Connect with us

global tepid

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by RichD, Dec 21, 2012.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. benj

    benj Guest

    The Twaddle is yours. A fraction of a degree climate change is what most
    of us call "normal", but you alarmists call a "disaster". Of course your
    fear in the marketplace isn't what HAS gone on, but rather the curves you
    generate by taking a ruler and extending any up-tick you find off the
    page.

    Talk about plant catastrophe, Monsanto seems to have installed
    mitochondria that make roundup in many important food plants (like oats)
    so they'll be immune to the weed killer. Never mind what it might do to
    US sucking in all that roundup! And they've so contaminated the fields
    with their Frankenstein monstrosity that now you simply CANNOT find a
    field free of contamination no matter how careful you try to control your
    seeds. And the bonus? Well, then Monsanto will sue you for millions for
    patent infringement because you are "using" their round-up genes that
    THEY contaminated you with! Sweet.

    Obviously they are cut from the same cloth as all the climate warmists.

    Your ass in already in a sling and you are off chasing some false useless
    theory that you hope to get rich off of. Shame on you.
     
  2. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Sure. Here it is

    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/

    It's a little too complicated and voluminous to post here, but if you
    ask Harvard nicely they'll let you download the whole package and you
    can run it on your own computer. Have fun.
    HITRAN embodies the hypothesis in enough detail to make sensible
    predictions. If you think you can falsify it, go ahead and try. Keep
    in mind that scientists love falsifying other scientist's hypotheses,
    so all the easy options have long since been tried.
    When we've got more of the Argo buoy data we may be able to do better,
    but 16 years is about 0.1K of global warming, and the short term noise
    is a lot bigger than that.
    The ice age/interglacial modelling does rather better than that. I'm
    afraid that you don't know what you are talking about.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

    presents a rather less flattering assessment.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Copenhagen_Climate_Challenge

    puts him in the denialist camp.
    Oh, I not only learned science, but also how to detect fraud. You
    clearly can't tell shit from shinola.
     
  3. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    I certainly went through ten years of university education in
    chemistry, and emerged with a Ph.D. On the other hand, I haven't
    published in chemistry - my first publication in a peer-reviewed
    journal was on photomultiplier linearity, and the only publication
    I've got that's been cited enough to suggest that it might have been
    useful was on using a Peltier junction to get +/-1mK temperature
    control.

    Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A microcontroller-
    based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK
    in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor
    sensor” Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996)

    None of the chemists I know would describe me as chemist. Mike Terrell
    may know better than they do, but the odds are against it.
     
  4. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    In principle, it comes out of solution. In practice, we are increasing
    the CO2 levels in the atmosphere a lot faster than we are decreasing
    the solubility of CO2 in sea-water (which is - in fact - a rather
    complicated chemical equilibrium).
    It picks up more CO2. About half the CO2 we are currently injecting
    into the atmosphere ends up in the oceans,
    I made the point because I know more about the vibrational and
    rotational modes of CO2 than most practicing electronic engineers.
    It's not something you get taught in the average undergraduate
    electronics course.
    As I did. You don't seem to be able to follow it.
     
  5. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Never the less, it's what you need to know if you want to understand
    the greenhouse effect.
    It's the tool you use to model the radiative transfers up and down
    through the atmosphere. Adding in convection makes life more
    complicated, and you've got to figure in the Joule-Thompson cooling
    you get as you more up through the progressively less dense layers of
    the atmosphere, to explain the "lapse rate" - why atmosphere is cooler
    at higher altitudes, up to the tropopause.

    Since modelling always involves simplification, HITRAN is where you
    need to start.
    Your reaction indicates that you don't know what you are talking
    about.
    You've got walk before you can run.
    That's where the process ends up. It takes a few years in graduate
    school to get there.

    Except that the symmetric stretch is symmetrical and thus inactive in
    absorbtion and emission, though you can see it in the Raman
    "Longer than the Sun's IR curve"?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_body.svg

    The Sun is actually a 6000K radiator, and it's still pushing out
    plenty of energy at 1.7 and 3.4 micron, though the peak is in the
    visible

    <snipped the rest of the pathetic ignorance>
     
  6. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    What has melted before? The Laurentian ice sheet melts at the start of
    every interglacial.
    The ice ages have only been going on for a few million years, but
    modern humans haven't been around for more than about 200,000
    year,which puts paid to the anthropogenic component.
    No. It's tolerably complicated. Models do exist, and are described an
    discussed in the literature. You find clicking on URL's to be beyond
    you, so I won't bother trying to find one to point you at.
    It's happening rather faster than it did before, and CO2 levels are
    going up a lot faster than they ever have before.
    <snip>

    It's a pity it's rubbish.

     --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney
     
  7. Guest

    www.denier.com

    (the conspiracy spreads)
     
  8. Wally W.

    Wally W. Guest


  9. I grew up less than 20 miles from there 1960 thru 1980
     
  10. P E Schoen

    P E Schoen Guest

    "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message

    [snip]
    You are the one using profanity and vulgarity and waving your arms trying to
    baffle with BS. The last frantic and desperate efforts of a loser who is out
    of ammo.

    Paul
     
  11. Guest

    Uuh huh--hence, a denier!!!!! But what sort? Are you an electrical
    contractor, or do you wear ladies' stockings? :)

    (P.S. You're better off today. I was there in October--it was mighty
    cold even then.)
     
  12. P E Schoen

    P E Schoen Guest

    "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
    You are proving my point by continued use of profanity. Your obvious anger
    seems to have displaced any civility and ability to accept and analyze
    evidence and opinions differing from yours, and unless you have done
    extensive original research on the subject, you are relying on what is
    presented by others. You seem to be getting all of your information from
    sources that are tainted by corporate sponsorship designed to allow Big
    Energy to continue business as usual to maximize their profits, at the
    expense of clean air and water, and destructive effects of global warming
    PERHAPS caused by extensive burning of fossil fuels. I admit that I lack the
    credentials and knowledge to accept or refute the arguments being made, so I
    must trust those who do, AND who have the support of the majority of the
    scientific community as evidenced in peer-reviewed articles.

    It is really quite academic to debate the extent to which our human
    activities have affected and will continue to affect the global climate, but
    the fact of global warming is quite apparent, as are some of the
    consequences. Dr. Will Candler has stated that, even if we stop burning all
    fossil fuels today, the deleterious effects will continue for decades or
    centuries into the future. So we really can't avoid the problems we MAY have
    caused, and the diminishing supply of fossil fuels will have a self-limiting
    effect over the next 20-50 years. So what we absolutely need to do is reduce
    and eventually eliminate all environmentally destructive methods of
    extraction such as fracking and mountaintop removal, and invest seriously in
    renewable energy sources AND greatly reduce our demand. At the same time, we
    need to invest in our infrastructure and protective measures to reduce the
    severity of the effects of increasingly violent weather and other
    catastrophes such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

    http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Answer-Energy-Dividend/dp/1434345084
    http://newkoinonia.com/environment/081013.theCompleteAnswer.pdf
    http://newkoinonia.com/environment/BGF.121201.ppt
    http://newkoinonia.com/environment/Global_Warming_The_Answer_071031.pdf (8
    MB)

    Paul
     
  13. Unum

    Unum Guest

    Hey its marvin the troll, what can you expect. He spams the newsgroups
    with this garbage on a regular basis. Reply to his crap and you will
    merely be feeding the nonsense.
     
  14. Guest

    That's *exactly* your reason for being here, obviously.
     
  15. Jasen Betts

    Jasen Betts Guest

    Thanks for the warning, from the above I can reason that your purpose
    here when posting with this false name is to make a fool of yourself.
     
  16. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

     
  17. P E Schoen

    P E Schoen Guest

    "Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
    Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have an
    intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice obsession,
    or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for anyone
    with an actual brain to examine:
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

    Paul
     
  18. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Fossil carbon has less C-14 than natural carbon - C-14 has a shortish
    half life - 5730 years - and what we see all comes from cosmic ray
    bombardment of the major isotope - C-12.

    Since we've started burning fossil carbon, the C-14 content of
    atmospheric CO2 has been progressively declining. This is called the
    Suess Effect, after the guy who worked it out, and it's been well-
    known since the early 1980's - though obviously not to you.

    No equivocation or hand-waving - just well known fact.

    <snipped the rest>
     
  19. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Not strictly true, but Mike Terrell doesn't understand what's being
    posted so it may all look the same to him.
    I haven't had any training as an electronic engineer either, which
    hasn't stopped me learning rather more about the subject than most of
    those who have.,
    Nothing that Mike Terrell has been able to recognise. Technicians are
    traditionally scornful of the aspects of engineering in which they
    aren't trained.

    It's easier now that most of the bumf arrives by e-mail.
    Plenty of results, but no hardware yet. The bits are now stuck in
    Australian Customs - pre-Christmas inertia,nothing sinister.
     
  20. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    It wasn;t qui
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-