Yes, I see we both saw John admit his own severe case of projection. He tells others they post off-topic, while doing so himself. He then here admits his own wannabee status on climate in a reply where he is falsely projecting that very same thought onto others. It's almost as though he has a severe blind spot that no amount of clues others may hand him will fix. Even the simplest of cases like this, where the entire effect is found within a single post of his, he cannot seem to see.
He really needs to get a mirror and take a good hard look into it.
Currently I am looking at the causes of ice ages and interglacials. Specifically Milankovitch. The concept is straight forward. A simple question to answer is when should the next glacial period commence.
I've no doubt that someone has calculated this already. However it is the sort of thing any engineer ought to be able to work out once they have the data.
I am looking at this since, if Milankovitch's theory is correct, this is the major climate forcing that dominates. 10C rise in 100 years is not unknown.
If you are genuinely interested then respond to my email as it is not relevent to this newsgroup. But don't expect me to progress quickly as I am heavily committed. I assume your jonk@ address is valid.
I have a number of papers on the subject. The more recent ones demonstrate that fully apprehending Milankovitch cycles takes a fair deal of study. Simple questions, by the way, usually beget complex answers. And, what's really important is being sufficiently informed to frame the _right_ questions.
"Any engineer?" Hardly. I studied celestial mechanics for a while and I find the entire topic very interesting. I won't belabor it here unless you feel you want to, but such things as special perturbations due to a rotationally distorted Earth within the earth/moon system poses an interesting challenge to some.
Some engineers, yes.
Tell me what papers you are reading through. I'll source them and read them, myself. When we can discuss it.
Yes, the address is valid. And feel free to use it. I very much encourage _any_ serious discussion of science fact. Milankovitch is considered to be the 'instigator' that, applied with other positive feedbacks, yields the glaciation cycles we've taken as fact for the last million (or two) years. Of course, it won't tell you what our own contribution to greenhouse forcing means today. But it will tell you about one facet of many about past cycles.
I don't presume it, I see it. Demonstrated mastery of the material would change my opinion or cause me to admit my fault, or both. I seek and value informed opinion. That should not be shocking to anyone.
What's hilarious is that you and Sloman declare anything you don't approve of as "ignorance." This is the absurd Gorian "the science is settled" arrogance. How much experience do you have in simulation chaotic nonlinear systems?
You may feel that way, because you exhibit a great deal of ignorance of climate issues, and get called on it, and still arrogantly retail the same wilful ignorance again and again.
For instance, what makes you think that simulating a heavy marine turbine, with one rotor and a single gas path is of any particular relevance to simulating the multiple air flows from the equator to poles and back again? Do tell us.
But not any dynamic system that looks much like the weather heat- transfer paths across our planet.
And you go around being the pot calling the kettle black, saying that others "proclaim their superiority." You routinely pretend at your own superiority, claiming expertice in anything you choose to talk about for a moment. Your ability at projection knows no bounds!
And of course it is yet another change of subject, which has nothing to do with your ignorance about climate science. I can at least rely upon that each and every time.
You are neither a scientist nor an active climate scientist. And so far as I've been able to tell so far, never truly put your shoulder to the wheel of any discipline within it. Live with it or change it.
Apparently radiosonde temperature measurement gear has changed a lot in recent years, and the dreaded "corrections" are still under debate.
Radiosonde data is one of the confirmations often cited to justify other (corrected) AGW temperature-rise data. It would be remarkable if it turned out that radiosonde data is incorrect or improperly adjusted such as to agree with other incorrect measurements. Stranger things have happened.
Measuring air temperature turns out to be non-trivial. I'm currently waiting for the epoxy to set on a thin-film 1K platinum RTD, at the end of a spool of RG-174, potted into a piece of soda straw. That will go into a niche on the north side of the cabin.
Strange observation. I often ask questions, or express uncertainty about stuff I'm not sure of, and learn from other people. My position on AGW is that there's a reasonable chance that Al Gore has got it wrong.
The issue isn't whether I'm competant to accurately simulate the planet's climate. The question is whether anyone is. Some systems are simply impossible to simulate well, like weather and turbulent flow. And maybe climate.
I am an electronics designer, and this is sci.electronics.design. Most electronic circuits simulate fairly well, at least well enough to be useful if you know the limitations.
I think I found your earlier posting on radiosondes with that message-ID
-
I did not see anything there on infrared spectral properties of thermistor-based sensors, or anything leading to any reading material on such.
You did provide two links. One was a powerpoint presentation on radiosondes, that I consider practically a smallish book on radiosondes - but I saw nothing on IR spectral properties.
The other resolves somehow to or fails to work:
formatting link
One thing that did say was that "solar heating introduces significant systemic errors, difficult to correct, at pressures lower than 100 hPa.
If that is hectopascals, that is about 1/1000 of sea level atmospheric pressure, or roughly 1 millibar. That is upper stratosphere.
Next several pages show a variety of deviations, including a calibration problem good for reading half a degree high for most units from 1989-1991. Another problem was a correction factor failing to adjust downward due to cloud cover, causing output to be erroneously high.
There was a recurring "theme" of infrared problem being a thermal IR one, where the sensor radiates thermal infrared - generally cooling it. One page mentioned error caused by IR emission and absorption at the specific pressure of 10 hPa (approx. 10 millibars, middle to upper stratosphere) - the sensor was cooled by its IR properties in air warmer than -66 degrees C, warmed (I guess by receiving thermal radiation) if it was in air colder than -66 C. At 32 hPa (middle stratopshere), the sensor's "equilibrium temperature" was -62 C. At 200 hPa (roughly tropopause), the "equilibrium temperature" was -56 C, and error due to IR radiation was much smaller.
If/where the same type of radiosondes were used throughout a large time stretch, say from 1991 to 2005, then warming they show in the lower troposphere is real.
Meanwhile, I do suspect that the UAH and RSS crews are aware of these factors when they do whatever calibration/recalibration to radiosonde data they do, especially considering UAH would prefer to not have to report a warming trend.
No, that's just you reframing the issue. The issue is whether or not you've spent a lick of your personal life's blood to place you in a position to say anything on climate. And, of course, if you are being no less than disingenuous when you pretend otherwise or instead point your fingers elsewhere when you should be looking first to yourself as one of the continual "climate floggers" around here.
You aren't in a position to speak on what climate science is or is not, John.
Granted.
One might not guess this from the posting statistics here. Or from your sometimes comments about your own wish to focus on electronics design discussions while at the same moment and in fact the same day "speaking out of both sides of your mouth." I actually want what you say you want. And I didn't jump into discussions on climate in this group until seeing so much ignorance and ideology in manifest view.
There comes a moment when someone needs to call it like it is.
I would phrase this as "the electronic circuits that the preponderance of electronics designers work on simulate fairly well." I can't speak to "most ... circuits" per se and I don't know that you can. But I think it is probably true that few active electronics designers have the kind of specialized knowledge that exceeds the capabilities of the best simulators, today. But if you insist...
By and large. I think simulation is something to help you check yourself, much like a spell-check may. But you do need to know why you are doing what you are doing, I'd hazard to say.
Of course, we are on about a different subject. Which is the usual fare with you.
Hardly. The issue is about you as an unrepentent, ignorant "climate flogger" writing in sed who likes to pretend taking the high ground when the opposite is true. That straying _off_ the topic of your ignorance may cause you to try and stray _onto_ an electronics topic as a distraction from that point is just one of those wonderful ironies.
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.