Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12 Next
Bill Sloman
Guest
Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:26 am
On Feb 2, 12:17 am, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
Quote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Feb 1, 2:25 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:06:18 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:47 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 8:58 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:52:55 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 31, 5:34 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:31:19 -0800 (PST), mrstar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10,BillSloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
And they have to be incredibly inept to dither for years over a simple
2-transistor oscillator.
I'm not dithering. I know exactly what I want to do, but I'm finding
it difficult to get around to actually doing it. And I'd be inept if I
though that the Baxandall class-D oscillator was a simple 2-transistor
oscillator - Jim Williams (who wasn't inept) found it tricky enough to
justify publishing six Linear Technology application notes on the
subject - AN45, AN49, AN51, AN55, AN61, and AN65.
Jim's electronic productivy was probably a million times yours.
So what? His job was to churn out application notes, mine was to put
together hardware that did specific jobs. Our situations weren't
easily comparable. My point, which you haven't been able to answer -
so you opted instead for the irrelevant insult - was that Jim
Williams, who wasn't inept, didn't find it a simple circuit.
Your claim that it is a simple two-transistor oscillator thus suggests
that you are inept. When it gets down to poke and fiddle electronics
you do rather better, but when you try to be intellectual about what
you are doing the wheels do tend to fall off.
And you're still standing around waiting for some one to come rescue
you when your wheels fail off. You see, most of us can change our own
tires, you on the other hand, as you say, are inept.
You are allowing your imagination to run away with you. I'm most
certainly not inept, and the nearest I get to sitting around and
waiting for someone to rescue me is asking if anybody has got a VBIC
models of the 2N3906 - the one I can improvise from Gummel-Poon
parameters doesn't work any better than the Gummel-Poon model, which
isn't all that surprising.
Your own level of performance - in as far as it is visible here -
doesn't really hit guru level. Self-satisfied nitwit comes closer to
the mark.
You must be another nym of AlwaysWrong. All you do any more is churn
out lame, self-aggrandizing insults.
How pathetic.
The original claim that I'm inept came from you, and was a typical
example of your responses to posts that injure your vanity. As your
insults go, it was more than usually silly, which makes it a lame
insult.You may have seen it as self-aggrandising - I can't see why you
would have bothered otherwise, though I can't imagine why you'd think
that calling me inept would make you look any better.
Jamie - who really does seem to be inept, though he's too dim to
realise it it - then jumped on the bandwaggon with an equally silly
observation, and I responded with the kind of put-down it deserved.
Calling Jamie a nitwit isn't actually wrong - though it may be an
exaggeration - and it doesn't do a thing for my status, one way or
another, so it isn't self-aggrandising. It's certainly an insult, but
his post was purely and simply a personal insult, and an insulting
response strikes me as entirely appropriate. Phil Allison or Richard
Steven Waltz would have done it better, but insults aren't really my
thing.
What's the matter Bill? Things hitting to close to home lately?
Not that I've noticed. And you don't qualify as thing - if you were
harbouring any delusions about your own status - and barely even
qualify as an object of derision.
Apologies to the usegroup for giving this much attention to the twit.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jamie
Guest
Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:45 am
Bill Sloman wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 2, 12:17 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Feb 1, 2:25 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:06:18 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:47 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 8:58 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:52:55 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 31, 5:34 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:31:19 -0800 (PST), mrstar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10,BillSloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
And they have to be incredibly inept to dither for years over a simple
2-transistor oscillator.
I'm not dithering. I know exactly what I want to do, but I'm finding
it difficult to get around to actually doing it. And I'd be inept if I
though that the Baxandall class-D oscillator was a simple 2-transistor
oscillator - Jim Williams (who wasn't inept) found it tricky enough to
justify publishing six Linear Technology application notes on the
subject - AN45, AN49, AN51, AN55, AN61, and AN65.
Jim's electronic productivy was probably a million times yours.
So what? His job was to churn out application notes, mine was to put
together hardware that did specific jobs. Our situations weren't
easily comparable. My point, which you haven't been able to answer -
so you opted instead for the irrelevant insult - was that Jim
Williams, who wasn't inept, didn't find it a simple circuit.
Your claim that it is a simple two-transistor oscillator thus suggests
that you are inept. When it gets down to poke and fiddle electronics
you do rather better, but when you try to be intellectual about what
you are doing the wheels do tend to fall off.
And you're still standing around waiting for some one to come rescue
you when your wheels fail off. You see, most of us can change our own
tires, you on the other hand, as you say, are inept.
You are allowing your imagination to run away with you. I'm most
certainly not inept, and the nearest I get to sitting around and
waiting for someone to rescue me is asking if anybody has got a VBIC
models of the 2N3906 - the one I can improvise from Gummel-Poon
parameters doesn't work any better than the Gummel-Poon model, which
isn't all that surprising.
Your own level of performance - in as far as it is visible here -
doesn't really hit guru level. Self-satisfied nitwit comes closer to
the mark.
You must be another nym of AlwaysWrong. All you do any more is churn
out lame, self-aggrandizing insults.
How pathetic.
The original claim that I'm inept came from you, and was a typical
example of your responses to posts that injure your vanity. As your
insults go, it was more than usually silly, which makes it a lame
insult.You may have seen it as self-aggrandising - I can't see why you
would have bothered otherwise, though I can't imagine why you'd think
that calling me inept would make you look any better.
Jamie - who really does seem to be inept, though he's too dim to
realise it it - then jumped on the bandwaggon with an equally silly
observation, and I responded with the kind of put-down it deserved.
Calling Jamie a nitwit isn't actually wrong - though it may be an
exaggeration - and it doesn't do a thing for my status, one way or
another, so it isn't self-aggrandising. It's certainly an insult, but
his post was purely and simply a personal insult, and an insulting
response strikes me as entirely appropriate. Phil Allison or Richard
Steven Waltz would have done it better, but insults aren't really my
thing.
What's the matter Bill? Things hitting to close to home lately?
Not that I've noticed. And you don't qualify as thing - if you were
harbouring any delusions about your own status - and barely even
qualify as an object of derision.
Apologies to the usegroup for giving this much attention to the twit.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
I am glade you apologized to the group, it is only a small step but
at least you're starting to get it.
Maybe somewhere along the lines, you may even start admitting to be
misinformed, about many things.
Jamie
Bill Sloman
Guest
Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:59 am
On Feb 2, 3:45 am, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
Quote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Feb 2, 12:17 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Feb 1, 2:25 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:06:18 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:47 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 8:58 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:52:55 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 31, 5:34 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:31:19 -0800 (PST), mrstar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10,BillSloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
And they have to be incredibly inept to dither for years over a simple
2-transistor oscillator.
I'm not dithering. I know exactly what I want to do, but I'm finding
it difficult to get around to actually doing it. And I'd be inept if I
though that the Baxandall class-D oscillator was a simple 2-transistor
oscillator - Jim Williams (who wasn't inept) found it tricky enough to
justify publishing six Linear Technology application notes on the
subject - AN45, AN49, AN51, AN55, AN61, and AN65.
Jim's electronic productivy was probably a million times yours.
So what? His job was to churn out application notes, mine was to put
together hardware that did specific jobs. Our situations weren't
easily comparable. My point, which you haven't been able to answer -
so you opted instead for the irrelevant insult - was that Jim
Williams, who wasn't inept, didn't find it a simple circuit.
Your claim that it is a simple two-transistor oscillator thus suggests
that you are inept. When it gets down to poke and fiddle electronics
you do rather better, but when you try to be intellectual about what
you are doing the wheels do tend to fall off.
And you're still standing around waiting for some one to come rescue
you when your wheels fail off. You see, most of us can change our own
tires, you on the other hand, as you say, are inept.
You are allowing your imagination to run away with you. I'm most
certainly not inept, and the nearest I get to sitting around and
waiting for someone to rescue me is asking if anybody has got a VBIC
models of the 2N3906 - the one I can improvise from Gummel-Poon
parameters doesn't work any better than the Gummel-Poon model, which
isn't all that surprising.
Your own level of performance - in as far as it is visible here -
doesn't really hit guru level. Self-satisfied nitwit comes closer to
the mark.
You must be another nym of AlwaysWrong. All you do any more is churn
out lame, self-aggrandizing insults.
How pathetic.
The original claim that I'm inept came from you, and was a typical
example of your responses to posts that injure your vanity. As your
insults go, it was more than usually silly, which makes it a lame
insult.You may have seen it as self-aggrandising - I can't see why you
would have bothered otherwise, though I can't imagine why you'd think
that calling me inept would make you look any better.
Jamie - who really does seem to be inept, though he's too dim to
realise it it - then jumped on the bandwaggon with an equally silly
observation, and I responded with the kind of put-down it deserved.
Calling Jamie a nitwit isn't actually wrong - though it may be an
exaggeration - and it doesn't do a thing for my status, one way or
another, so it isn't self-aggrandising. It's certainly an insult, but
his post was purely and simply a personal insult, and an insulting
response strikes me as entirely appropriate. Phil Allison or Richard
Steven Waltz would have done it better, but insults aren't really my
thing.
What's the matterBill? Things hitting to close to home lately?
Not that I've noticed. And you don't qualify as thing - if you were
harbouring any delusions about your own status - and barely even
qualify as an object of derision.
Apologies to the usegroup for giving this much attention to the twit.
I am glade you apologized to the group, it is only a small step but
at least you're starting to get it.
Maybe somewhere along the lines, you may even start admitting to be
misinformed, about many things.
On those rare occasions when I have proved to be misinformed, I do
admit it. One of the reasons that I post here is that it tests the
state of my knowledge. You - on the other hand - don't know much, a
lot of what you think you know isn't so, and you show no capacity for
becoming better informed. To cap it all, you are so unaware of your
ignorance that you presume to tell me that I'm misinformed on many
subjects.
Thanks for the moment of amusement. I hope the rest of the group finds
it equally funny.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jamie
Guest
Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:28 am
Bill Sloman wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 2, 3:45 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Feb 2, 12:17 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Feb 1, 2:25 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:06:18 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:47 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 8:58 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:52:55 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 31, 5:34 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:31:19 -0800 (PST), mrstar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10,BillSloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
And they have to be incredibly inept to dither for years over a simple
2-transistor oscillator.
I'm not dithering. I know exactly what I want to do, but I'm finding
it difficult to get around to actually doing it. And I'd be inept if I
though that the Baxandall class-D oscillator was a simple 2-transistor
oscillator - Jim Williams (who wasn't inept) found it tricky enough to
justify publishing six Linear Technology application notes on the
subject - AN45, AN49, AN51, AN55, AN61, and AN65.
Jim's electronic productivy was probably a million times yours.
So what? His job was to churn out application notes, mine was to put
together hardware that did specific jobs. Our situations weren't
easily comparable. My point, which you haven't been able to answer -
so you opted instead for the irrelevant insult - was that Jim
Williams, who wasn't inept, didn't find it a simple circuit.
Your claim that it is a simple two-transistor oscillator thus suggests
that you are inept. When it gets down to poke and fiddle electronics
you do rather better, but when you try to be intellectual about what
you are doing the wheels do tend to fall off.
And you're still standing around waiting for some one to come rescue
you when your wheels fail off. You see, most of us can change our own
tires, you on the other hand, as you say, are inept.
You are allowing your imagination to run away with you. I'm most
certainly not inept, and the nearest I get to sitting around and
waiting for someone to rescue me is asking if anybody has got a VBIC
models of the 2N3906 - the one I can improvise from Gummel-Poon
parameters doesn't work any better than the Gummel-Poon model, which
isn't all that surprising.
Your own level of performance - in as far as it is visible here -
doesn't really hit guru level. Self-satisfied nitwit comes closer to
the mark.
You must be another nym of AlwaysWrong. All you do any more is churn
out lame, self-aggrandizing insults.
How pathetic.
The original claim that I'm inept came from you, and was a typical
example of your responses to posts that injure your vanity. As your
insults go, it was more than usually silly, which makes it a lame
insult.You may have seen it as self-aggrandising - I can't see why you
would have bothered otherwise, though I can't imagine why you'd think
that calling me inept would make you look any better.
Jamie - who really does seem to be inept, though he's too dim to
realise it it - then jumped on the bandwaggon with an equally silly
observation, and I responded with the kind of put-down it deserved.
Calling Jamie a nitwit isn't actually wrong - though it may be an
exaggeration - and it doesn't do a thing for my status, one way or
another, so it isn't self-aggrandising. It's certainly an insult, but
his post was purely and simply a personal insult, and an insulting
response strikes me as entirely appropriate. Phil Allison or Richard
Steven Waltz would have done it better, but insults aren't really my
thing.
What's the matterBill? Things hitting to close to home lately?
Not that I've noticed. And you don't qualify as thing - if you were
harbouring any delusions about your own status - and barely even
qualify as an object of derision.
Apologies to the usegroup for giving this much attention to the twit.
I am glade you apologized to the group, it is only a small step but
at least you're starting to get it.
Maybe somewhere along the lines, you may even start admitting to be
misinformed, about many things.
On those rare occasions when I have proved to be misinformed, I do
admit it. One of the reasons that I post here is that it tests the
state of my knowledge. You - on the other hand - don't know much, a
I guess your method of testing has failed ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
lot of what you think you know isn't so, and you show no capacity for
becoming better informed. To cap it all, you are so unaware of your
ignorance that you presume to tell me that I'm misinformed on many
subjects.
Thanks for the moment of amusement. I hope the rest of the group finds
it equally funny.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
But like you said above, you test your knowledge. Your test has failed
you grossly.. Like I said before, misinformed.
Didn't your mother tell you to believe half of what you see and
nothing of what you hear?
Jamie
Joerg
Guest
Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:35 pm
amdx wrote:
Quote:
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service
Some of the rivers are already in the process of freezing over:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/n/a/2012/02/03/international/i055420S51.DTL
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
josephkk
Guest
Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:16 am
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:31:19 -0800 (PST), mrstarbom_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
Try not to recite your dogma so uncritically.
It's not dogma - what I'm saying is based on the available scientific
evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
Dogma "is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged
from, by the practitioners or believers."
Scientific evidence is fairly authoritative, but it is regularly
doubted, and disputed, and can be diverged from if you have better
counter-evidence, so it isn't dogma.
John Larkin's problem is that he treats denialist propaganda, which
purports to doubt and dispute the scientific evidence, as if it was
dogma.
"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization[1]."
AGW is the established belief for your particular religious group, so much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to pretend you are the only scientific ones. There is no science but your science.
Here is an even better definition:
a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (Merriam-Webster)
You could learn something from King Canute. People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.
Target approved, bomb away.
?-)
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:07 am
Joerg wrote:
Quote:
So, hell really can freeze over. :)
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Raveninghorde
Guest
Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:36 pm
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:35:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Quote:
Cold enough here that watefalls have frozen
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16892848
Ice skating in the fens in Eastern England and -22C reported in the
Netherlands.
John Larkin
Guest
Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:47 pm
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:36:08 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:
Quote:
Good grief. Cold kills.
--
John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Phil Hobbs
Guest
Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:19 pm
John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
Well, as the old saw says, it's an ill wind that blows nobody good.
We've had an Indian summer that lasted all the way through January. The
last couple of nights it's been about freezing, but we've hardly had a
frost all winter. On Groundhog Day, everyone was saying that they
didn't care if ol' Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow or not, because
another 6 weeks of _this_ winter would be no big hardship.
Folks elsewhere that aren't used to it are having a bad time, though. :(
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
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
John Larkin
Guest
Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:41 pm
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:19:57 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:
Quote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:36:08 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:35:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid
wrote:
amdx wrote:
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service
Some of the rivers are already in the process of freezing over:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/n/a/2012/02/03/international/i055420S51.DTL
[...]
Cold enough here that watefalls have frozen
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16892848
Ice skating in the fens in Eastern England and -22C reported in the
Netherlands.
Good grief. Cold kills.
Well, as the old saw says, it's an ill wind that blows nobody good.
We've had an Indian summer that lasted all the way through January. The
last couple of nights it's been about freezing, but we've hardly had a
frost all winter. On Groundhog Day, everyone was saying that they
didn't care if ol' Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow or not, because
another 6 weeks of _this_ winter would be no big hardship.
Folks elsewhere that aren't used to it are having a bad time, though. :(
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
It's been balmy and sunny in San Francisco this week, and overall warm
and dry so far this winter. That's nice for walking and gardening, but
bad for skiing and for the water supply.
If you were to (somehow) plot mean human welfare against mean
planetary temperature, I'd guess we're currently located at an
up-slope, wild guess +5% per degree C.
--
John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Winston
Guest
Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:06 am
John Larkin wrote:
(...)
Quote:
If you were to (somehow) plot mean human welfare against mean
planetary temperature, I'd guess we're currently located at an
up-slope, wild guess +5% per degree C.
I'm sure you are right.
The meanest humans I know are doing much better
than average.
--Winston<-- The meaner the better, too.
Bill Sloman
Guest
Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:39 am
On Feb 5, 10:41 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:19:57 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:36:08 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:35:40 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
amdx wrote:
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service
Some of the rivers are already in the process of freezing over:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/n/a/2012/02/03/intern...
[...]
Cold enough here that watefalls have frozen
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16892848
Ice skating in the fens in Eastern England and -22C reported in the
Netherlands.
Good grief. Cold kills.
Well, as the old saw says, it's an ill wind that blows nobody good.
We've had an Indian summer that lasted all the way through January. The
last couple of nights it's been about freezing, but we've hardly had a
frost all winter. On Groundhog Day, everyone was saying that they
didn't care if ol' Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow or not, because
another 6 weeks of _this_ winter would be no big hardship.
Folks elsewhere that aren't used to it are having a bad time, though. :(
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
It's been balmy and sunny in San Francisco this week, and overall warm
and dry so far this winter. That's nice for walking and gardening, but
bad for skiing and for the water supply.
If you were to (somehow) plot mean human welfare against mean
planetary temperature, I'd guess we're currently located at an
up-slope, wild guess +5% per degree C.
It's unlikely that human welfare is a linear function of planetary
temperature. For one thing, weather-related human welfare tends to
depend on rainfall as well as temperature, and the occasional tornado
or cyclone can makes a few people decidedly unhappy and uncomfortable
more or less independent of temperature.
It's all going to be a little more complicated than you'd like to
think (if you liked to think about anything outside of electronics,
doesn't seem to happen).
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Devereux
Guest
Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:28 am
John Larkin <jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:
Quote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:19:57 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:36:08 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:35:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid
wrote:
amdx wrote:
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service
Some of the rivers are already in the process of freezing over:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/n/a/2012/02/03/international/i055420S51.DTL
[...]
Cold enough here that watefalls have frozen
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16892848
Ice skating in the fens in Eastern England and -22C reported in the
Netherlands.
Good grief. Cold kills.
Well, as the old saw says, it's an ill wind that blows nobody good.
We've had an Indian summer that lasted all the way through January. The
last couple of nights it's been about freezing, but we've hardly had a
frost all winter. On Groundhog Day, everyone was saying that they
didn't care if ol' Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow or not, because
another 6 weeks of _this_ winter would be no big hardship.
Folks elsewhere that aren't used to it are having a bad time, though. :(
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
It's been balmy and sunny in San Francisco this week, and overall warm
and dry so far this winter. That's nice for walking and gardening, but
bad for skiing and for the water supply.
If you were to (somehow) plot mean human welfare against mean
planetary temperature, I'd guess we're currently located at an
up-slope, wild guess +5% per degree C.
Now plot it against local temperature.
--
John Devereux
Glenn
Guest
Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:54 am
On 30/01/12 15.39, amdx wrote:
Quote:
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service
"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to
rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was
issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of
East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in
world temperatures ended in 1997."
Guess What? There's controversy!
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kx6soAc2
Mikek
Hi!
You simply has to read this article:
The heat period (1937-1947) variability and extreme weather "drowns"
compared to the weather the last 10-15 years! (see among others figure
5, 7 in the article):
10 November 2011, Climate Variability and Climate Change: The New
Climate Dice:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20111110_NewClimateDice.pdf
And GW do not exclude severe winters:
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (2010, November 17).
Global warming could cool down northern temperatures in winter.
ScienceDaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm
Citat: "...
"Recent severe winters like last year's or the one of 2005-06 do not
conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it."
....
Warming of the air over the Barents-Kara Sea seems to bring cold winter
winds to Europe. "This is not what one would expect," Petoukhov says.
"Whoever thinks that the shrinking of some far away sea-ice won't bother
him could be wrong. There are complex teleconnections in the climate
system, and in the Barents-Kara Sea we might have discovered a powerful
feedback mechanism."
...."
Compare this to the "tiny" GW. Comparison between 2000-2010 with
1937-1947 hot period - earth middle temperature has risen 0.44°C
compared to the 1937-1947 hot period:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=1212&year1=2000&year2=2010&base1=1937&base2=1947&radius=1200&pol=reg
/Glenn
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12 Next
