If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing ov

[Bill Sloman]

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, 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)

Unfortunately, his grasp of what constitutes "adequate grounds" is
inadequate.

You could learn something from King Canute.  People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

Actually, all that's required is some grasp of the physics involved.
Once you've got that you don't have to be either egotistical or semi-
hysterical to get the point.

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:31:05 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

And how deep do you think that convective zone is?

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed...

says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.

The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.

I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.

--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers.  The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important.  See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg.

Cheers

Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs

Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg

It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
"solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
nonsense.

The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
worth of solar output.

Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.

The outer layers of the sun are well stirred.  Convection moves at
almost exactly the speed of sound, which in the solar interior is a
_big_ number, so you have to worry about the heat capacity of a lot more
than the photosphere.

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.

Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.

There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
100,000 years).

Of course it's hard for you to imagine.


**********************************

John Larkin, President
Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:52:55 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@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, 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)

Unfortunately, his grasp of what constitutes "adequate grounds" is
inadequate.

You could learn something from King Canute.  People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

Actually, all that's required is some grasp of the physics involved.
Once you've got that you don't have to be either egotistical or semi-
hysterical to get the point.

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.


**********************************

John Larkin, President
Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Even if it's not the sun, the Earth itself must have lots of mechanisms with
self-induced oscillation.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

On Wednesday, 1 February 2012 03:43:36 UTC+10, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:31 pm, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10, Bill Sloman  wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrs...@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,

The scientific establishment is not a religious group, and the belief
is only established to the extent that it hasn't yet been falsified.

I wasn't talking about the scientific establishment but about AGW and you.
Quoting wikipedia and having a degree doesn't make you a scientist.

so much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to pretend you are the only scientific ones.

I don't ignore, I'm just aware that the evidence that purports to
conflict with it has - so far - been either inadequate or bogus.
The post that opened this thread is a typical example if the
inadequate "counter-evidence" that gets presented,

There is no science but your science.

Science isn't monolithic, but it all rests on the same facts and
mostly relies on the same interpretations.

Here is an even better definition:
 a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds  (Merriam-Webster).

You may think that the scientific case is inadequate, but that does
strongly suggest that you don't know much about the science involved.

You could learn something from King Canute.  People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine > the climate.

King Canute's example was the tide, not the climate. At the moment you
wanting us all to do a King Canute - recommending the persistent
burning fossil carbon and injecting more CO2 into the atmosphere,on
the basis that you can't understand how anything that puny man can do
could cause the global temperature rise.

That isn't humility, but ignorance.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Try to remember you are not infallible.
Somethings are beyond wikipedia.
There is a huge difference between wisdom and knowledge.
You may need to get out more. Then you'll realize that the rest of the world has moved on. Deep down, we all know it does not matter because we are not immortal. You'll drive yourself mad or at least become increasingly cranky if you try to put everyone straight on every single topic of discussion.

Sorry for interrupting - but you just keep going on, and on, and on......

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:13:53 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Jan 31, 7:24 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,
And how do you know that?
General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics
"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."
Idiot.
And how deep do you think that convective zone is?
https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed...
says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.
The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.
I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.
--
BillSloman, Nijmegen
The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers.  The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important.  See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg.
Cheers
Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs
Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg
It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
"solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
nonsense.
The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
worth of solar output.
Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.
The outer layers of the sun are well stirred.  Convection moves at
almost exactly the speed of sound, which in the solar interior is a
_big_ number, so you have to worry about the heat capacity of a lot more
than the photosphere.

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.
Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.

There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
100,000 years).

Those tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
there were measurements to back them up.
"Widely considered" in the absence of precise measurements is scarcely
a scientific opinion. I suspect that if anybody had actually been
asked back then they wouldn't have said that it was impossible, merely
that the weren't any observations that suggested that anything like
that might be going on. Remember that the variation is paradoxical -
the "dark" sunspots that we can see accompany an marginally increased
solar output from the adjacent bright areas which more than compensate
from the reduced radiation from the dark areas.

That's pretty amusing--you're way outside your field,Bill, and it
shows.  You've shot yourself in the foot again.

It seems by now we should have a staffed position here at s.e.d. ... a
foot surgeon

Don't take Phil too seriously. He gets this urge to pontificate and
gets shirty when anybody argues with him - the similarity with John
Larkin is a trifle depressing.

What's depressing, to you and to me, is that he's a lot smarter than
either of us, and much more likely to be right.

Read his book.


**********************************

John Larkin, President
Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

Read his book.

I would if Amazon had an SED discount.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

[Jamie]

Bill Sloman wrote:

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:

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)

Unfortunately, his grasp of what constitutes "adequate grounds" is
inadequate.

You could learn something from King Canute. People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

Actually, all that's required is some grasp of the physics involved.
Once you've got that you don't have to be either egotistical or semi-
hysterical to get the point.

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

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.


Jamie

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 7:09 pm, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

And how deep do you think that convective zone is?

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed...

says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.

The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.

I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.

--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers.  The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important.  See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r..jpg.

Cheers

Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs

Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg

It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
"solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
nonsense.

The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
worth of solar output.

Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.

The outer layers of the sun are well stirred.  Convection moves at
almost exactly the speed of sound, which in the solar interior is a
_big_ number, so you have to worry about the heat capacity of a lot more
than the photosphere.

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.

Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.

There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
100,000 years).

Those tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
there were measurements to back them up.

"Widely considered" in the absence of precise measurements is scarcely
a scientific opinion. I suspect that if anybody had actually been
asked back then they wouldn't have said that it was impossible, merely
that the weren't any observations that suggested that anything like
that might be going on. Remember that the variation is paradoxical -
the "dark" sunspots that we can see accompany an marginally increased
solar output from the adjacent bright areas which more than compensate
from the reduced radiation from the dark areas.

<snipped pointless abuse>

If basing a claim on the excellent agreement between physics-based
models and the best available observations isn't scientific, that sort
of knocks the pins out from under your climate research friends, even on
your showing.

So show us the claim that you are objecting to.

<snipped irrelevant detail>

 The boundary condition used in the early
models was that the photosphere temperature was absolute zero--that
perturbed the luminosity calculation only a little.

So the previous received wisdom on the constancy of the solar constant
wasn't poorly supported at all.  It was supported about as well as
anything in astronomy, and quite a bit better than anything in
climatology.  It was just wrong, at least in detail.  That's how science
advances.

In most discussions 0.1% variation is negligible - certainly in a
context where you can drop the temperature of the sun's photosphere
from 6000K to 0K without significantly perturbing the luminosity
calculations. Of course, any calculation that consistently set the
photosphere temperature to absolute zero would have to find some other
way of getting rid of the heat generated at the core of the sun, since
such a photosphere wouldn't radiate anything, and it would be rather
difficult to model the convection in the convection zone if there
wasn't any place to dump the heat being transported out.

Back in the early 1960's (when I was learning to write Fortran and run
batch programs on an IBM 7040/44) I would have thought that anybody
doing the model would have been interested enough to work out how
thick the radiating layer might be and how turbulent the convection
was that was feeding heat into it. The association between sunspots
and Rayleigh-Bénard convection cells was presumably obvious back then,
though I must admit that the first association that I can find with
scholar.google.com dates from 1975

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470143841.ch9/summary

Find us an actual prediction, rather than pontificating about what you
think might have been said back before anybody had measured anything
with any precision.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 7:24 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,
And how do you know that?
General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics
"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."
Idiot.
And how deep do you think that convective zone is?
https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed...
says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.
The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.
I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.
--
BillSloman, Nijmegen
The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers.  The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important.  See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg.
Cheers
Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs
Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg
It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
"solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
nonsense.
The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
worth of solar output.
Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.
The outer layers of the sun are well stirred.  Convection moves at
almost exactly the speed of sound, which in the solar interior is a
_big_ number, so you have to worry about the heat capacity of a lot more
than the photosphere.

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.
Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.

There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
100,000 years).

Those tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
there were measurements to back them up.
"Widely considered" in the absence of precise measurements is scarcely
a scientific opinion. I suspect that if anybody had actually been
asked back then they wouldn't have said that it was impossible, merely
that the weren't any observations that suggested that anything like
that might be going on. Remember that the variation is paradoxical -
the "dark" sunspots that we can see accompany an marginally increased
solar output from the adjacent bright areas which more than compensate
from the reduced radiation from the dark areas.

That's pretty amusing--you're way outside your field,Bill, and it
shows.  You've shot yourself in the foot again.

It seems by now we should have a staffed position here at s.e.d. ... a
foot surgeon

Don't take Phil too seriously. He gets this urge to pontificate and
gets shirty when anybody argues with him - the similarity with John
Larkin is a trifle depressing.

<snipped more content-less pontification>

I guess according to Bill solar activity changes are an invention of
Exxon Mobil

Variations in the solar constant big enough to explain the current
warming are definitely a fabrication - we've been measuring solar
output accurately for long enough to make any such claim total
nonsense, which doesn't stop the denialist propaganda machine (which
isn't just supported by Exxon-Mobil on its own) from making such
claims.

The more scientifically sophisticated version of this story involves a
mechanism where charged particles from the sun and cosmic rays create
condensation nuclei in the stratosphere - as if there weren't enough
fine dust and soot particles up there anyway, not to mention contrails
from jet aircraft. You may recall the recent fuss here about some null
results from a big cloud chamber at CERN.

Svensmarks' goofy theory does get trotted out from time to time, but
it's not exactly persuasive.

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

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 8:55 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:31:05 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
100,000 years).

Of course it's hard for you to imagine.

Yes, I know stuff. Your imagination is less inhibited by inconvenient
facts, and you take care to forget them when we do draw them to your
attention.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

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:
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)

Unfortunately, his grasp of what constitutes "adequate grounds" is
inadequate.

You could learn something from King Canute.  People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

Actually, all that's required is some grasp of the physics involved.
Once you've got that you don't have to be either egotistical or semi-
hysterical to get the point.

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 11:06 pm, mrstar...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 February 2012 03:43:36 UTC+10,BillSloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:31 pm, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10,BillSloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrs...@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,

The scientific establishment is not a religious group, and the belief
is only established to the extent that it hasn't yet been falsified.

I wasn't talking about the scientific establishment but about AGW and you..
Quoting wikipedia and having a degree doesn't make you a scientist.









so much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to pretend you are the only scientific ones.

I don't ignore, I'm just aware that the evidence that purports to
conflict with it has - so far - been either inadequate or bogus.
The post that opened this thread is a typical example if the
inadequate "counter-evidence" that gets presented,

There is no science but your science.

Science isn't monolithic, but it all rests on the same facts and
mostly relies on the same interpretations.

Here is an even better definition:
 a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds  (Merriam-Webster).

You may think that the scientific case is inadequate, but that does
strongly suggest that you don't know much about the science involved.

You could learn something from King Canute.  People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine > the climate.

King Canute's example was the tide, not the climate. At the moment you
wanting us all to do a King Canute - recommending the persistent
burning fossil carbon and injecting more CO2 into the atmosphere,on
the basis that you can't understand how anything that puny man can do
could cause the global temperature rise.

That isn't humility, but ignorance.

Try to remember you are not infallible.

I don't have any delusions of infallibility.

Some things are beyond wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a excellent place to find simple low-level explanations
for the unsophisticated audience, and I mine it shamelessly. I do read
what I'm pointing people at, to make sure that the article has got it
right, but it's not where I learned most of what I know. If you read a
little more of my output, you'd find that I also cite books that I've
bought and papers that I've read.

There is a huge difference between wisdom and knowledge.

How would you know? You don't seem to exhibit either.

You may need to get out more.  Then you'll realize that the rest of the world has moved on.  Deep down, we all know it does not matter > because we are not immortal.  You'll drive yourself mad or at least become increasingly cranky if you try to put everyone straight on
every single topic of discussion.

I do restrict myself to the more egregiously erroneous posts on
sci.electronics.design.

Sorry for interrupting - but you just keep going on, and on, and on......

This is your third post in this thread. None of them says more than
that you don't agree with my opinions - the one fact that you adduce
is one of Merriam-Webster definitions of "dogma" - you didn't actually
provide a link to the full definition

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

presumably because definitions 1a and 1b, and 2 didn't suit your
argument as well as 1c. This is actually dishonest, but you seem to be
too dim to appreciate this.

I don't know what you think you are doing, but I think you have
already established that I get up your nose and that you don't know
enough to post any kind of substantive comment on the subject under
discussion, so as far as I am concerned it's you that just keep going
on and on.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:28:54 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

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:
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)

Unfortunately, his grasp of what constitutes "adequate grounds" is
inadequate.

You could learn something from King Canute.  People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

Actually, all that's required is some grasp of the physics involved.
Once you've got that you don't have to be either egotistical or semi-
hysterical to get the point.

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.

He built some and made them work, which is more than you can manage.

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.

Look at my web site and see how much of that looks like fiddling.



**********************************

John Larkin, President
Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:57:41 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Feb 1, 12:19 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:13:53 -0800 (PST),BillSloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 31, 7:24 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,
And how do you know that?
General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics
"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."
Idiot.
And how deep do you think that convective zone is?
https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed...
says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.
The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.
I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.
--
BillSloman, Nijmegen
The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers.  The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important.  See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg.
Cheers
Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs
Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg
It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
"solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
nonsense.
The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
worth of solar output.
Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.
The outer layers of the sun are well stirred.  Convection moves at
almost exactly the speed of sound, which in the solar interior is a
_big_ number, so you have to worry about the heat capacity of a lot more
than the photosphere.

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.
Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.

There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
100,000 years).

Those tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
there were measurements to back them up.
"Widely considered" in the absence of precise measurements is scarcely
a scientific opinion. I suspect that if anybody had actually been
asked back then they wouldn't have said that it was impossible, merely
that the weren't any observations that suggested that anything like
that might be going on. Remember that the variation is paradoxical -
the "dark" sunspots that we can see accompany an marginally increased
solar output from the adjacent bright areas which more than compensate
from the reduced radiation from the dark areas.

That's pretty amusing--you're way outside your field,Bill, and it
shows.  You've shot yourself in the foot again.

It seems by now we should have a staffed position here at s.e.d. ... a
foot surgeon

Don't take Phil too seriously. He gets this urge to pontificate and
gets shirty when anybody argues with him - the similarity with John
Larkin is a trifle depressing.

What's depressing, to you and to me, is that he's a lot smarter than
either of us, and much more likely to be right.

He's certainly smart. He certainly knows more than you do, which isn't
all that difficult, but he's not infallible.

Really?

Read his book.

I meant to, sometime. What I see in his output is a little too much of
the physicist and a little too little of the electronic engineer -

Well, read the book and see.

he

may well referee articles for Review of Scientific Instruments.

I doubt he'd waste his time doing that!


**********************************

John Larkin, President
Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:06:18 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@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:

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)

Unfortunately, his grasp of what constitutes "adequate grounds" is
inadequate.

You could learn something from King Canute.  People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

Actually, all that's required is some grasp of the physics involved.
Once you've got that you don't have to be either egotistical or semi-
hysterical to get the point.

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.


**********************************

John Larkin, President
Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Feb 1, 12:19 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:13:53 -0800 (PST),BillSloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 31, 7:24 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation..
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania..
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,
And how do you know that?
General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics
"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature.."
Idiot.
And how deep do you think that convective zone is?
https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed...
says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.
The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.
I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.
--
BillSloman, Nijmegen
The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers.  The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important.  See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r..jpg.
Cheers
Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs
Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg
It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
"solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
nonsense.
The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
worth of solar output.
Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.
The outer layers of the sun are well stirred.  Convection moves at
almost exactly the speed of sound, which in the solar interior is a
_big_ number, so you have to worry about the heat capacity of a lot more
than the photosphere.

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.
Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.

There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
100,000 years).

Those tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
there were measurements to back them up.
"Widely considered" in the absence of precise measurements is scarcely
a scientific opinion. I suspect that if anybody had actually been
asked back then they wouldn't have said that it was impossible, merely
that the weren't any observations that suggested that anything like
that might be going on. Remember that the variation is paradoxical -
the "dark" sunspots that we can see accompany an marginally increased
solar output from the adjacent bright areas which more than compensate
from the reduced radiation from the dark areas.

That's pretty amusing--you're way outside your field,Bill, and it
shows.  You've shot yourself in the foot again.

It seems by now we should have a staffed position here at s.e.d. ... a
foot surgeon

Don't take Phil too seriously. He gets this urge to pontificate and
gets shirty when anybody argues with him - the similarity with John
Larkin is a trifle depressing.

What's depressing, to you and to me, is that he's a lot smarter than
either of us, and much more likely to be right.

He's certainly smart. He certainly knows more than you do, which isn't
all that difficult, but he's not infallible.

Read his book.

I meant to, sometime. What I see in his output is a little too much of
the physicist and a little too little of the electronic engineer - he
may well referee articles for Review of Scientific Instruments. That
certainly doesn't mean that his book won't be worth reading, but it
will need to be taken with a grain of salt. I've learned a lot from
Review of Scientific Instruments, though they have also published some
thoroughly objectionable rubbish circuits (some of which I've objected
to).

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

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:

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)

Unfortunately, his grasp of what constitutes "adequate grounds" is
inadequate.

You could learn something from King Canute.  People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

Actually, all that's required is some grasp of the physics involved.
Once you've got that you don't have to be either egotistical or semi-
hysterical to get the point.

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Wednesday, 1 February 2012 09:51:27 UTC+10, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 11:06 pm, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 February 2012 03:43:36 UTC+10,BillSloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:31 pm, mrs...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10,BillSloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrs...@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,

The scientific establishment is not a religious group, and the belief
is only established to the extent that it hasn't yet been falsified.

I wasn't talking about the scientific establishment but about AGW and you.
Quoting wikipedia and having a degree doesn't make you a scientist.
so much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to pretend you are the only scientific ones.
snip
Here is an even better definition:
 a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds  (Merriam-Webster).

You may think that the scientific case is inadequate, but that does
strongly suggest that you don't know much about the science involved.
snip

Some things are beyond wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a excellent place to find simple low-level explanations
for the unsophisticated audience, and I mine it shamelessly.
Irrelevant because I was not suggesting it isn't useful. Just that you need to be able to think, as well as research.

snip

There is a huge difference between wisdom and knowledge.

How would you know? You don't seem to exhibit either.

What now?! Do you think they are the same?

You may need to get out more.  Then you'll realize that the rest of the world has moved on.  Deep down, we all know it does not matter
because we are not immortal.  You'll drive yourself mad or at least become increasingly cranky if you try to put everyone straight on
every single topic of discussion.

I do restrict myself to the more egregiously erroneous posts on
sci.electronics.design.

Well, try making them less erroneous instead of drowning in tedium.

Sorry for interrupting - but you just keep going on, and on, and on.......

This is your third post in this thread. None of them says more than
that you don't agree with my opinions -

Well spotted. But you'll argue with anyone about anything.

the one fact that you adduce

is one of Merriam-Webster definitions of "dogma" - you didn't actually
provide a link to the full definition


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

presumably because definitions 1a and 1b, and 2 didn't suit your
argument as well as 1c. This is actually dishonest, but you seem to be
too dim to appreciate this.

You're telling the story. I thought you knew that some words in English have more than one meaning. You seemed to need help with understanding which meaning I intended so I quoted 1c. I don't think it is possible, in that situation, for me to have been being dishonest. On the other hand, in accusing me of being dishonest, you are either confused or being dishonest.

I don't know what you think you are doing, but I think you have
already established that I get up your nose and that you don't know
enough to post any kind of substantive comment on the subject under
discussion, so as far as I am concerned it's you that just keep going
on and on.
Never mind me. If you manage to keep abreast of what you're doing, you'll do well.

There is no point posting substantive comment because you are stuck in the mud and very pleased with your own opinions. The other reason - I don't have time. There's work to do.

Mark Robarts

 

[Martin Brown]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.
Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.

There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
100,000 years).

Those tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
there were measurements to back them up.
"Widely considered" in the absence of precise measurements is scarcely
a scientific opinion. I suspect that if anybody had actually been
asked back then they wouldn't have said that it was impossible, merely
that the weren't any observations that suggested that anything like
that might be going on. Remember that the variation is paradoxical -
the "dark" sunspots that we can see accompany an marginally increased
solar output from the adjacent bright areas which more than compensate
from the reduced radiation from the dark areas.

That's pretty amusing--you're way outside your field, Bill, and it
shows. You've shot yourself in the foot again.

If basing a claim on the excellent agreement between physics-based
models and the best available observations isn't scientific, that sort
of knocks the pins out from under your climate research friends, even on
your showing.

Stellar structure calculations based on hydrostatic equilibrium have
been made since Kelvin, and with appropriately tweaked values for the
solar composition, they model the life cycle of main sequence stars
pretty well.

Although you should remember here that Kelvin used a model of the sun to
prove that no known fuel could possibly power the sun over geological
timescales and so used it as a stick to beat Darwin over the head with.
Young Earth Creationism was obviously correct - modern historians neatly
airbrush this out and state that Lord Kelvin anticipated nuclear energy.

Schwarzschild's classic book on stellar structure was published in the
1950s, and we were still using it as a textbook in the 1980s.

My stellar structure prof at UBC, Dr. Jason Auman, was one of the first
to make a full numerical model of the Sun, back in the early 1960s when
that was hard. (Back in the day they used the photosphere to infer the
initial composition, and ran the nucleosynthesis model to figure out how
it changes with time. Progress has probably been made, but I haven't
followed it very closely.) The boundary condition used in the early
models was that the photosphere temperature was absolute zero--that
perturbed the luminosity calculation only a little.

So the previous received wisdom on the constancy of the solar constant
wasn't poorly supported at all. It was supported about as well as
anything in astronomy, and quite a bit better than anything in
climatology. It was just wrong, at least in detail. That's how science
advances.

But it was only very slightly wrong. It was historically stated as fact
that the suns output was constant in Abetti's classic "The Sun" in 1934.

The solar constant was demonstrably reliable over all of geological time
as the Earth had liquid water over all of that time so we can put bounds
on the prevailing equatorial temperature at Earth of >273 and <373.
Taking todays global average as a nice round 300 that allows you -10% to
+25% slop in temperature and so using T^4 -35% to +144% in solar flux.
(in fact you get more slop on the cold side as prehistoric atmospheres
were CO2/CH4 rich with GHG until plants polluted the planet with oxygen)
And even if it froze completely with a gradually increasing solar output
and/or a bit of lucky vulcanism you eventually get back to a goldilocks
position - not so reversable if you boil the oceans off into atmosphere
as greenhouse effects then dominate and you end up with Venus.

It wasn't until computer simulation codes became possible and reliable
in the mid-60's that the early details of stellar evolution could be
determined. BTW I thought it was Icko Iben at UIUC who led on this.

The solar models for the sun gave something like 2.8x10^33 erg/s and
r=6.6x10^10 cm at zero age main sequence and a current value 3.90x10^33
erg/s and r=6.94x10^10cm for our sun (astronomy was cgs back then). In
astronomy and over billions of years that is pretty much a constant
output with a tiny systematic trend of +40% over 5 billion years.

It pales into insignificance when you compare it with the +/- 10% annual
variation of insolation that variations in the Earth's orbital elements
can produce as orbital eccentricity, perihelion and inclination to the
ecliptic vary.

Regards,
Martin Brown