EDAboard.com | EDAboard.eu | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | RTV forum PL | NewsGroups PL

OT: Climate Change, Isaac Asimov and the 1975 TV Guide

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Climate Change, Isaac Asimov and the 1975 TV Guide

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:10 pm   



On 01/10/2017 10:07 AM, George Herold wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
On 1/9/2017 3:54 PM, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.
Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

George H.

Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.
I guess I have a basic "faith" that science will eventually get it right..
or at least righter. But I can understand your mistrust.

The article talked about how there was a paradigm shift in the 40's
when the center of science left Germany and came here. The energy balance
argument makes sense.. energy in - out = stored. But we've known
for a while that carbs cause a hormonal response too... more insulin,
which leads to fat storage.

It's not that simple. Energy in is measured in a way that has little
bearing on the energy available as food. The energy out typically is
only counted in terms of exercise. Not all food is digested, is that
factored in? I've yet to see anyone take that into account.

I'm not a nutritionist, so I won't argue.
Here's the article.
https://aeon.co/essays/sugar-is-a-toxic-agent-that-creates-conditions-for-disease


One nutritionist makes up some idea, and tells another nutritionist.
When the second tells a third, "the science is settled."

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

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:16 pm   



On 01/10/2017 10:10 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Quote:
On 01/10/2017 10:07 AM, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
On 1/9/2017 3:54 PM, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.
Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

George H.

Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.
I guess I have a basic "faith" that science will eventually get it right..
or at least righter. But I can understand your mistrust.

The article talked about how there was a paradigm shift in the 40's
when the center of science left Germany and came here. The energy balance
argument makes sense.. energy in - out = stored. But we've known
for a while that carbs cause a hormonal response too... more insulin,
which leads to fat storage.

It's not that simple. Energy in is measured in a way that has little
bearing on the energy available as food. The energy out typically is
only counted in terms of exercise. Not all food is digested, is that
factored in? I've yet to see anyone take that into account.

I'm not a nutritionist, so I won't argue.
Here's the article.
https://aeon.co/essays/sugar-is-a-toxic-agent-that-creates-conditions-for-disease


One nutritionist makes up some idea, and tells another nutritionist.
When the second tells a third, "the science is settled."


Jody Bottum wrote an interesting article about the phenom:
http://freebeacon.com/culture/canned-foods-banning-big-gulp/

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

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:27 pm   



On 01/09/2017 04:40 PM, George Herold wrote:
Quote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 4:15:47 PM UTC-5, pcdh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you misunderstood Jasen's point. Do we have a device
that gets hotter at the hot side when we heat the cool side?
(Without a reversal of the gradient across the device, that is.)

You can't make heat flow spontaneously from cold to hot, but in almost any situation involving steady-state heat flow, warming up the cold side does cause the hot side to warm too. (Heat sinks and transistor junctions come to mind.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

OK Now I'm interpreting someone's interpretation.. bad... but I thought Jason meant
a "thermal" capacitance not connected to any heat bath. So no thermal connections
(through a thermal resistance) to "zero" temperature. A hunk of something floating
in a heat capacity chamber is the as close as I can come.
(By a heat capacity chamber I mean a vacuum space use to measure heat capacity.)


There is no thermal analogue to a floating capacitor because there's no
thermal version of displacement current. Heat is a scalar and not a
vector, so there's nothing corresponding to the curl equations of
electrodynamics.

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
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:57 pm   



On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:16:36 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Quote:
On 01/10/2017 10:10 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 01/10/2017 10:07 AM, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
On 1/9/2017 3:54 PM, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.
Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

George H.

Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.
I guess I have a basic "faith" that science will eventually get it right..
or at least righter. But I can understand your mistrust.

The article talked about how there was a paradigm shift in the 40's
when the center of science left Germany and came here. The energy balance
argument makes sense.. energy in - out = stored. But we've known
for a while that carbs cause a hormonal response too... more insulin,
which leads to fat storage.

It's not that simple. Energy in is measured in a way that has little
bearing on the energy available as food. The energy out typically is
only counted in terms of exercise. Not all food is digested, is that
factored in? I've yet to see anyone take that into account.

I'm not a nutritionist, so I won't argue.
Here's the article.
https://aeon.co/essays/sugar-is-a-toxic-agent-that-creates-conditions-for-disease


One nutritionist makes up some idea, and tells another nutritionist.
When the second tells a third, "the science is settled."

Jody Bottum wrote an interesting article about the phenom:
http://freebeacon.com/culture/canned-foods-banning-big-gulp/

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


You never let a serious famine go to waste.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 am   



On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 02:22:07 -0800 (PST), pcdhobbs_at_gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
Well, he was a chemist, so what do you expect? ;)

Now, *that's* funny!

I wasn't needling Bill, if that's what you mean.


But you were, without even know it. ;-)

>After numerous tries I gave up and killfiled him ages ago. (Or rather added him to a Tbird filter that automatically marks a few people's posts as having been read. On Google I have to skip them manually, but it's a habit by now.)


Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:22 am   



On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 08:55:15 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Quote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.

Asimov's predictions were dire and wrong. Nothing new there.



(And we should just have newly minted grads designing
complex electronic/software systems. Not.)

I pretty much despair of recent EE grads designing anything sensible.
I've interviewed too many young EEs who can't figure out a simple
voltage divider, much less a transistor or an opamp. Most skipped the
field theory and control theory and s+s courses because they are hard,
and are electives now. I must have interviewed 50 of them, and found
one (a young woman who graduated from a college in Mexico) who
actually understands electricity; I hired her.


It's not just recent grads. I've interviewed many "experienced"
candidates who don't understand a simple transistor circuit (and in
some cases will argue their ignorance). This is in an on-site
interview, after they've had at least one phone inteview.

>That's a separate rant.


Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:30 am   



On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 6:19:01 AM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 02:22:07 -0800 (PST), pcdhobbs_at_gmail.com wrote:

Well, he was a chemist, so what do you expect? ;)

Now, *that's* funny!

I wasn't needling Bill, if that's what you mean.

But you were, without even know it. Wink


Not exactly. I've been rude about the electronics published by physicists in Review Scientific Instruments for years now, and some of those comments have been published there. I have made the point that Phil Hobbs isn't that kind of physicist (and more than Win Hill is that kind of chemist - though Win did give up on his Ph.D. in Chemical Physics when his real interests became obvious), but there are quite a few blinkered specialists around - Phil Hobbs, Win Hill and I aren't representative samples.

Krw is quite dumb enough not to recognise exceptions when he runs into them..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:38 am   



On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 10:10:08 AM UTC+11, M Philbrook wrote:
Quote:
In article <4f7b00dd-53b5-423e-b986-b40238ff79ae_at_googlegroups.com>,
tabbypurr_at_gmail.com says...

On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 03:45:53 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 12:42:20 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 00:58:06 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

Once again Sloman's determined to not understand something quite simple, and very common in EE.

On the contrary, egomaniacs with delusions of competence are all too common in electronic engineering - NT does seem to be prime example - and I've worked with enough of them to have an adequate working understand of how to cope with them. Sending them up can be a useful tool.

how ironic. And time wasting.

It's nice to know that things don't change just because we entered a
new year ;)

Sloman is a perfect example.


Jamie is a trifle more perfect. I've had a small expedition into black holes, which Jamie hasn't noticed, probably because he couldn't have understood what was being discussed if he had.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:49 am   



On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 6:22:42 AM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 08:55:15 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony..


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.

Asimov's predictions were dire and wrong. Nothing new there.


They were - correctly - dire. Granting what was known in 1975, they weren't all that wrong.

Quote:
(And we should just have newly minted grads designing
complex electronic/software systems. Not.)

I pretty much despair of recent EE grads designing anything sensible.
I've interviewed too many young EEs who can't figure out a simple
voltage divider, much less a transistor or an opamp. Most skipped the
field theory and control theory and s+s courses because they are hard,
and are electives now. I must have interviewed 50 of them, and found
one (a young woman who graduated from a college in Mexico) who
actually understands electricity; I hired her.

It's not just recent grads. I've interviewed many "experienced"
candidates who don't understand a simple transistor circuit (and in
some cases will argue their ignorance). This is in an on-site
interview, after they've had at least one phone inteview.


A few job interviews I had at Cambridge fitted that pattern. The Cambridge electronics course was a bit idiosyncratic - they did use The Art of Electronics as a basic textbook, but they had funny ideas about digital logic, and if you couldn't produce the jargon that was being taught at the time they couldn't take you seriously.

Krw isn't the kind of interviewer who could appreciate a way of talking about simple transistor circuits that didn't match the one he was used to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

M Philbrook
Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:11 am   



In article <4f7b00dd-53b5-423e-b986-b40238ff79ae_at_googlegroups.com>,
tabbypurr_at_gmail.com says...
Quote:

On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 03:45:53 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 12:42:20 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 00:58:06 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

Once again Sloman's determined to not understand something quite simple, and very common in EE.

On the contrary, egomaniacs with delusions of competence are all too common in electronic engineering - NT does seem to be prime example - and I've worked with enough of them to have an adequate working understand of how to cope with them. Sending them up can be a useful tool.

how ironic. And time wasting.


It's nice to know that things don't change just because we entered a
new year ;)

Slow-Man is a perfect example.

Jamie

rickman
Guest

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:43 am   



On 1/10/2017 10:07 AM, George Herold wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
On 1/9/2017 3:54 PM, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 05:18, rickman wrote:
Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of a noted
science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about irony.


Experts? We don't need no steenkin' experts.

There are vast regions of non-experimental "science" where the
overwhelming concensus is usually wrong. It changes semi-periodically,
roughly once per generation, so it might occasionally be right, by
accident.
Oh my..
*** thread shift .. but it relates to food and that is
always permissible (according to my copy of the SED bylaws.)
***
I was reading this article about the evils of sugar, and how (they) think
that nutritionalist's got the obesity question wrong.
It's not about energy inbalance, but a hormonal response to carbs.
(I can't recall where I read it.)

George H.

Some decades carbs are good, and some decades they are poison. Ditto
fats, dairy, meat, salt, whatever.
I guess I have a basic "faith" that science will eventually get it right..
or at least righter. But I can understand your mistrust.

The article talked about how there was a paradigm shift in the 40's
when the center of science left Germany and came here. The energy balance
argument makes sense.. energy in - out = stored. But we've known
for a while that carbs cause a hormonal response too... more insulin,
which leads to fat storage.

It's not that simple. Energy in is measured in a way that has little
bearing on the energy available as food. The energy out typically is
only counted in terms of exercise. Not all food is digested, is that
factored in? I've yet to see anyone take that into account.

I'm not a nutritionist, so I won't argue.
Here's the article.
https://aeon.co/essays/sugar-is-a-toxic-agent-that-creates-conditions-for-disease


I looked at it but didn't read in detail because it is a piece of fluff.
I didn't see any real science in it, this is a survey of science.

Near the end he author says, "By focusing on the problems of eating too
much and exercising too little, public health authorities have simply
failed to target the correct causes." But I didn't see what the
"correct causes" are. Is this supposed to be a normal intake of
carbohydrate? So as we age we become more sensitive to carbohydrates
and have to reduce them?

Durn, I was going to have spaghetti for dinner.

--

Rick C


Guest

Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:15 am   



On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:29:18 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Quote:
John Larkin wrote:

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

The external force would itself have to oscillate, so it has to start
somewhere.


John Larkin hasn't got a clue about climate change in general and ice ages in particular. The most recent burst of ice age to inter-glacial alternations started about 2.58 million years ago, when the continents had drifted into positions where you had a more or less land-locked Arctic Ocean, and a land mass under the south pole, all of which allowed big enough ice sheets to build up to appreciably increase the average albedo of the planet - a positive feedback.

In fact the balance between ice ages and interglacials is rather close and a small regular pertubation - the Milankovitch effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

is enough to kick the planet between an ice age and an interglacial.

Assimov should have known about Milankovitch cycles - Milankovitch came up with the data in the 1920's - though it took the Greenland and Antarctic ice core data to really nail it down, and the first 100,000 year ice core from Greenland wasn't extracted until 1989.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Tom Del Rosso
Guest

Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:30 am   



John Larkin wrote:
Quote:

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.


The external force would itself have to oscillate, so it has to start
somewhere.

Wanderer
Guest

Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:24 pm   



On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 1:15:41 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:29:18 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

The external force would itself have to oscillate, so it has to start
somewhere.

John Larkin hasn't got a clue about climate change in general and ice ages in particular. The most recent burst of ice age to inter-glacial alternations started about 2.58 million years ago, when the continents had drifted into positions where you had a more or less land-locked Arctic Ocean, and a land mass under the south pole, all of which allowed big enough ice sheets to build up to appreciably increase the average albedo of the planet - a positive feedback.

In fact the balance between ice ages and interglacials is rather close and a small regular pertubation - the Milankovitch effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

is enough to kick the planet between an ice age and an interglacial.

Assimov should have known about Milankovitch cycles - Milankovitch came up with the data in the 1920's - though it took the Greenland and Antarctic ice core data to really nail it down, and the first 100,000 year ice core from Greenland wasn't extracted until 1989.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


You're telling me you think the top four signals in that graph are producing those vertical lines in the bottom two? I see a hysteresis (bang-bang) controller like this
http://www.chi.camp/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/bangbang_control.png.
The Milankovitch cycles may have a resonate effect on the glacial cycle but it's not driving those temperatures.

Wanderer
Guest

Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:57 pm   



On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:24:34 AM UTC-5, Wanderer wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 1:15:41 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:29:18 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

The external force would itself have to oscillate, so it has to start
somewhere.

John Larkin hasn't got a clue about climate change in general and ice ages in particular. The most recent burst of ice age to inter-glacial alternations started about 2.58 million years ago, when the continents had drifted into positions where you had a more or less land-locked Arctic Ocean, and a land mass under the south pole, all of which allowed big enough ice sheets to build up to appreciably increase the average albedo of the planet - a positive feedback.

In fact the balance between ice ages and interglacials is rather close and a small regular pertubation - the Milankovitch effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

is enough to kick the planet between an ice age and an interglacial.

Assimov should have known about Milankovitch cycles - Milankovitch came up with the data in the 1920's - though it took the Greenland and Antarctic ice core data to really nail it down, and the first 100,000 year ice core from Greenland wasn't extracted until 1989.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You're telling me you think the top four signals in that graph are producing those vertical lines in the bottom two? I see a hysteresis (bang-bang) controller like this
http://www.chi.camp/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/bangbang_control.png.
The Milankovitch cycles may have a resonate effect on the glacial cycle but it's not driving those temperatures.


Those Milankovitch signals are really interesting from an engineer's viewpoint. The Apsidal precession looks like the carrier wave, the Axial precession looks like the modulated signal and the Eccentricity is the demodulated signal.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Climate Change, Isaac Asimov and the 1975 TV Guide

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic versionBulgarian versionCatalan versionCzech versionDanish versionGerman versionGreek versionEnglish versionSpanish versionFinnish versionFrench versionHindi versionCroatian versionIndonesian versionItalian versionHebrew versionJapanese versionKorean versionLithuanian versionLatvian versionDutch versionNorwegian versionPolish versionPortuguese versionRomanian versionRussian versionSlovak versionSlovenian versionSerbian versionSwedish versionTagalog versionUkrainian versionVietnamese versionChinese version
RTV map EDAboard.com map News map EDAboard.eu map EDAboard.de map EDAboard.co.uk map