snow!

There is a negative feedback specific to change in GHGs, not applying to other causes of global temperature change. That would be a part of the "lapse rate feedback". This is because an increase in GHGs cools the upper troposphere, while non-GHG causes of global warming warms the troposphere more evenly.

So, I would expect the net feedback to be less-positive (though still positive) for change in GHGs (short of largely removing the surface albedo feedback), in comparison to variations of insolation from solar activity variations and variations of Earth's rotation and orbit mechanics.

Can anyone cite IPCC giving serious consideration to scientists mentioning this difference?

If I understand what is going on, the IPCC decide not to say it - it came from a draft report, and had been editied out of the official version of the report that was actually published. Text-choppimg - the art of quoting segments of text out of context - can produce quotations that mean something other than they were originally intended to mean.

The fact that you quote the fragment without posting a link to it's original context makes it prefectly clear that this is exactly what you are doing. Granting the the stuff which I found when I googled using your frgments as the search string, it seems likely that you didn't do the text-chopping for yourself, but found it in some article that the denialist propaganda machine had planted in one of the right- wing "news sources" that you are silly enough to rely on for your misinformation.

I'll find a lot of stuff that you think happen to think is serious. As has been made perfectly clear tie and time again here, your idea of what is "chaotic" has nothing to do with the strict mathematical meaning of the term, and you are too depressingly ignorant that there is a strict mathematical meaning to the term.

It's a bit odd for someone who has been caught out for uncritically reiterating nonsensical propaganda to characterise the person who caught him out as "not thinking".

Denialist web-sites exist. It is a fact of life that Exxon-Mobil and similar oraganisations have paid lots of money to organisation set up with the express purpose of casting doubt on inconvenient scientific facts, and its equally undeniable that a lot of the nonsense that you post originally came from some of these organisations.

Pointing this out may be name-calling, but it accurately - if insultingly - describes what you do when you act as a gullible shill for fossil-carbon extraction industry.

You need to check out Sourcewatch sometime. or read "The Merchants of Doubt"

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

in a

to

This is not so much a negative feedback as reduction in the positive feedback from the increased concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere (due to the primary warming caused by increased CO2 levels). Because the upper part of the troposphere is cooled, the water vapour in the air freezes out a little lower than before, lowering the effective radiating altitude for infra-red wavelengths that are absorbed and emitted by water molecules. The temperature of the effective radiating altitude for these wavelengths stays pretty much the same.

This doesn't apply to the extra green-house gas effect you get from the relatively long-lived transient carbonic acid molecules (H2CO3) molecules that form - briefly - whenever CO2 molecules collide with H20 molecules. There aren't many of them so the effective radiating altitude for their - numerous - absorbtion wavelegnths are all going to be pretty low in the atmosphere.

It should be built into the standard climate models - it is implicit in the physics.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The point is that a small mosfet, a sot-223 here, can oscillate big-time even though it has a "gate stopper" resitor and the schamatic looks fine. It was operating as a linear follower, a confog that should always set off alarms.

I did find it on the spectrum analyzer: 125 MHz, one line hiding in the forest of FM and TV stations we see around our place. The long gate and drain traces seem to couple and resonate. That caused a big dc offset in a nearby bipolar opamp, and the overall dynamics was weird. I'll post a pic of the eco if anybody's interested.

This is not the sort of thing that "pcb layout rules" could be expected to catch. Engineeer checking should have caught this one.

That's your opening for another long hissy-fit. Go for it.

How many 555s this time?

John

How? How do you specify such rules in a schematic?

Bad plan. You're going to slide series terminators right up against the receiver? How do you tell DRC which case it is?

I believe he's suggesting that you go through and add every net between a gate and a gate resistor to, e.g., a "gate resistor" class and then add a rule that the maximum length of all the nets in the "gate resistor" class can't be more than, say, 1/2" or whatever.

How does the designer enter the rule into the schematic?

Depends on the schematic software, but usually it's along the lines of selecting a net, right-clicking to get to a "Properties" dialog, and then finding something like a "Net Class" drop-down box and selecting your (already defined in some other dialog) net class's name. (On the dialog where you define net classes, there are fields for minimum/maximum length, etc.) Most higher-end schematic packages support this idea, although "naked" ORCAD doesn't: You have to buy an add-on like Precience if someone insists on doing it there. (...the funny thing being that Precience *alone* costs more than ORCAD alternatives that have native support for net classes!)

I typically use net classes for things like power lines and controlled impedance lines just so that they end up with the right trace width by default, but I haven't used the fancy options of restricting trace lengths and even things like specifying hook-up order (for something like a clock line, you can specify on the schematic that you want the clock's routing to go to this part first, this part next, etc.), net class to class separation (i.e., keep your clock lines at least so far away from your data lines), etc. I'm told that having a lot of pretty fancy net classes with accompanying routing requirements is pretty common in large digital boards these days, i.e., PC mobos.

---Joel

"Precience" here should actually say "PCB Navigator" -- Precience is the company, and for awhile they had one and only one product (PCB Navigator), but I see they have a couple now.

I understand how to add properties. How do I define the rules for that property?

Immature, snide little bastard.

Yup. Edited out.

John

You're half right. We had to add a cap, too.

and if one of your rules was that

That rule would have fixed the fet oscillation and trashed every source termination we've ever done.

John

The question was sincere.

John

Somewhere there's a dialog for it. The one for Pulsonix looks like this:

So what are you getting excited about? One of the more common errors of action produces sentences that mean exactly the opposite of what was intended, and this is one of the reasons that authors are advised to have their text checked by somebody not directly involved in the writing process, who doesn't know what any given sentence is supposed to say.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Interesting. Does anyone know how to do this with OrCrap?

AFAIK it's only possible with ORCAD via 3rd party add-ons like PCB Navigator: