OT: 1,700 UK scientists back climate science

less CO2.

Isn't Holland already below sea level?

Thanks, Rich

On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:28:17 -0800) it happened Rich Grise wrote in :

less CO2.

Parts of it, yes, Amsterdam for example.

S1B booster for the moon rocket

C5A

New York subway system

Marine automation, commercial and military

Pipeline and power generation SCADA

Utility end-use load studies (over 100,000 channels in the field)

Cogeneration

Submetering

Laser controllers that expose some good fraction of the ICs made on Earth

CEBAF/Jefferson Labs

Locomotive testing

NIF timing system and beam modulators

P&W Geared Turbofan

Sikorsky

JSF

Commercial aircraft power systems

B52 radar upgrades

U2 Dragon Lady. Got cool posters and patches.

C130 HUD

CERN, Max-Planck, BESSY, Sandia, Fermilab, SLAC, LLNL, Los Alamos, NASA, Skunk Works, NIST, TRIUMF, Sincrotrone Trieste, Thales, BAE, R-R, many others

NMR, several thousand systems so far

MRI

Tomographic Atom Probes, my only patent

ICCD cameras

Mine detection ground-penetrating radar. Well, we tried, as have lots of others. Dogs work better.

Several projects that people won't tell me what's for. Who needs an 8 million line rotary encoder anyhow?

Lots of other stuff I can't remember at the moment.

Lots of new stuff.

How about you?

John

all know what

statement

wake of

often

feet

Reeds are nasty little creatures. They have horrible thermals, although you can take advantage of the pullin-dropout differential and reduce the coil current steady-state. Worse is the horrible twang signal they make for many milliseconds after pullin... it looks like a bell being rung. And they are nowhere as reliable as usually claimed.

The little DPDT Omron and NEC telecom type relays, available as plain or latched, are superb for low-level switching. SSRs are nice for signal switching, too, but it's hard to beat a relay for specs.

I never let any boss tell me how to design stuff. I rarely allowed them to tell me what to design.

John

Not in your lifetime. A more immediate danger is hungry refugees, impoverished by the trillions we may spend on useless AGW mitigation, funds diverted from serious economic development. The Europeans are planning that already.

How hard is it to build up the dikes by, say, 2 mm a year? Hell, you could build up the entire country by 2 mm a year.

John

In , Bill Sloman wrote in part:

It strongly appeared to me in the past couple years that models fitting what has happened so far and IPCC projections fail to take into account that (by my estimate) almost half the warming from the early 1970's to

2005 was due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. It appears to me likely that another few percent of reported warming was from insufficient filtering for growth of urban contamination of weather stations. And roughly a third of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect so far was from GHGs other than CO2 and whose concentration in the atmosphere stabilized in the past decade or so.

I would expect warming this century to be close to the bottom end of IPCC projections. I was saying something like 1.75 deg. C a few months ago, before I learned how much of anthropogenic GHG increase we recently stopped. Now I think something like 1.5 deg. C. And the next 20 years, with AMO on the downswing and much less importantly solar output decreasing, will probably have global temperature close to steady, maybe extremely slightly decreasing.

After this century is another question - will the rise continue enough due to lags and positive feedbacks to melt Greenland's icecap, as solaractivity and the Milankovitch cycles are on a downswing?

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

Is this for USA 48 or for the world?

Meanwhile, the adjustment was at an upward rate in the 1979-1999 stretch of around .125 degree F per decade, at a time when global temperature rise was reported to be at a rate around .19 degree C per decade, make that .16 if the 1998 El Nino was merely a normal one.

In case this is for the USA 48, the UAH determination is decadal trend for USA 48 of .24 degree C per decade for the 30 year 1979-through-2008 stretch even with warming being roughly stalled for the time being since

2001.

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

In , Raveninghorde wrote in part:

I did check that out, and saw complaints related to what temperature records were available in 2007 and what are available now.

My guess is that some Obama administration bumbler or like-minded IT honcho is trying to help his political party or his side of AGW debate. This is making GISS look "less scientific" in the eyes of those who were not merely new to such data, AGW debates and the Internet as of after June

2007.

Although I don't consider wattsupwiththat.com to not be balanced, I would like GISS or my congresscritter (other party) or the one with district office 125 meters west of my day job (Obama party) to give me an explanation for removal of data while Internet, server and data storage costs are still on a decline.

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

A rather foolish generalisation. The climatologists who would seem to be the original greenies do have to do sums, even if James Arthur can't follow them. They do have nitwit followers, in the same way that global warming sceptics - who can also do sums - have denialist followers who don't.

The politicians who do control national budgets don't have the time to do those kinds of sums, which is why they invented the IPCC, who have access to people who can. James Arthur has silly ideas about the competence of climatologists in general, which presumably includes the IPCC, but since he doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference between a climate model and a weather model (not that he's willing to admit this) his opinions aren't to be taken seriously.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

se we all know what

jlmXzORMlHNvYfE...

rs ago

a statement

in the wake of

.

ming--

08gwpetition.htm s

and often

produce

CSF

out spin

h scorn.

t 14 feet

gabucks

b.

n

n.

d"

is

. l l

Too true. Although they can be rlieable if propoerly used - Bell Labs invented them for use in telephone exchanges, and they worked well in that particular application for many years, until semiconductors finally took over.

Mercury wetted reed relays are nicer - if you can live with the restriction on orienatation.

They don't bounce, they last ten times as long as conventiaonal reeds, and their contact resistance is lower and more stable. the one time I got to use them was in the scan range switching in the Cambridge Instruments EBMF 10.5 electron beam microfabricator. The machine I worked on went off to Fairchild and made the masks for their !00K and

300k ECL parts, which I very happily used a few years later.

I spent about six months in that job - four of us resigned on the same day, which provoked the chairman of the board to come down and have a talk with all four of us. The firm was promptly reorganised, and worked rather better thereafter.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

. l l

This was a reference to Ravinghorde, not John Larkin.

John Larkin doesn't seem to have the self-control to take the time to work out the tree structure of a thread in which he feels that he has been insulted.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The science isn't the issue. Its how it will be used.

I don't totally disagree with some of the hypothesis of AGW. But its the mechanisms being put into place, and how they are being put there that bother me.

If AGW is real, to what degree it is occurring, and how resources should be allocated to solve the problems, should be decided by the market, to the greatest extent possible. I like systems of 'cap and trade' being proposed. But I'm bothered by the fact that some of the carbon credits being proposed for trading based on forest conservation, for example, are going to have value if those forests are in third world countries, but not here in the USA. So what is being proposed is a financial transfer from wealthy economies (like ours) to the third world. That's welfare, plain and simple. While I'm not against welfare for the needy, I think we should just call a spade a spade, hand them cash and be done with it.

In one rather perverse sense, paying third world countries to keep land out of productive use actually falls right into line with what some of our major corporations, like ADM would prefer. Paying them not to compete.

--
Paul Hovnanian  paul@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

Bill, stop hiding.

I am still waiting for your explanation of temporal mechanics.

Sloman

:

Brown

that

2 sig=3D

alised=3D

kill =3D

.

IIRR the European trillions are aimed at serious economic development of sustainable power sources. Since the money now being spent doesn't seem to prevent a steady influx of economic refugees (most of whom have to spend a lot more than the starving millions can command), I'm fairly sure that you haven't a clue about the subject.

The Rhine used to do something like that. It has now been "canalised" and flows rather faster, so the silt makes it all the way to the sea.

The problem with building up the dikes is that 2mm on the height is at least 12mm on the width - the seaward side needs a slope of 1:6 or shallower to survive erosion by storm waves, plus solid protection agains erosion

Peters.pdf

Building up the country by 2mm per year isn't all that practical. 27% of the country and 60% of the population live below sea-level - some quite a way below sea-level. The lowest point is 7 metres below sea level. Building the entire country up to sea-level would submerge some valuable real estate in dirt, which wouldn't suite the inhabitants any better than having it flooded with sea water.

And, of course 2mm per year probably isn't enough. Current rates are closer to 3mm per year, and if the ice continues to slide off the Antarctic and the Greenland ice sheets at an ever-increasing rate as it is at the moment, life could get more complicated still.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

oman

ki=3D

.

over the dikes here, if ever, I will be

As Bohr said. prediction is difficult, and predicting the future is very difficult. The sea level may rise faster than you think. and you may live longer than you expect.

is.

Until the sea dikes had to be so high - and corrrespondling wide - that they's have to fill the country.

Jan, you should have worked out by now that I don't take you seriously, and wouldn't waste the time required to discover a plausible prediction to embed in an posting aimed at you.

uce less CO2.

Someone obviously hasn't heard about air-conditioning. Dutch summer don't get all that warm, but they do get humid, and air-condtioners are a great - if energy-intensive - way of getting the humidity down to bearable levels. Since I now spend the Dutch summer in Sydney (where it is usually warmer, even it it is winter there) I don't have to bother.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

There was a war on. Weather observations do tend to get disrupted when this happens, even before the enemy starts dropping bombs - as happened on the 14th Feburary 1942

The usual natural variation?

By the time of the bombing there were ten fighters (probably Wirraways, basically a locally built North American NA-16 trainer) in Darwin, and presumably some meteorological support staff. The military would have had an immediate interest in the weather measurements, which presumably motivated the move.

Bear in mind that while the Japanese didn't declare war until the 8th December 1941, the British and the Australians had long been anxious about their territorial amnbitions and miltiary build-up.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't entirely unexpected. The military build-up in Darwin started rather before the 8th December

1941, and the weather station presumably moved to the airport when the Australian fighter aircraft (such as they were) were moved up there.

I'm sorry to have to have delayed yur education, but I've been busy getting an elective cine-angiogram. Computer access was limited both during, and before and after the procedure, so you've had to wait your turn.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On Dec 13, 11:20=A0am, "APR"

I think you'll find the UK has more than 1700 'scientists' whatever they are.

A recent Daily Mail poll showed just 13% of their readers believed in AGW, down from ~ 30% a few months back.

'Climategate' is going to kill AGW. I intend to email the University in question to 'quarantine' the CRU and call in a Police IT Forensics team.

Graham