If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing over again.

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.

articular group or organization[1]."

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. =20

to pretend you are the only scientific ones.

grounds =A0(Merriam-Webster).

ibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine > the cl= imate.

Try to remember you are not infallible. =20 Somethings are beyond wikipedia. =20 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 wor= ld 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 cr= anky if you try to put everyone straight on every single topic of discussio= n.

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

tion.

about sunspots.

nia.

ething serious

erature thing

ost layers

an that

ter of

arts of

wound up"

s a certain

's surface.

flux from

re."

ne-shed...

of the

24% of

hort term

er

y takes

you

uch

't

ep near

he weight

s than 1000

rt in and

.jpg.

he

f

's

ore

e

e.

o, until

So show us the claim that you are objecting to.

nce

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-B=E9nard 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

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

sunspots.

serious

e thing

ayers

hat

f

of

up"

ertain

rface.

from

hed...

the

of

term

kes

near

weight

han 1000

in and

g.

e s

ore

e

e.

o, until

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.

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.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

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

sunspots.

serious

thing

certain

surface.

weight

1000

and

temperature:

until

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

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

ic

d

particular group or organization[1]."

much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to pr= etend you are the only scientific ones. =A0There is no science but your sci= ence.

grounds =A0(Merriam-Webster)

edibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the cl= imate.

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

I would if Amazon had an SED discount.

--

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

particular group or organization[1]."

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.

grounds (Merriam-Webster)

egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

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

ic

d

particular group or organization[1]."

.

ry to pretend you are the only scientific ones.

te grounds =A0(Merriam-Webster).

edibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine > the = climate.

I don't have any delusions of infallibility.

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.

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

world has moved on. =A0Deep down, we all know it does not matter > because= we are not immortal. =A0You'll drive yourself mad or at least become incre= asingly cranky if you try to put everyone straight on

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

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

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

.

out sunspots.

.

ing serious

ture thing

t layers

n that

r of

ts of

und up"

a certain

surface.

ux from

."

e-shed...

of the

4% of

ort term

r

takes

you

ch

t

ep near

he weight

s than 1000

rt in and

.jpg.

the

of

n s

nd's

at

a

t more

by

time

able.

the

to

ut

too, until

ely

ely

-

ed

ate

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

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

particular group or organization[1]."

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.

grounds  (Merriam-Webster)

egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

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

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

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

ic

d

a particular group or organization[1]."

o much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to p= retend you are the only scientific ones. =A0There is no science but your sc= ience.

grounds =A0(Merriam-Webster)

redibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the c= limate.

e

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

sunspots.

serious

thing

layers

that

up"

certain

surface.

from

the

term

takes

near

weight

1000

in and

temperature:

more

too, until

Really?

Well, read the book and see.

he

I doubt he'd waste his time doing that!

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

John Larkin, President Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot 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

particular group or organization[1]."

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.

grounds  (Merriam-Webster)

incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

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

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

ific

ged

r

ch

as

a particular group or organization[1]."

ou.

try to pretend you are the only scientific ones. snip

uate grounds =A0(Merriam-Webster).

snip =20

Irrelevant because I was not suggesting it isn't useful. Just that you nee= d to be able to think, as well as research. =20

snip

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

=20

he world has moved on. =A0Deep down, we all know it does not matter=20

ecome increasingly cranky if you try to put everyone straight on

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

..

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

the one fact that you adduce

You're telling the story. I thought you knew that some words in English ha= ve 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 s= ituation, for me to have been being dishonest. On the other hand, in accus= ing me of being dishonest, you are either confused or being dishonest. =20

Never mind me. If you manage to keep abreast of what you're doing, you'll d= o 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 ha= ve time. There's work to do. =20 Mark Robarts

ion.

about sunspots.

nia.

ething serious

erature thing

most layers

mean that

tter of

parts of

"wound up"

es a certain

n's surface.

flux from

ure."

zone-shed...

9% of the

r 24% of

short term

uter

tly takes

ke you

such

on't

steep near

p the weight

less than 1000

sport in and

s_r.jpg.

in the

unt of

tion

ious

econd's

n

es at

is a

lot more

ed by

ll time

ailable.

is

gh the

m

ut to

to

about

ble too, until

arcely

n

merely

ike

al -

eased

ensate

. a

I can't recall any gross failures, but some of his advice has struck me as sub-optimal. It's only an impression, and I'm not minded to mine his output to find whatever it was that created that impression. I'm not saying that he is not good - he's up there with Spehro Pefhany as a mostly reliable source - but he's not quite as good as Win Hill.

It's certainly not a directly productive activity - you get to see a great many bad papers before they are published (or - mostly - not published) and very few good papers, but if you've benefited from reading the good stuff in Rev. Sci. Instrum. (which you don't seem to have done) you owe the scientific community and some refereeing is an appropriate way of paying off that debt.

I've only been invited to referee a Rev. Sci. Instrum. paper once, and had to knock it back because I didn't enough about the subject to offer a useful opinion. I've looked at a few papers for Measurement Science and Technology but I'm clearly not one of their preferred referees, which is fine by me.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

e:

mple

g

f I

tor

to

e

ts

ue

The original claim that I'm inept came from you, and was a typical example of your responses to posts that injure your vanity. As your insults go, it was more than usually silly, which makes it a lame insult.You may have seen it as self-aggrandising - I can't see why you would have bothered otherwise, though I can't imagine why you'd think that calling me inept would make you look any better.

Jamie - who really does seem to be inept, though he's too dim to realise it it - then jumped on the bandwaggon with an equally silly observation, and I responded with the kind of put-down it deserved.

Calling Jamie a nitwit isn't actually wrong - though it may be an exaggeration - and it doesn't do a thing for my status, one way or another, so it isn't self-aggrandising. It's certainly an insult, but his post was purely and simply a personal insult, and an insulting response strikes me as entirely appropriate. Phil Allison or Richard Steven Waltz would have done it better, but insults aren't really my thing.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

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.

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