-cap they have found remnants of temperate climate
forests. That terra firma under the ice has previously seen the light
of day for an extended period.
So what?
sub 100 years I fail to see how any credible scientist can come to any
conclusion on climate. How do they know what is normal?
That is why they have been looking at the tree ring data, data from
Artic lake sediments, and - most informative so far - the ice core
data from the Greenland and Antarctic (Vostok) ice caps.
and below the ice-cap they have found remnants of temperate climate
forests. That terra firma under the ice has previously seen the light
of day for an extended period.
So what?
So the ice cap there has disappeared before. Why so melodramatic
about it this time around?
Quote:
Some events that could skew there data just off the top of my head the
eruption of Mt St.Helens, EL Nina, EL Nino etc…
Mere short term perturbations.
and you think/believe that ramping over say 100 years ISN'T short
term?
The climate will change whether we are here or not as it always has.
To some extent, but injecting 37.5% more of a greenhouse gas into the
atmosphere adds a new and apparently significant perturbation.
We - and certainly you - don't know what it was like at the same point
of the previous ice-age cycle. Again, short-term samples don't tell
the story, any more than two or three brush strokes let you describe
what the finished canvas will look like.
We do have a pretty good idea. The ice core data does give us a
reasonable handle on temeprature and CO2 levels, and the arctic lake
sediments are also informative.
eruption of Mt St.Helens, EL Nina, EL Nino etc…
Mere short term perturbations.
and you think/believe that ramping over say 100 years ISN'T short
term?
The climate will change whether we are here or not as it always has.
To some extent, but injecting 37.5% more of a greenhouse gas into the
atmosphere adds a new and apparently significant perturbation.
We - and certainly you - don't know what it was like at the same point
of the previous ice-age cycle. Again, short-term samples don't tell
the story, any more than two or three brush strokes let you describe
what the finished canvas will look like.
We do have a pretty good idea. The ice core data does give us a
reasonable handle on temeprature and CO2 levels, and the arctic lake
sediments are also informative.
Do they indicate to you that ice ages come and go, and that the polar
ice caps do likewise?
Quote:
All this paranoid shit does is make some people rich by taking
advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.
It isn't actually paranoid shit
There are a LOT of intellignet thinking people who disagree with that
view. You may have made up your mind, but the jury really is still
out when it comes to the doom and destruction bit.
There are a lot of people who claim to be intelligent who still
haven't got the wit to recognise denialist propaganda for what it is.
You would seem to be one of them.
advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.
It isn't actually paranoid shit
There are a LOT of intellignet thinking people who disagree with that
view. You may have made up your mind, but the jury really is still
out when it comes to the doom and destruction bit.
There are a lot of people who claim to be intelligent who still
haven't got the wit to recognise denialist propaganda for what it is.
You would seem to be one of them.
Denial of a false claim doesn't make one stupid or wrong. You and
many like you can't see the forest for the trees.
Quote:
though Exxon-Mobil and like-minded
organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and
selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible
idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
For the record its regularly minus 30C here over night so I hope it
does get warmer or at least another el nino would be nice.
Wait until summer.
Until then, it might be worth your while to learn a little bit more
about the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming.
The American Institute of Physics has a useful web-site which lays out
the history of the development of the idea.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
You'd be better off spending you spare time reading that than
adverising that you haven't got a clue about the subject.
You need to go back to Statistics 101 and look at what constitutes
sufficient data to validate forecasts.
You'd like to think so. Since my Ph.D. thesis involved wrestling with
that kind of question, I'd probably find that exposure to Statistics
101 wouldn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and
selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible
idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
For the record its regularly minus 30C here over night so I hope it
does get warmer or at least another el nino would be nice.
Wait until summer.
Until then, it might be worth your while to learn a little bit more
about the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming.
The American Institute of Physics has a useful web-site which lays out
the history of the development of the idea.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
You'd be better off spending you spare time reading that than
adverising that you haven't got a clue about the subject.
You need to go back to Statistics 101 and look at what constitutes
sufficient data to validate forecasts.
You'd like to think so. Since my Ph.D. thesis involved wrestling with
that kind of question, I'd probably find that exposure to Statistics
101 wouldn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
It might tell you things that you seem to choose to ignore when it
suits your AGW argument.
Artist
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:33 am
Raveninghorde wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:05:29 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:54:49 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:
SNIP
The point is extreme cold is much more common than extreme heat. The
UK is currently in an extended period of temperatures below 0C. We had
-18C just 30 miles from here in Southern England. 38C below your 20C
optimum. We will never see temperatures 38C above, 58C.
And with extreme cold in Southern England thousands of homes were
without power. Which of course means no heating. And gas supplies are
now being cut off to industry to protect domestic users.
The UK government has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker. So now
the use of salt and grit to make the roads safe is being cut by 25%. B
all gas reserves. Hey we don't need to plan for cold the planet is
getting warmer. Bloody alarmist socialist idiots. This government
needs to be treated like their idols such as Mussolini or Ceausescu.
Do you think they actually cut back on gas and grit reserves because
they expected warmer winters?
I'd really not like to think that anyone could be that stupid.
John
If it wasn't a belief in AGW they are even stupider.
Last year, in the UK, it was a colder and snowier winter than the
rest of the decade. After problems with salt and grit for the roads a
comitteee reported in August on supplies. It was 15th December before
the government department responded, less than a week before this cold
snap started.
Keep in mind the Met Office, a major promoter of AGW, forecast a mild
winter.
/quote
Preliminary indications continue to suggest that winter temperatures
are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including
the UK. Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year for the
UK, but there is still a 1 in 7 chance of a cold winter.
What do we mean by average temperature?
As you would expect, temperatures can vary quite widely over the
winter. So we take an average for the whole season and measure against
that. The UK average for December to February from 1971-2000 is 3.7
°C.
/end quote
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm
At the end of December a Met Office spokeman defended the forecast
saying that with 2 months to go temperatures could well average above
3.7C. Idiot. This is after forecasting a BBQ summer which didn't stop
raining.
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:54:49 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:
SNIP
The point is extreme cold is much more common than extreme heat. The
UK is currently in an extended period of temperatures below 0C. We had
-18C just 30 miles from here in Southern England. 38C below your 20C
optimum. We will never see temperatures 38C above, 58C.
And with extreme cold in Southern England thousands of homes were
without power. Which of course means no heating. And gas supplies are
now being cut off to industry to protect domestic users.
The UK government has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker. So now
the use of salt and grit to make the roads safe is being cut by 25%. B
all gas reserves. Hey we don't need to plan for cold the planet is
getting warmer. Bloody alarmist socialist idiots. This government
needs to be treated like their idols such as Mussolini or Ceausescu.
Do you think they actually cut back on gas and grit reserves because
they expected warmer winters?
I'd really not like to think that anyone could be that stupid.
John
If it wasn't a belief in AGW they are even stupider.
Last year, in the UK, it was a colder and snowier winter than the
rest of the decade. After problems with salt and grit for the roads a
comitteee reported in August on supplies. It was 15th December before
the government department responded, less than a week before this cold
snap started.
Keep in mind the Met Office, a major promoter of AGW, forecast a mild
winter.
/quote
Preliminary indications continue to suggest that winter temperatures
are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including
the UK. Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year for the
UK, but there is still a 1 in 7 chance of a cold winter.
What do we mean by average temperature?
As you would expect, temperatures can vary quite widely over the
winter. So we take an average for the whole season and measure against
that. The UK average for December to February from 1971-2000 is 3.7
°C.
/end quote
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm
At the end of December a Met Office spokeman defended the forecast
saying that with 2 months to go temperatures could well average above
3.7C. Idiot. This is after forecasting a BBQ summer which didn't stop
raining.
Actually climatologists are predicting the paradoxical cooling of Europe
due to global warming. This is because of the effects on the
Thermohaline Circulation:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/thermohaline.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
So it appears we do not have to worry about global warming very much.
After the Thermohaline Circulation is reduced or shut down entirely a
new ice age will appear. Its added ice will reflect more sunlight and
cool the earth again. Of course Europe, North America, and Siberia will
all be buried in a mile of ice for a while, maybe even as far South as
New York, San Francisco, London, or Munich.
So if Europe is in the deep freeze don't worry. Its just the early signs
the global warming induced new ice age is on its way and the Earth will
be cool again.
--
To reply directly remove the sj. from my email address. This is a spam
jammer.
John Larkin
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:00 am
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:52:30 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 9, 1:30 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:16:07 -0800 (PST), Mark <makol...@yahoo.com
wrote:
And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple,
isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required
to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me.
Thanks for the entertainment.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Yes, as a matter of fact...
my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough
knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the
global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that
the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions.
Mark
Agreed. The planet's climate is a massively complex nonlinear system
whose dynamics and forcings are only guessed at [1]. We know that
"weather" is chaotic over all time scales that it's been observed
over. It's absurd to think that "climate" is predictable. merely
because the time horizon exceeds observability.
Since the time horizon doesn't exceed observability, I don't need to
point out the other absurdities of your claim.
Weather does couple into climate. One can't just wave hands and mumble
about lowpass filtering. This ain't a linear system.
You've got your opinion, and von Neumann had his
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
My money is on von Neumann. The US governement has spent - and is
still spending - a lot of money on backing his opinion. They may be
wrong, and you may be right, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Que more ponderous Sloman insults:
John Larkin holds forth on a subject he knows little about, and feels
insulted when it is pointed out that he does happen to be talking
nonsense. If he's such a sensitive fellow, why does he persist in
producing opinions about subjects that he knows very little about?
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:16:07 -0800 (PST), Mark <makol...@yahoo.com
wrote:
And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple,
isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required
to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me.
Thanks for the entertainment.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Yes, as a matter of fact...
my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough
knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the
global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that
the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions.
Mark
Agreed. The planet's climate is a massively complex nonlinear system
whose dynamics and forcings are only guessed at [1]. We know that
"weather" is chaotic over all time scales that it's been observed
over. It's absurd to think that "climate" is predictable. merely
because the time horizon exceeds observability.
Since the time horizon doesn't exceed observability, I don't need to
point out the other absurdities of your claim.
Weather does couple into climate. One can't just wave hands and mumble
about lowpass filtering. This ain't a linear system.
You've got your opinion, and von Neumann had his
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
My money is on von Neumann. The US governement has spent - and is
still spending - a lot of money on backing his opinion. They may be
wrong, and you may be right, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Que more ponderous Sloman insults:
John Larkin holds forth on a subject he knows little about, and feels
insulted when it is pointed out that he does happen to be talking
nonsense. If he's such a sensitive fellow, why does he persist in
producing opinions about subjects that he knows very little about?
One doesn't do the things I've done and be "sensitive." When the
stakes are high, the thing to do is think.
I've seen enough scientists be dead wrong that I respect experiment,
not opinions, not simulations.
Why do you keep posting off-topic crap to a newsgroup about electronic
design, when you don't do electronic design?
John
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:02 am
On Jan 8, 10:27 pm, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
Or euros or renminbi, if you want a currency which can still buy
something.
Your exhibiting your lack of understanding of basic economics yet
again.
I'm Canadian and it is in our interest to keep our dollar 10 to 15
cents below the US dollar they are our largest trading partner.
Anytime our dollar approaches parity with the US dollar are government
is pressured from the business sector to act by saying things like
"the rising Canadian dollar is hampering Canada's recovery" or by
buying selling or dollar whatever it takes. Can you understand why
it's desirable to be below the US dollar?
Or euros or renminbi, if you want a currency which can still buy
something.
Your exhibiting your lack of understanding of basic economics yet
again.
I'm Canadian and it is in our interest to keep our dollar 10 to 15
cents below the US dollar they are our largest trading partner.
Anytime our dollar approaches parity with the US dollar are government
is pressured from the business sector to act by saying things like
"the rising Canadian dollar is hampering Canada's recovery" or by
buying selling or dollar whatever it takes. Can you understand why
it's desirable to be below the US dollar?
I can understand why your exporters don't want the Candaian dollar to
appreciate against the US dollar. The absolute rate of exchange
doesn't actually matter, but any change does make a difference.
Quote:
We do minimal trade with the EU so the value of or dollar relative to
Euros is irrelevant.
Euros is irrelevant.
Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange
rate is truly irrelevant.
Quote:
For the record our banks didn't collapse and or economy was not
severely depressed just a recession not a depression.
severely depressed just a recession not a depression.
Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was
unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality.
Quote:
Also my Grandfather fought through Europe in WW2 including Holland
and he never mentioned a thing about the Dutch turning there nose up
at his money. I also lived at CFB Baden in Germany for eight years
traveled all through Europe nobody turned my money away.
and he never mentioned a thing about the Dutch turning there nose up
at his money. I also lived at CFB Baden in Germany for eight years
traveled all through Europe nobody turned my money away.
That was then. This is now. The USA - your major trading partner - has
been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was
president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything,
and most of the assets that could be made to look as if they were
worth something, and it now takes 1.4441 US dollars to buy a euro, so
its worth about two thirds of what it was a few years ago. This is a
signficant devaluation, but the US is still running a massive balance
of trade deficit, so presumably there's more to come.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Hammy
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:11 am
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:24:32 -0500, Hammy <spam_at_spam.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:27:45 -0500, Hammy <spam_at_spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <spam_at_spam.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman said
Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange
rate is truly irrelevant.
I would consider anything less then 10% GDP irrelevant.
Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was
unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality.
You seem to be a cherry picker as well as blind I said we had a
recession not that we were unaffected the whole world was. In
comparison to most developed Countries we got off lightly considering.
That was then. This is now. The USA - your major trading partner - has
been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was
president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything,
{snip}
In a nut shell we could easily live without the EU the EU couldn't
live without us. As a matter of fact the EU wouldn't even exist
without us. I notice a few people here seem to hold a grudge against
North Americans is it because you know you owe us something you know
you could never repay. I can see how someone might harbour resentment
under the circumstances.
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <spam_at_spam.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman said
Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange
rate is truly irrelevant.
I would consider anything less then 10% GDP irrelevant.
Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was
unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality.
You seem to be a cherry picker as well as blind I said we had a
recession not that we were unaffected the whole world was. In
comparison to most developed Countries we got off lightly considering.
That was then. This is now. The USA - your major trading partner - has
been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was
president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything,
{snip}
In a nut shell we could easily live without the EU the EU couldn't
live without us. As a matter of fact the EU wouldn't even exist
without us. I notice a few people here seem to hold a grudge against
North Americans is it because you know you owe us something you know
you could never repay. I can see how someone might harbour resentment
under the circumstances.
[Disclaimer]
All of my comments were directed towards Sloman and his kind and
weren't meant to insult any sane EU people.;)
Goodnight
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:28 am
krw wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
No damn way!
It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
It's been 16F the last two days when I went to work. My heat pumps
are barely keeping up (-2F from setting). We're supposed to get
freezing rain and snow tonight. It'll be fun watching the idiots
driving tomorrow. Staying out of their way won't be so much, though.
It's supposed to snow in Ocala tonight.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:30 am
dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 8, 7:02 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:25:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:53 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex wrote:
One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
points.
Well, the alarmists weren't shy about blaming every storm, beach
erosion, hot spell, change in butterfly population, or the weigh of a
herd of sheep on Global Warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm
John
Not to worry, we're still doomed:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9495864
Another Ice Age would be "just a blip in the long-term heating trend."
I think you are letting your over-fertile imagination run away here.
Just keep extending the definition of "weather" and "climate" as suits
your political needs.
The way you do? You and James Arthur do seem enthusiastic about
confusing weather models
You're confused--you invented that.
Credit where credit is due. Sloman invented stupid, and has worked
60+ years to perfect it.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:31 am
On Jan 9, 1:30 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:16:07 -0800 (PST), Mark <makol...@yahoo.com
wrote:
And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple,
isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required
to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me.
Thanks for the entertainment.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Yes, as a matter of fact...
my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough
knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the
global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that
the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions.
Mark
Agreed. The planet's climate is a massively complex nonlinear system
whose dynamics and forcings are only guessed at [1]. We know that
"weather" is chaotic over all time scales that it's been observed
over. It's absurd to think that "climate" is predictable. merely
because the time horizon exceeds observability.
wrote:
And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple,
isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required
to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me.
Thanks for the entertainment.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Yes, as a matter of fact...
my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough
knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the
global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that
the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions.
Mark
Agreed. The planet's climate is a massively complex nonlinear system
whose dynamics and forcings are only guessed at [1]. We know that
"weather" is chaotic over all time scales that it's been observed
over. It's absurd to think that "climate" is predictable. merely
because the time horizon exceeds observability.
Since the time horizon doesn't exceed observability, I don't need to
point out the other absurdities of your claim.
Quote:
Weather does couple into climate. One can't just wave hands and mumble
about lowpass filtering. This ain't a linear system.
about lowpass filtering. This ain't a linear system.
You've got your opinion, and von Neumann had his
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
My money is on von Neumann. The US governement has spent - and is
still spending - a lot of money on backing his opinion. They may be
wrong, and you may be right, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Quote:
Que more ponderous Sloman insults:
John Larkin holds forth on a subject he knows little about, and feels
insulted when it is pointed out that he does happen to be talking
nonsense. If he's such a sensitive fellow, why does he persist in
producing opinions about subjects that he knows very little about?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:31 am
On Jan 8, 11:54 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:10:53 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 8, 8:25 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:27:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
SNIP
In a temperate country.
You are the one who tried to use France, a temperate country, as a
counter to the proposal that cold kills and as I demonstrated you were
an inumerate idiot and wrong.
In fact I don't disagree that cold kills. What John Larkin left out
was that heat also kills;
mortality is at a minimum at temperatures around 20C, and starts
climbing as the temperature moves away from this point.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2002/temperat...
so the correct formulation is that extreme temperatures kill, and John
Larkin's proposition - which you seem to have espoused - that global
warming, if it were to happen, wouldn't be such a bad thing, is
unfortuately ill-informed.
The highest temperatures normally found in inhabited areas is about
45C. A cold of -40C is not uncommon. It has been seen in the last few
days in Norway and Sweden for example.
So the bias is to extreme cold. You have about 60C below your optimum
temperature and 25C above.
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 8, 8:25 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:27:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
SNIP
In a temperate country.
You are the one who tried to use France, a temperate country, as a
counter to the proposal that cold kills and as I demonstrated you were
an inumerate idiot and wrong.
In fact I don't disagree that cold kills. What John Larkin left out
was that heat also kills;
mortality is at a minimum at temperatures around 20C, and starts
climbing as the temperature moves away from this point.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2002/temperat...
so the correct formulation is that extreme temperatures kill, and John
Larkin's proposition - which you seem to have espoused - that global
warming, if it were to happen, wouldn't be such a bad thing, is
unfortuately ill-informed.
The highest temperatures normally found in inhabited areas is about
45C. A cold of -40C is not uncommon. It has been seen in the last few
days in Norway and Sweden for example.
So the bias is to extreme cold. You have about 60C below your optimum
temperature and 25C above.
In places a long way from the equator. There aren't as many of them as
the Mercator projection might lead you to believe.
Quote:
As far as the tropics are concerned this seems to be a red herring
from an alarmist perspective. I thought the normal claim was that
anthropogenic global warming would have much more impact on the non
tropics compared to the tropics. But hey AGW explains everything
including the common cold.
Anthropogenic global warming is expected to have more impact at the
poles than at the equator, but summer in tropical countries will get
warmer and generate even more excess deaths than they do at the
moment, while as you get further from the equator, the winters will
become milder and the summers warmer, decreasing the excess deaths in
winter and making excess deaths in summer more likely.
Do you have any facts? Or is this the normal there is no evidence so
Bill is wright argument you so love?
http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2008/11001/Determinants_Chara...
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/190
There's plenty of evidence - so much in fact that I'd assumed any
educated adult would be aware of it. John Larkin isn't really an
educated adult - he seems to have passed through the American
University system acquiring only information relevant to electronic
design.
I would have thought that you'd know better than to bother to ask, but
I don't suppose this is the sort of thing that gets posted on the
denialist web-sites that you browse.
Tilting at windmills again.
The point is extreme cold is much more common than extreme heat.
from an alarmist perspective. I thought the normal claim was that
anthropogenic global warming would have much more impact on the non
tropics compared to the tropics. But hey AGW explains everything
including the common cold.
Anthropogenic global warming is expected to have more impact at the
poles than at the equator, but summer in tropical countries will get
warmer and generate even more excess deaths than they do at the
moment, while as you get further from the equator, the winters will
become milder and the summers warmer, decreasing the excess deaths in
winter and making excess deaths in summer more likely.
Do you have any facts? Or is this the normal there is no evidence so
Bill is wright argument you so love?
http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2008/11001/Determinants_Chara...
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/190
There's plenty of evidence - so much in fact that I'd assumed any
educated adult would be aware of it. John Larkin isn't really an
educated adult - he seems to have passed through the American
University system acquiring only information relevant to electronic
design.
I would have thought that you'd know better than to bother to ask, but
I don't suppose this is the sort of thing that gets posted on the
denialist web-sites that you browse.
Tilting at windmills again.
The point is extreme cold is much more common than extreme heat.
When you get close to the Arctic circle. There's not a lot of land
close to the Antarctic circle.
Btween the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn - where rather
more people live - the situation is reversed.
Quote:
The
UK is currently in an extended period of temperatures below 0C. We had
-18C just 30 miles from here in Southern England. 38C below your 20C
optimum. We will never see temperatures 38C above, 58C.
UK is currently in an extended period of temperatures below 0C. We had
-18C just 30 miles from here in Southern England. 38C below your 20C
optimum. We will never see temperatures 38C above, 58C.
Not unless anthropogenic global warming really runs away. The average
temperature in England over the whole year is 13.1C. The Paleocene-
Eocene Thermal Maximum was good for a 6C temperature rise - about the
the same as the IPCC's worst case for the end of this century, which
would bring that average up to 19.1C, and give you roughly equal
chances of positive and negative excursions into life-threatening
regions.
Quote:
And with extreme cold in Southern England thousands of homes were
without power. Which of course means no heating. And gas supplies are
now being cut off to industry to protect domestic users.
without power. Which of course means no heating. And gas supplies are
now being cut off to industry to protect domestic users.
In hot weather, the power demand from air-conditioning systems can
also sky-rocket.
Quote:
The UK government has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker. So now
the use of salt and grit to make the roads safe is being cut by 25%. B
all gas reserves. Hey we don't need to plan for cold the planet is
getting warmer. Bloody alarmist socialist idiots. This government
needs to be treated like their idols such as Mussolini or Ceausescu.
the use of salt and grit to make the roads safe is being cut by 25%. B
all gas reserves. Hey we don't need to plan for cold the planet is
getting warmer. Bloody alarmist socialist idiots. This government
needs to be treated like their idols such as Mussolini or Ceausescu.
If the UK is like the Netherlands, the use of salt and grit on the
roads has been cut because the unexpected cold spell used up most of a
stock that had been expected to last the winter.
Gas reserves will have been calculated on the basis of the same
statistical model. Any time now, some statisticians is going to tell
us that this has been a once in 10,000 year fluke.
Statistics doesn't tell you which year in the 10,000 is going to win
the national lottery.
The statistician won't have figured in any anthropogenic global
warming - statisticians don't think like that. And the socialist
government you dislike so much won't have argued with his statistics.
The conservative idiots who hope to replace them won't do any better.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:31 am
On Jan 8, 10:56 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 8, 7:02 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:25:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:53 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex wrote:
One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
points.
Well, the alarmists weren't shy about blaming every storm, beach
erosion, hot spell, change in butterfly population, or the weigh of a
herd of sheep on Global Warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm
John
Not to worry, we're still doomed:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9495864
Another Ice Age would be "just a blip in the long-term heating trend."
I think you are letting your over-fertile imagination run away here.
Just keep extending the definition of "weather" and "climate" as suits
your political needs.
The way you do? You and James Arthur do seem enthusiastic about
confusing weather models
You're confused--you invented that.
(which are susceptible to the butterfly
effect) and climate models (which are deliberately onstructed so that
they aren't).
What construction, and how does it guarantee that? Diagrams, please.
On Jan 8, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:25:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:53 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex wrote:
One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
points.
Well, the alarmists weren't shy about blaming every storm, beach
erosion, hot spell, change in butterfly population, or the weigh of a
herd of sheep on Global Warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm
John
Not to worry, we're still doomed:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9495864
Another Ice Age would be "just a blip in the long-term heating trend."
I think you are letting your over-fertile imagination run away here.
Just keep extending the definition of "weather" and "climate" as suits
your political needs.
The way you do? You and James Arthur do seem enthusiastic about
confusing weather models
You're confused--you invented that.
(which are susceptible to the butterfly
effect) and climate models (which are deliberately onstructed so that
they aren't).
What construction, and how does it guarantee that? Diagrams, please.
Ask your own tame expert. You won't understand her answer, but if she
is any good she should be able to give you a better answer than I
could, and with a lot less effort.
Or do some reading here - searching on the name von Neumann will get
you to the interesting bits fairly quickly.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:31 am
On Jan 9, 2:24 am, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:27:45 -0500, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
Bill Slomansaid
Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange
rate is truly irrelevant.
I would consider anything less then 10% GDP irrelevant.
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
Bill Slomansaid
Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange
rate is truly irrelevant.
I would consider anything less then 10% GDP irrelevant.
That claim is silly enough that you could be an economist.
Quote:
Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was
unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality.
You seem to be a cherry picker as well as blind I said we had a
recession not that we were unaffected the whole world was. In
comparison to most developed countries we got off lightly considering.
unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality.
You seem to be a cherry picker as well as blind I said we had a
recession not that we were unaffected the whole world was. In
comparison to most developed countries we got off lightly considering.
So what?
Quote:
That was then. This is now. The USA - your major trading partner - has
been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was
president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything,
{snip}
In a nut shell we could easily live without the EU the EU couldn't
live without us. As a matter of fact the EU wouldn't even exist
without us. I notice a few people here seem to hold a grudge against
North Americans is it because you know you owe us something you know
you could never repay. I can see how someone might harbour resentment
under the circumstances.
been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was
president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything,
{snip}
In a nut shell we could easily live without the EU the EU couldn't
live without us. As a matter of fact the EU wouldn't even exist
without us. I notice a few people here seem to hold a grudge against
North Americans is it because you know you owe us something you know
you could never repay. I can see how someone might harbour resentment
under the circumstances.
Since Canada started off as French and British colonies, it wouldn't
exist without the EU. I can see how some Canadians might harbour
resentment under the circumstances.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Global warming?
