AGW "experts" - Know Thyselves

I'm sure that you would. It would be a complete waste of time. The climatologist does have the advantage that his "glass of water" is isolated in space, and absorbs energy only from the sun and and loses energy only by thermal radiation from the upper layers of teh atmosphere - how far up depends on the wavelength, and (for some wavelengths) and the presence or absence of particulate matter (including water droplets).

Granting the convention curetns around the glass, a little less simple than you would like to think.

Not exactly, as you'd be aware if you had any kind of clue about the subject.

Since the world hasn't stopped warming - though it is warming less rapidly than it did a decade or so ago - and the IPCC has never made any short term projections, the "alarmists" don't need defend against these bogus arguments in the first place.

"More likely that not" is a pretty wimpy kind of prediction. As you should be well aware, the reason for the failure to predict the current decade of relatively slow warming is that some ten years ago, when such a prediction might have been worth making, nobody had much of a handle on the North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, nor its Pacific equivalents. When the Argo project has had the chance to collect a decade or two's worth of data it is possible that the climatologists may be able to integrate some of the varation in the heat transfer through the oceans into some of their models,

Of course, the gross progressive increase in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is still swamping these fairly small oscillations due to the excursions of the ocean currents, but you still seem to feel free to bitch about the projections you attribute to the people who you regularly accuse of faking the data that you are complaining about, because they don't meet some kind of arbitrary short term precison criterium that you re-invent - along with the projections - whenever you want something to complain about.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

y,

to

ail.

can

ou

L...

ent

ful

to

eal

So you don't like Einstein. Going to exhibit any more examples of your judgement?

-- Bill Sloman,

hasis

other

ree on

nics,

Or so you will claim. At least I'm not so much of an ass as to recycle Exxon-Mobil's self-serving rubbish

And sell for a great deal more money than it is worth?

The advertising is a little transparent. Try not to undercut it by associating yourself with truly stupid second-hand ideas about anthropogenic global warming.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

a bit

dern

s.

me

ce

down

ow

at is

d to

as a

weather

er

he

mp is

Most of the ones I recall did have relatively small output oscillations - of the order of a few millivolts - which is why they hadn't been flagged by quality control, but this wasn't because the the input stage had run out of curent swing (it take 40mV to get a 2:1 different in current in the input bjts) but because some half-baked engineer had "cured" an oscillation caused by a capacitative load on an op amp output (such as is often presented by a long cable) by loading the output with 100nF to ground. It didn't happen often, but it would be my first guess at an explanation for an oscillating thermocouple amplifier, where long cables tend to be more the rule than the exception.

Because you feel the need to reveal that you've only had to deal with a limited range of idiots?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Einstein's equations could be tested. And were. His fame really took off after the light-bending eclipse experiment showed him to be spot-on.

As far as liking him, I couldn't say. What matters is that he was right.

John

other

on

I grant every person on the planet the right to not buy my digitizer if they don't think it's worth the asking price. In fact, we have sold and shipped one already... actually sold one, shipped some other old VME module we had lying around, and invoiced the customer for it. The customer will pay us with year-end money and return it "for repair", and we'll ship him the real thing when it's done.

This is an electronic design discussion group, so I discuss the things I'm designing. You don't design anything, so you have to discuss silly crap and fling insults in virtually every post.

I'm having more fun than you are.

John

And here the pot calls the kettle black.

YOU were the one injecting himself into replies I was making to others. Namely, this:

Message-ID:

I was completely ignoring your posts, John. I didn't even fetch or read them, for gosh sake. Until you felt like nipping at _my_ heals and I saw a header from you and decided only then to manually download the thing.

The prior time where I replied to you was in .basics about debouncing. I was following that thread, so I happened to see your post. Before that, in October, it was once again only _after_ YOU responded to my post to someone else. Again, not because I was ever reading your writing. I simply do NOT follow you. Too few things, anymore, worth reading since so much is about climate or politics from you, now.

So it looks a hell of a lot like the other way around. Maybe I should feel honored.

Jon

I would update my analogy with the oscillating op-amp:

The oscillating amplifier is a Class D amplifier, intended to oscillate. Climate change is change by millivolts a slowly changing DC input signal. Weather in this analogous model is values of the components being hypothetically modulated by thermal noise.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

stry,

and to

avail.

get

rs can

w.

t you

gument

to

andful

ted

nal

le to

f real

Strange that you can't get as enthusiastic about the people who discovered anthropogenic global warming, and used the ice core data to show that they were right.

The whole story is an impressive example of the scientific method in action

though nobody managed to match Einstein's central role in relativity and quantum theory.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

e:

emphasis

ls, other

sagree on

an

tronics,

ain

That's usually described as fraud, but - in this case - it isn't hurting anybody. Just don't tell anybody about it.

If only. You seem to spend more of your time rebroadcasting false ideas about global warming (or its absence) that sound very like the stuff one runs into on denialist web-sites that enjoy - according to Sourcewatch - covert subsidies from Exxon-Mobil

I don't originate the silly crap - that comes from you and Ravinghorde, amongst others - and while it is insulting to be characterised as a source of silly crap, there is an easy way to avoid it.

Or so you claim. Judging from the time you spend on spreading silly crap, you've got to be pretty bored and idle.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

emphasis

other

disagree on

electronics,

There's no fraud on our part. Actually, this trick is done all the time, more often by the National Labs than by industry. Groups restrain their spending to make sure they can handle their needs, and at the end of a budget year may wind up with a bit of unspent money that they have to use or lose. Sometimes we'll get a call a week before the budget year closes, and we have to ship something. Sometimes we ship an engineering unit or a loaner, and later replace it with a new one. I've heard of people literally shipping bricks.

Legally, if we ship something of about the same value as the desired product, it's a legit transaction. It's just not the thing they actually need. So we swap it out as soon as we can.

Easy way to avoid it: post on-topic. You are the most prolific poster to s.e.d., and the most off-topic one. Your insult ratio is also unmatched.

No, I just spend too much time in front of a computer. This weekend I have to final-check The Brat's digitizer layout, prepare the statement of work for the FPGA guy (we had to go with a consultant this time... we're overloaded internally), buy Christmas presents, clean up the Blue Rabbit for sale, do some social stuff, maybe work on the cabin automation project, and read The New York Times. All that crud makes an occasional burst of irresponsibility sort of a sinful luxury. Goofing off can be fun too.

John

Google keeps stats on this:

Monthly posts in S.E.D., 2009: Larkin 484 236 206 276 449 494 203 156 309 330 208

That's a lot of hot air, but evidently Sloman is doing his part to mitigate AGW.

-- Joe

I am expecting this year to end up having the Met Office version of HadCRUT-3 for the whole year of 2009 to be be between .45 and .45.

I expect next year to have that version of that index to be most likely very slightly warmer. At this moment, my "Klip-U-Weather" forecast for that version of that index for whole year of 2010 to be .46. I was recently in mood to say .45. I would not be surprised by a few hundreds of a degree in either direction otherwise. If 2010 as a whole has HadCRUT-3 global temperature index outside the range of .41 - .5, I expect that would be accomplished in significant part from a significant Pacific event that is not in current forecasts.

Although I see that AGW is real, I sense that advocates of its existence have overstated the degree of its existence, in significant part by giving insufficient weight to AMO being responsible for some fair amount of the warming from the early 1970's to 2005.

It appears to me that the recent stalling of global warming will continue until roughly 2030, and reverse to resumption of upswing around

Further along these lines, I expect warming during this century to be close to "low end" of projections in so-far-done IPCC "assessment reports".

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

I've seen other predictions for 2010:

We'll know in a year.

Jon

I'm not disingenuous, nor do I lie or make up things out of whole cloth. And I try and make sure that what I say comes from at least _some_ basic fact-checking _before_ I post it.

By comparison, John appears to be at least disingenuous if not an outright liar. He says he wants electronics posted here and tried to pretend that attitude with me. Yet has proven quite otherwise after the fact in his continued postings on the subject of climate. I take that to mean he is a liar, disingenuous, or at least deceives himself to the point of a serious personal problem that he cannot control.

Also, John pretends that professional designing electronics has any bearing whatever on _his_ ability to comment on climate -- it doesn't, because it's obvious he hasn't spent a lick of time on his own education there -- or on mine, where I _have_ spend my own time attempting to educate myself where he has not.

And he routinely attempts to change the subject when faced with his own ignorance -- literally throwing the kitchen sink into the discussion if it has any chance of diverting it onto some other topic than his profound lack of education, experience, training or any other source representing an informed opinion on his own right. He knows he is completely ignorant on the subject, hasn't fully explored any subtopic of it comprehensively, and will never be willing to do so. Then he pretends, when challenged, that all he really wants is to talk about electronics design. So I offered him _that_ opportunity, too. And he won't take me up on that, either.

It's all a sham, a lie, on his part.

I wear my motivations on my sleeve and none of them are false-faced, as John's obviously are. I'm here because I like to learn about electronics and, sometimes, I get to do that here. It's as simple to understand as that. Yeah, I comment when someone else is lying or being disingenuous. It rankles me. Especially when it comes from someone who _should_ know better and also who should know just how easy it is to catch his manifestly disingenuous and false-faced behaviors and patterns. You'd imagine he'd see the weak limb he regularly climbs out upon. That he doesn't only undermines my respect for other things he may say on electronics, because he may be missing things due to a similarly false sense of skill and that worries me and makes me want to check more thoroughly anything he says on electronics.

Jon

Another interesting metric is how many words I can provoke for as few of mine as possible.

But "undermines my respect..."? Oooooo.

John

No, recently. My measured IQ has increased over the years.

Graham

-- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address

Can you count the ones that had to do with electronics design?

I fact, I have done and continue to design stuff that saves energy and reduces pollution on very large scales. Sloman just talks. He probably generates more CO2 than he mitigates, just by breathing.

John

Same here. I was designing smog controls for cars while Slowman was still in diapers ;-) ...Jim Thompson