I don't know in what sense he means, but there is a measure of how predictable a chaotic system is:
Tim
-- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/
Denialist already have power/control over lotsa dosh, and they don't want the value to be negated.
Follow the loss of money.
No one in the sciences studies 'AGW', that's a media invention.
Politics (like the Paris accords, with a couple of hundred signatories) and power (coal, in particular), are both involved in planetary climate change. Did anyone suggest otherwise?
False. Experimental science requires experiment, but observational science is the topic here. The science principle isn't about experiment, it's about OBSERVATION.
That's why 'official weather stations' are useful.
If your pet theories need the protection of repeated falsehoods, science offers a solution: euthanize that pet.
Only if they are accurate, and use consistent instrumentation, and haven't moved or had their surroundings altered.
Increasing use of satellite and balloon data has coincided with the "warming hiatus." But interested parties are already trying to "correct" the satellite data. Guess which direction.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
not taking a measurement, observing evidence of the temperature.
that seems like insufficient evidence, it only goes back as far as you can trust the guy writingthe dates..
Your problem seems to be you don't blieve in natural processes, only artificial. it seems as-if you wouldn't beleive it was mid day unless a clock told you.
-- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
I don't know why everyone is wasting time trying to make sense of measuring air temperature, when it can fluctuate by tens of degrees celsius from night to day, summer to winter, and cloudy days to full sunshine.
Why not monitor the water temperature of the oceans. These are a huge heat sink and don't normally change much.
The water temperature is increasing, which is a clear sign of global warming. This is much less controversial, and should save some wear and tear on the keyboards. Google has lots of information.
As far as a temperature gauge on an airport, this is essential information for pilots to determine go/nogo takeoff distance when it is hot, and ice warning when the temperature is near zero. I doubt it is intended to measure global warming.
Regarding high runway temperatures, Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport was shut down on June 26, 1990 when the temperature reached 122F, since they didn't have aircraft performance charts for a temperature that high. The charts have since been updated, but each airline can set its own requirements.
On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 22:50:44 GMT, Steve Wilson wrote: [snip]
[snip]At what DEPTH? What a daft UN-scientific suggestion! Sheeeesh! ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
That's confusing time scale and class of chaotic behaviour. If you get a textbook on chaos theory - or even a decent popular science exposition - they'll let you get that right. John Larkin doesn't seem to have done either.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
sed
yows
that
as
tous,
It is after they have figured in all the corrections.
The Sourcewatch page on Anthony Watts talks about him approving such a prog ram of corrections, right up to the point where it came up with a conclusio n he didn't like.
Why bother. John Larkin listens to Anthony Watts - who is a paid member of the denialist propaganda machine - and ignores all other sources.
John Larkin certainly isn't. What he posts does suggest that he doesn't kno w what the word means. He has been listed as one of the authors of a peer-r eviewed published paper, which would have got him to first base if he'd had much to do with writing the paper, rather than merely contributing to the work published in the paper.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
I don't see that making it "more chaotic", any more than putting a low pass filter on AGWN makes it any less random.
Pseudo random is pseudo random, no matter what its starting point.
But, as with AGWN, you can put upper/lower limits on the output.
Accuracy is a number. If you have multiple observations, and multiple accuracies associated (we call these variances), there's mathematical rules (Bayesian statistics) for handling the situation. 'Useful' is only arguable with numeric input. To sneer at data and ignore it, as you seem to suggest, isn't science.
Consistent instrumentation is part of the 'official' weather station certification, of course. Nobody ever suggested otherwise.
'haven't moved' is a canard. A 'moved' station is a different station.
Haven't 'had their surroundings altered' is somewhat important, but of course alteration of surroundings is all it takes to decertify a weather station: there's a prescribed set of site requirements, and routine cross-checks that identify outliers.
Absolutely not! Observation, not guessing, is the rule!
Calibration is required of any instrument. When that instrument is in orbit, it is done by timely updates (corrections) to the parameters you cannot reach with a screwdriver. No conspiracy required.
It's very clever, actually: you can make a few spot (balloon-borne?) upper atmosphere measurements that are simultaneous with the satellite sweep. When the (accurate but low-coverage) balloon data differs from the satellite (high-coverage but subject to age/drift) data, you model the difference and then all the satellite data is good again.
Observation of 'interested parties' is political science, sociology or perhaps abnormal psychology; you'll never interest any climatologist in that. Heck, 'concerned' representatives currently sitting in Congress aren't interested enough to do that work, and they're supposedly the political science types.
Do you know, there was a claim going around that Barack Obama didn't have a valid US birth certificate, and it persisted despite multiple copies of the certificate and a supporting statement from the governor of Hawaii? Many politicians, in Congress and on the campaign trail, never did the simple reading of the document, despite all their feigned concern!
The good news: one of those, Joe Arpaio, was recently pardoned for his other misdeeds.
Face it, John Larkin hasn't got a clue about science, and his embrace of the denialist position is depressing example the way money can be used to influence the gullible.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
We monitor the temperature of the surface of the oceans. The Argo buoys monitor the temperature of the bit of the deep ocean they are exploring at any give moment, but there only about 3,000 of them.
There's nothing unscientific about monitoring just the temperature of the ocean surface - that is what determines water vapour content of the air directly above it which has a significant effect on weather.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Hey, look at this:
There are SCIENTISTS!
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
You think the government is in favor of warming 'cause then they get to control and tax the energy?
I should say; I am all in favor of a gas or carbon tax, I've got a tin can somewhere with a few John Anderson buttons in it. :^)
George H.
Huh, I figure those guys are doing what they can to make accurate measurements. I know I've mentioned this before but you should check out Richard Muller at Berkeley, he was originally a skeptic and went looking at the data. It's here,
Here's the global land data,
George H.
ar
ut
s about
another-ice-age-759865
Not very good ones. The "solar activity" they are talking about are sun-spo ts, and the actual heat output from the sun is barely affected by the prese nce or absence of sun spots. The coincidence of the "little ice age" which was a regional effect (centred around the north Atlantic) with the Maunder minimum is just a coincidence, and any scientist worthy of the name would k now that.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
bout
Alarmists - or the people you like to label as alarmists - clearly haven't prevailed yet. Since they are actually better-informed than you are (which isn't a difficult state to achieve) they would be better labelled as concer ned citizen, but you've been sold the denialist line and swallowed it whole .
And it leads you straight to the Koch brothers, who have bought your opinio n.
If you were a trifle less of a gullible sucker, you might have noticed.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
The three-body was a curiosity of physics long before anyone named chaos theory. Given two point masses in space, the differential equations of position and velocity are simple; Newton did that. Three become a nightmare. In some cases, orbits are regular, predictable to an observer. In other cases, the motion is chaotic and aperiodic. The difference is merely initial conditions.
The classic physicists were dismayed, or maybe amused, that there was no general solution to the three-body problem.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.