If This Doesn't Clear Up Climate Change For You, Nothing Will
tg
Try dragging the top ball to clock locations like 4:30, 3:00, 2:00,
1:30.
Observe.
Think of the bottom ball as a jet stream.
Also, observe the characteristic of the pattern developed, and how
long it takes for an 'average' value to become clear in this kind of
system---think of that as 'average temperature' or 'warming v
cooling'.
Note that as energy increases, excursions increase.
Read up on effects of the jet streams.
Observe that weather, including BOTH hot AND cold, and precipitation,
and wind velocities, is influenced by excursions in the jet stream.
Now imagine attaching some smaller balls, representing more localized
phenomena like ice cover, El Nino, Gulf Stream, and so on.
Observe that weather, including BOTH hot AND cold, and precipitation,
and wind velocities, is influenced by excursions in those phenomena.
I'll be continuing my survey of people who can/will not answer The
Question:
"What is 'climate change' ", or "what would constitute evidence of
climate change for you?"
You can also tell us "what is a transitional fossil", if you are so
inclined.
-tg
Androcles
"tg" <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8c94e9dd-fede-4087...@t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
tunderbar
> http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html
>
> Try dragging the top ball to clock locations like 4:30, 3:00, 2:00,
> 1:30.
>
> Observe.
>
> Think of the bottom ball as a jet stream.
Well shit man. Why didn't the IPCC include this proof in their reports
and Al Gore in his movie and books. This proves it all. It is the
single most convincing demonstration of how global warming works since
sliced bread. My god you are a fucking genius. Instead of a broken
hockey stick we could be in consensus heaven with a working pendulum.
ta
I'd rather just listen to Rush; he always tells me what to think, and
has yet to steer me wrong.
chazwin
Geee whiz. I'm just gonna give up on thinking now, and just have faith
in the IPCC.
If only I had know that a pendulum on a spring was the answer to life,
the universe and everything!!!
Bret Cahill
>
> Try dragging the top ball to clock locations like 4:30, 3:00, 2:00,
> 1:30.
>
> Observe.
>
> Think of the bottom ball as a jet stream.
Nice simulator but even as an analogy it's a misapplication of
mechanics.
The calculations necessary for climate modeling make that somewhat
messy equation of motion look elegant.
The CRU scientists should not feel too bad about not getting 2 or even
one sig fig accuracy.
This is one more example where hoping for physics precision impedes
progress in other fields.
Next time you are suffering from cat. 10 pain try telling the people
in the emergency room you want to be treated with 3 sig fig accuracy.
Bret Cahill
tg
> >http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html
>
> > Try dragging the top ball to clock locations like 4:30, 3:00, 2:00,
> > 1:30.
>
> > Observe.
>
> > Think of the bottom ball as a jet stream.
>
> Nice simulator but even as an analogy it's a misapplication of
> mechanics.
>
> The calculations necessary for climate modeling make that somewhat
> messy equation of motion look elegant.
Jeez Bret, it actually *is* elegant when you think about it.....
But the animation as an analogy is apt, because it shows the
relationship between energy of the system and the excursions in the
elements of the system. And that relationship contradicts about 100%
of what the Iceberg Earth postaholics are having orgasms over these
days, along with 98% of the other ignorant claims that get repeated
endlessly.
The question of climate change doesn't require 3-decimal accuracy; it
requires conceptual clarity and Fermi-like approximations to make
policy decisions. (Ok, accuracy in the emission spectrum measurements
matters, and maybe a few other input specifics.)
-tg
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Colder than 22 below F would be different, as would
warmer than 115 F, or more than 12 inches of rain in
about 30 hours, or more than 3 feet of snow in 3 days.
But to be climate change, staying above freezing
would be nice.
Bret Cahill
>
> > > Try dragging the top ball to clock locations like 4:30, 3:00, 2:00,
> > > 1:30.
>
> > > Observe.
>
> > > Think of the bottom ball as a jet stream.
>
> > Nice simulator but even as an analogy it's a misapplication of
> > mechanics.
>
> > The calculations necessary for climate modeling make that somewhat
> > messy equation of motion look elegant.
>
> Jeez Bret, it actually *is* elegant when you think about it.....
>
> But the animation as an analogy is apt, because it shows the
> relationship between energy of the system and the excursions in the
> elements of the system.
It's closed system.
The earth, as far as AGW is concerned, is an open system.
This distinction is important because AGW deniers often try to claim
the Le Chatelier Principle applies to the earth which would tend to
mitigate AGW but Le Chatelier only applies to closed systems, not the
earth.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
> http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html
>
> Try dragging the top ball to clock locations like 4:30, 3:00, 2:00,
> 1:30.
>
> Observe.
>
> Think of the bottom ball as a jet stream.
>
> Also, observe the characteristic of the pattern developed, and how
> long it takes for an 'average' value to become clear in this kind of
> system---think of that as 'average temperature' or 'warming v
> cooling'.
> -tg
This is about as stoopid as those arguments they used to use
in Colgate commercials, where they dip the chalk into the blue
liquid to 'splain how Colgate's flouride penetrates and protects
toof enamal, making your smile bright so you can get laid by
some easy unshaven hippie chick. Visual aids for the moronic,
of the moronic, and by the moronic.
Jonathan
"tg" <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8c94e9dd-fede-4087...@t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
What is climate change for me? Having two of the largest and most
powerful hurricanes every witnessed by man in the western
hemisphere, Katrina and Wilma, go directly....over my house....
is climate change to me.
And I also went through hurricane Andrew. Andrew had an eye roughly
twenty miles across as it passed overhead at category 5 speed.
Hurricanes Wilma and Katrina had eyes almost ONE HUNDRED miles
across while at category 5 speed. That's not four or five times as much
energy as Andrew, more like a HUNDRED times as much stored heat
in the eyes of super hurricanes Katrina and Wilma.
I call them super because a eighty or one hundred mile eye at
150 knots wind speed is a truly rare and impressive spectacle.
Andrew only blew everyone's house's down in a swath some twenty
miles wide by ten miles long. Super hurricane Wilma made
the ground move over half the entire state of Florida.
Wilma and Katrina were literally too big to run from.
Wilma and Katrina were an entirely new class of hurricane.
Category 5 doesn't properly describe their immense
amount of heat energy.
And it is through hurricanes that the atmosphere discharges it's
excess heat. The heat released by those two storms has given
us a short term break, but the heat will build up again, leading
to future...excursions, as you call them.
But if you want a truly good model of the non linear effects of
complex systems one need merely to go to the stock market
and screen through the some 10,000 real world live 'simulations'
or tickers running each day. Far from equilibrium behavior is
easy to find, and the patterns which emerge are fascinating.
http://www.zacks.com/screening/custom/index.php
And let me clue you into the true indicator of whether our atmosphere
will behave in a linear or non linear way, it's the rate of change
that counts. Not the total change. The biosphere is also influenced
strongly by life, and can adapt to change.
But only so fast.
As you indicated, the more energy the more likely the system
is to display non linear behavior. And if you have done any
modeling of complex systems, you'd know that near
criticality the system bifurcates into two, and only two
pre-images. Which foretell the two possible futures of
that system.
One pre-image behaves like a bubble bursting
if the rate of change is too fast.
Like the Nasdaq crash of 2001.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=nasdaq&sid=3291&o_symb=nasdaq&freq=2&time=20
The other pre-image is like the big crash of Oct 06.
The rise and fall starts slowly, then snowballs.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=djia&sid=1643&o_symb=djia&freq=2&time=12
The big question is whether the rate of climate change will
lead to warming which is gradual and beneficial, as more
life can be supported. Or will the rate be too fast and cause
a non linear...excursion. Just one of those...excursions means
a new and sudden onset of the next ICE AGE.
It only takes one swing of the pendulum to an extreme to land
us in an ice age.
Really, the question of climate change is whether we will continue
to hope, guess and accept whatever the atmosphere has in store
for us? Or will we decide to manage our biosphere for the benefit
of all?
An alien civilization, looking down upon us in curiosity, might just
consider the ability to control our environment as the true test
of civilized and intelligent life.
The question of this issue is whether we are to become civilized
...or not.
>
> You can also tell us "what is a transitional fossil", if you are so
> inclined.
That's easy, it would be that which is neither geology or life.
But both and neither. Such as these forms which are
composed of the /very simplest/ minerals, yet curiously
have the shape of the /very simplest/ life.
Mars is covered with them.....imho.
Various Micro Images of Spheres
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m014.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/106/1M137593860EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/028/1M130673077EFF0454P2933M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131648550EFF0544P2953M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m182.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/029/1M130761497EFF0454P2953M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/019/1M129869769EFF0338P2953M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/034/1M131212713EFF0500P2959M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/158/1M142209017EFF3215P2957M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544P2933M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/177/1M143896735EFF3336P2957M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/048/1M132444465EFF05AMP2956M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/073/1M134672193EFF1000P2936M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/084/1M135646668EFF1300P2956M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/152/1M141691416EFF3200P2907M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/174/1M143629974EFF3300P2977M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/199/1M145850153EFF3505P2977M2M1.HTML
Various Wide Angle Images of Spheres
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/136/tn/1P140262288EFF3174P2376L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/180/tn/1P144166325EFF3342P2537L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/012/tn/1P129250922EFF0224P2374L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/tn/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/530/tn/1P175233200ESF5702P2566L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/183/tn/1P144428432EFF3370P2540L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/131/tn/1P139815096EFF3100P2368L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/020/tn/1P129964932EFF0352P2563L5M1_L4L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/569/tn/1P178697872EFF5900P2599L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/013/tn/1P129343005EFF0300P2376L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/533/tn/1P175500101EFF57BTP2568L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/389/tn/1P162715517ESF4700P2560L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/440/tn/1P167246122ESF55B0P2596L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/505/tn/1P173013913EFF55VWP2559L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/152/tn/1P141673159EFF3200P2380L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/162/tn/1P142568768EFF3221P2388L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/164/tn/1P142744292EFF3221P2391L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/164/tn/1P142746411EFF3221P2392L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/170/tn/1P143263578ESF3243P2598L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
s
>
> -tg
>
Shrikeback
> "tg" <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
No, that's not climate change. It's weather. There's a difference.
Try to figger it out.
I M @ good guy
Androcles
"Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote in message
news:Yfmdnfwe-7WrwdjW...@giganews.com...
>
> "tg" <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8c94e9dd-fede-4087...@t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html
>>
>>
>> Try dragging the top ball to clock locations like 4:30, 3:00, 2:00,
>> 1:30.
>>
>> Observe.
>>
>> Think of the bottom ball as a jet stream.
>>
>> Also, observe the characteristic of the pattern developed, and how
>> long it takes for an 'average' value to become clear in this kind of
>> system---think of that as 'average temperature' or 'warming v
>> cooling'.
>>
>> Note that as energy increases, excursions increase.
>>
>> Read up on effects of the jet streams.
>>
>> Observe that weather, including BOTH hot AND cold, and precipitation,
>> and wind velocities, is influenced by excursions in the jet stream.
>>
>> Now imagine attaching some smaller balls, representing more localized
>> phenomena like ice cover, El Nino, Gulf Stream, and so on.
>>
>> Observe that weather, including BOTH hot AND cold, and precipitation,
>> and wind velocities, is influenced by excursions in those phenomena.
>>
>> I'll be continuing my survey of people who can/will not answer The
>> Question:
>>
>> "What is 'climate change' ", or "what would constitute evidence of
>> climate change for you?"
>
>
> hemisphere, Katrina and Wilma, go directly....over my house....
> is climate change to me.
Not very old and very good at exaggerating, aren't you?
Man has been witnessing hurricanes for at least 3,000,000 years
during which time ice ages have come and gone, but Katrina
and Wilma are two of the largest and most powerful hurricanes
every witnessed.
tadchem
> http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html
>
> Try dragging the top ball to clock locations like 4:30, 3:00, 2:00,
> 1:30.
>
> Observe.
Standard compound pendulum. A non-linear coupled system. One of the
simplest systems that has no 'closed form' solution due to the
characteristics of the elliptic integrals involved.
You need a separate 'start' button so the user can independently place
the two masses befire the swing gets going.
Anybody who understands the concept of "normal modes" of vibration
will want to play with two special cases: (1) with both rods starting
at the same angle (i.e. the double pendulum is in a straight line off
plumb), and (2) with the two masses starting with the same
displacement from the plumb line but in opposite directions.
> Think of the bottom ball as a jet stream.
FAIL.
> Also, observe the characteristic of the pattern developed, and how
> long it takes for an 'average' value to become clear in this kind of
> system---think of that as 'average temperature' or 'warming v
> cooling'.
Irrelevant. The mathematice of a pendulum are well understood. The
physics of the atmosphere is not.
> Note that as energy increases, excursions increase.
Define "excursions". I see elliptic integrals at work, with pseudo-
periodic behaviour.
> Read up on effects of the jet streams.
Read up on the physics of turbulent flow.
> Observe that weather, including BOTH hot AND cold, and precipitation,
> and wind velocities, is influenced by excursions in the jet stream.
Don't forget air pressure, convection, cloud genesis, etc.
> Now imagine attaching some smaller balls, representing more localized
> phenomena like ice cover, El Nino, Gulf Stream, and so on.
"Analogies are like ropes; they tie things together well, but you
won't get very far if you try to push them." - Thaddeus Stout
> Observe that weather, including BOTH hot AND cold, and precipitation,
> and wind velocities, is influenced by excursions in those phenomena.
>
> I'll be continuing my survey of people who can/will not answer The
> Question:
>
> "What is 'climate change' ",
'Climate' is the 'average' of the weather. The time scale over which
'weather' is averaged is a matter of individual selection for whatever
purpose is at hand.
'Climate change' is therfore secular changes in this average, which
results from normal stochastic variation in the weather.
> or "what would constitute evidence of
> climate change for you?"
Sunset, sunrise, etc. IOW, any change in the weather will change the
*average* of the weather over a fixed time scale.
> You can also tell us "what is a transitional fossil", if you are so
> inclined.
A fossil of a 'transitional species', such as Homo neanderthalensis, a
transitional species between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tadchem
..and of course the earth is an infinite system...
Moron.
The Le Chateleir principle does not require a closed system, it
requires a *finite* system. You can pump energy into or out of a
system to your heart's concent, and as long as now new species are
introduced, the equilibrium will seek to restore itself.
The more important fact to note is that if an overall positive
feedback mechanism were present (a requirement for 'runaway' global
warming), then the system would have blown up as a consequence of the
first perturbation - billions of years ago.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tg
***
> "Analogies are like ropes; they tie things together well, but you
> won't get very far if you try to push them." - Thaddeus Stout
>
I agree completely---the point was to provide a visualization; you are
the one trying to fit the analogy too closely. This is indeed a simple
system relative to climate, but the principle is the same.
As you increase the energy, extremes (excursions, outliers, whatever
you want to call it) become more likely.
As you decrease the energy, extremes become less likely.
As to your specific comments:
Are you suggesting that the jet stream is independent of the energy in
the climate system?
Are you saying that it is easier to see an 'average' trend in the (far
more complex) climate system than in the pendulum system?
> > Observe that weather, including BOTH hot AND cold, and precipitation,
> > and wind velocities, is influenced by excursions in those phenomena.
>
> > I'll be continuing my survey of people who can/will not answer The
> > Question:
>
> > "What is 'climate change' ",
>
> 'Climate' is the 'average' of the weather. The time scale over which
> 'weather' is averaged is a matter of individual selection for whatever
> purpose is at hand.
>
> 'Climate change' is therfore secular changes in this average, which
> results from normal stochastic variation in the weather.
>
> > or "what would constitute evidence of
> > climate change for you?"
>
> Sunset, sunrise, etc. IOW, any change in the weather will change the
> *average* of the weather over a fixed time scale.
I don't think so. The average of high and low temperature for the day
is the same whether we have 65 and 55 or 90 and 30, eh. I don't see
that as 'the same climate'---one is a normal spring day around here,
the other is some nasty desert.
-tg
tg
> "tg" <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> The other pre-image is like the big crash of Oct 06.
>
> The big question is whether the rate of climate change will
> lead to warming which is gradual and beneficial, as more
> life can be supported. Or will the rate be too fast and cause
> a non linear...excursion. Just one of those...excursions means
> a new and sudden onset of the next ICE AGE.
>
> It only takes one swing of the pendulum to an extreme to land
> us in an ice age.
>
> Really, the question of climate change is whether we will continue
> to hope, guess and accept whatever the atmosphere has in store
> for us? Or will we decide to manage our biosphere for the benefit
> of all?
>
Yes, one doesn't find hanging on while the ball goes through a
complete 360 very appealing. :-)
Thanks for the graphs and pics; both very informative. And for
reinforcing my resolution never to move to hurricane territory no
matter how old and cold I get.....
-tg
> An alien civilization, looking down upon us in curiosity, might just
> consider the ability to control our environment as the true test
> of civilized and intelligent life.
>
> The question of this issue is whether we are to become civilized
> ...or not.
>
>
>
> > You can also tell us "what is a transitional fossil", if you are so
> > inclined.
>
> That's easy, it would be that which is neither geology or life.
> But both and neither. Such as these forms which are
> composed of the /very simplest/ minerals, yet curiously
> have the shape of the /very simplest/ life.
>
> Mars is covered with them.....imho.
>
> Various Micro Images of Spheres
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m014.html
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/106/1M137593860EFF2208...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/028/1M130673077EFF0454...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131648550EFF0544...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m182.html
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/029/1M130761497EFF0454...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/019/1M129869769EFF0338...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/034/1M131212713EFF0500...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/158/1M142209017EFF3215...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/177/1M143896735EFF3336...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/048/1M132444465EFF05AM...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06AS...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/073/1M134672193EFF1000...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/084/1M135646668EFF1300...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/152/1M141691416EFF3200...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/174/1M143629974EFF3300...
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/199/1M145850153EFF3505...
>
> Various Wide Angle Images of Spheres
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/136/tn/1P140262288EFF3174P2376L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/180/tn/1P144166325EFF3342P2537L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/012/tn/1P129250922EFF0224P2374L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/tn/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/530/tn/1P175233200ESF5702P2566L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/183/tn/1P144428432EFF3370P2540L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/131/tn/1P139815096EFF3100P2368L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/020/tn/1P129964932EFF0352P2563L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/569/tn/1P178697872EFF5900P2599L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/013/tn/1P129343005EFF0300P2376L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/533/tn/1P175500101EFF57BTP2568L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/389/tn/1P162715517ESF4700P2560L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/440/tn/1P167246122ESF55B0P2596L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/505/tn/1P173013913EFF55VWP2559L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/152/tn/1P141673159EFF3200P2380L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/162/tn/1P142568768EFF3221P2388L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/164/tn/1P142744292EFF3221P2391L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/164/tn/1P142746411EFF3221P2392L5M1_L...
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/170/tn/1P143263578ESF3243P2598L5M1_L...
>
> s
>
>
>
> > -tg
Androcles
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f27b089d-e1ef-49d3...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
FAIL.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
===============================================
That's like saying an American is a transitional species between
an African and a Chinese. Darwin studied finches and found their
characteristics were suited to the biological niche they occupy, but
that doesn't mean there is a "transition" from long thin beaks used
for obtaining grubs from tree bark to stubby thick beaks used for
cracking seeds. Homo veni vidi vici lived at the same time as homo
neanderthalensis and is a parallel species, the transitional myth is
good old empire-building Victorian prejudice against the "inferior"
anything-that-is-different species by caucasian supremacists.
If you found a mammoth bone on the floor of the North Sea
(and we do) it is tempting to say that the land was once dry,
nobody considers that the dumb animal walked out on the ice
and fell through it. I'm not saying that is what happened but there
is far too much jumping to the first thought that pops into a sapiens's
imaginative head and accepting it a fact.
tg
That's a pretty obvious fallacy, for two reasons.
1) It isn't the same system. If we could predict the behavior of one
system from another, they wouldn't be complex dynamic non-linear
systems, would they.
2) 'Blown up' is hyperbolic and meaningless, and 'overall positive
feedback mechanism' is simply meaningless. Maybe the system has
changed multiple times due to positive feedback. And maybe it will
change now due to positive feedback---it can only 'run away' so far.
The question is whether we will like the ride and/or the destination.
-tg
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
Jeroen Belleman
That's a good point, actually. Climate research seems to rely
mostly on averaging and linear extrapolation. We also want to have
some idea of (the evolution of) the variance and, why not, higher
moments of temperature, wind speeds, precipitation, etc.
Spectral analysis of such records may reveal some interesting
phenomena. A whole new playground for scare tactics pops up.
Does anyone have a recording of regular undoctored spot temperature
over, say, the last century lying around that we can play with?
Anyone at the CRU, perhaps? ;-)
Jeroen Belleman
tg
> tg wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 5:34 am, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> 'Climate' is the 'average' of the weather. The time scale over which
> >> 'weather' is averaged is a matter of individual selection for whatever
> >> purpose is at hand.
>
> >> 'Climate change' is therfore secular changes in this average, which
> >> results from normal stochastic variation in the weather.
>
> >>> or "what would constitute evidence of
> >>> climate change for you?"
> >> Sunset, sunrise, etc. IOW, any change in the weather will change the
> >> *average* of the weather over a fixed time scale.
>
> > I don't think so. The average of high and low temperature for the day
> > is the same whether we have 65 and 55 or 90 and 30, eh. I don't see
> > that as 'the same climate'---one is a normal spring day around here,
> > the other is some nasty desert.
>
> > -tg
>
> That's a good point, actually. Climate research seems to rely
> mostly on averaging and linear extrapolation.
Only if you get your knowledge of climate research from talk radio.
-tg
tg
Now that you've familiarized yourselves with the basic character of
complex dynamic non-linear systems, examine graphic #4 on this site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm
The test is to correctly identify whether the large temperature
excursions are more consistent with:
1) Constant energy system
2) Increasing energy system ('warming')
3) Decreasing energy system ('cooling')
And for extra credit, give a description of what one might expect for
the two you didn't choose. A short paragraph for each will suffice.
Good luck.
Please Note: We all know that weather isn't climate; if you like, just
assume that these are longer-term averages. What matters is that you
recognize the pattern.
-tg
VFW
<776e83b9-c333-487d...@o35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
why thanks, Now we can be all on the same page.
Sometimes the "pattern" I see with the deniers is one of denial.
For some the environment gets in the way of their greed.
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !
I M @ good guy
Good points, but I wish you and James and
a couple of others would use a newsreader with
distinguishable attribution (quote marks).
Also, I don't like calling a pendulum a
vibrating device, the things will change swing
in an accelerating space ship and will just
go round and round if the power is suddenly
turned off unless they are at one motionless
point and then they would nearly remain
motionless.
tg
wrote:
> about every local weather pattern claiming them to be proof of AGW.
>
> People post about the 100s of record low temps being currently set and
> you respond with "weather is not climate" and then we see a lot of you
> same dimwits posting about how hot it is in various locations around
> the world claiming it to be proof of your little argument.
>
> So when you baffoons quit posting local weather patterns as proof of
> AGW then maybe everyone else will quit doing the same on the opposite
> side.
Turning in a paper with no answers is not the way to get a good grade.
tg
> In article
> <776e83b9-c333-487d-8a27-15fdd6e42...@o35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Turning in a paper with no answers is not the way to get a good grade.
I M @ good guy
Get serious, in much of the Northern Hemisphere
temperature swings are so wide, even a 5 degree rise
in local average temperature would have no effect
at all, the only possible rational claim AGW theory
could have any merit at all is sea level rise, but
Antarctica is not going to melt, and Greenland
has cycles of freeze and melt.
The local records here for this date or day
of year are 72 and minus 8 F, so in any given
year any temperature within that 80 degree F
spread would not be a record.
Regions like the UK or even southern
Florida have greatly moderated temperatures
because of the large ocean mass, it is inland
temperatures that swing so wildly it can
easily distort any attempt to construct a
meaningful annual global temperature
average.
VFW
<be16b7d5-b21e-41ff...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I knew that. Look at this O.T,? art.
In article
<1e22d805-fe52-4007...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
M�bius Pretzel <M0bius_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> US forces in Afghanistan �should expect up to 500 casualties a month�
>
>
> US forces in Afghanistan should brace themselves for up to 500
> casualties a month this year, a senior retired American general has
> warned.
>
> The forecast comes from General Barry McCaffrey, formerly the most
> decorated general in the US Army, who has conducted field assessments
> of the US military performance in Afghanistan at the request of the US
> military since 2003.
>
>
> Webmaster's Commentary:
>
> Please remember: the potential loss of even one more of our military
> or contract personnel in Afghanistan has absolutely nothing to do with
> the safety and security of the American people.
>
> It has everything to do with both present, and potential, corporate
> profit.
>
> The present profit is coming from the control of drug production here,
> from which so many profit so handsomely.
>
> The future profit is expected to come from the installation of
> pipelines with which to control Eurasian oil, after the Afghans have
> been "pacified" to the point where this can happen.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6978441.ece
yes, you have it exactly right!
and, we can't forget the slew of other reasons for wars.
Protect Israel and;
Keep a "presence" to "protect" the Nukes in Pakistan, maybe grab them./
the Neo-Cons have not sleepless nites over the 3000 they killed on 9/11.
And they apparently no nothing about Karma.
For he who gains the World , but loses their soul shall not enter the
Kingdom of Heaven.
Benj
> Keep a "presence" to "protect" the Nukes in Pakistan, maybe grab them./
>
> the Neo-Cons have not sleepless nites over the 3000 they killed on 9/11.
> And they apparently no nothing about Karma.
It seems that you must have learned how to read and write in a
fundamentalist school. You obviously "no" nothing at all. Hint.
Bushites lost the election and commies are in charge now. You can stop
wringing your hands any time.
> For he who gains the World , but loses their soul shall not enter the
> Kingdom of Heaven.
Good advice. I just wonder how you came to "no" it? Perhaps your guru
mentioned it while he was explaining Karma to you. Excuse me. While he
was TRYING to explain karma to you. That's all I "no".
Edward Green
<...>
> Really, the question of climate change is whether we will continue
> to hope, guess and accept whatever the atmosphere has in store
> for us? Or will we decide to manage our biosphere for the benefit
> of all?
<...>
I agree wholeheartedly. What I remain skeptical about is the effect
of the inputs, notably controlling carbon emissions. I'm not sure
we're not just guessing.
tg
Guessing about what? That reducing the burning of fossil fuels
reduces emissions?
-tg
Jonathan
"Shrikeback" <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d6ff1c8-70ac-49e8...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
> No, that's not climate change. It's weather. There's a difference.
> Try to figger it out.
I was describing an effect of climate change, obviously the notion
of warmer temperatures having effects on the atmosphere
is beyond you. It's not beyond most third grade children
Jonathan
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:htsak59dg6h13km7q...@4ax.com...
>>No, that's not climate change. It's weather. There's a difference.
>>Try to figger it out.
>
>
> Maybe he would like;
>
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm127504896/tt0040506
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040506/
When it comes to the national debate over global warming, hurricanes
Katrina and Wilma provided the 'swing vote', and ended the debate
in the minds of most thinking people. Do you even read the daily
paper, or even think before speaking?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jonathan
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote in message
news:%8f1n.3060$2F5....@newsfe07.ams2...
>
> Not very old and very good at exaggerating, aren't you?
> Man has been witnessing hurricanes for at least 3,000,000 years
> during which time ice ages have come and gone, but Katrina
> and Wilma are two of the largest and most powerful hurricanes
> every witnessed.
So you're saying cavemen had access to satellite imagery?
Hurricanes are far too large to see with the naked eye, and
the fact I have to tell you that speaks volumes about your
ability to think.
Have I wondered into an ng full of idiots?
>
>
>
>
>
dorayme
"Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote:
> Have I wondered into an ng full of idiots?
There is no question about this, yes!
--
dorayme
Androcles
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
We always did, still do, and it worked fine for years. Google
screwed it up. I wish Google didn't meddle in Usenet.
If I'm replying to a non-Google user there is no problem.
Oh, and by the way, don't forget to
-Hide quoted text- and then -Show quoted text-; I wish you'd
stop using Google and start using a standard newsreader such as
Microsoft's Outlook Express.
You remind me of women that complain about men that leave
the toilet seat up. It's ok for them to leave it down, though.
Put the seat back up when you've finished using it or I might
just piss on it - or else don't complain and we'll all just get along.
>
> Also, I don't like calling a pendulum a
> vibrating device, the things will change swing
> in an accelerating space ship and will just
> go round and round if the power is suddenly
> turned off unless they are at one motionless
> point and then they would nearly remain
> motionless.
Don't call it a vibrating device then.
Jonathan
On Jan 6, 10:59 pm, "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote:
>>
> > Really, the question of climate change is whether we will continue
> > to hope, guess and accept whatever the atmosphere has in store
> > for us? Or will we decide to manage our biosphere for the benefit
> > of all?
> >
> Yes, one doesn't find hanging on while the ball goes through a
> complete 360 very appealing. :-)
Right! One graph I find kinda 'chilling' is fig 1.5 near the
bottom of this page.
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
That chart shows rather clearly that we should be heading into
an ice age at any time. So one could argue global warming prevents
the next ice age. But I worry if the rate of warming is too fast, the
bubble might burst and accelerate the onset of the next ice age.
Instead of preventing it. But I believe each warming period allows
life to explode, and this time intelligence emerged, which should
become a new powerful variable that stabilizes the climate
and hopefully stops the ice age cycle once and for all.
> Thanks for the graphs and pics; both very informative. And for
> reinforcing my resolution never to move to hurricane territory no
> matter how old and cold I get.....
Hurricanes really are fascinating to experience. At least as they
approach and hit, it's the aftermath that stinks big time.
No electricity and a city full of bad attitudes with no stop lights
stop signs or cops anywhere. Driving around is more of an
adventure that you might think the first few days.
But as they approach, it takes the form of, with Andrew, about
a half dozen successive squal lines coming over head, with each
one getting stronger. The suspense is in the steady building of
the wind speeds and not knowing when they will finally peak.
Wilma was a different class, as I counted some 35 peaks and
lulls as it approached, you could set your watch by them
and by how much they increased with each peak.
I was astonished at Wilma, for four hours I sat in my tub
listening to what sounded like a dozen people madly
banging hammers against the house, with a toilet honking
like a 90 decibel trombone from the vacuum. While the
building shuddered, like a jet that just put it's flaps down.
All the while feeling my shoulders bounce off one side
of the tub to the other from the ...ground moving.
I was on the ground floor on a concrete slab. It was the
ground swaying from the combined wind pressure on the
neighborhood.
As a teaser check out this 'far from equilibrium 'stock chart I'm
playing now. Ticker ATHX
The price of this was about $1 a few weeks ago, then the good
news hit sending it soaring. The spring is wound tight in this
situation and certain highly repetitive patterns emerge as a
result.
First is that the expected sell off after the initial 'distubance'
is almost always a 40% fall from the peak give or take a bit.
That's the buy point. The second is the incredible sensitivity/volatility
once it's at that 40% threshold. Almost any little news can
send it back up with incredible speed. Buy after the 40% fall
and wait for something to set it off.
Look at the volatility and what happened today with another similar
example from last month, ticker NLST
http://www.prophet.net/quotes/quotePopup.jsp?symbol=nlst&colorscheme=analyze&duration=20d&frequency=i5
This morning news came out that the company would put up
a few bulletin boards at some convention in a few weeks.
About as pedestrian news as it gets, yet it jumped
20% in minutes after the opening bell. That's the kind
of 'non-linear' response that occurs when a system
is driven far from equilibrium and near its' own critical
or breaking points. When volatility is at it's highest.
It's so much fun.
Just set the stock screener to
current price >= 2
average volume >= 300,000
% price change 1 week >= -20
http://www.zacks.com/screening/custom/report.php?sid=87639
And wait for something like the two examples to show up
and play for the bounce after the 40% sell off. But only
the ones that sell off in a nice continuous slope, avoid
the large single spikes. As a single large spike is only
a vector change in essence, which doesn't increase
the volatility. Volatility is also lowest when the price
isn't changing at all, so it's the continious 45 degree slopes
where the volatility steadily builds, peaking at the bottom.
That's where they become ultra sensitive, it's usually just
a matter of waiting until some event comes along
for the ...excursion...to happen.
The non-linear of sudden exaggerated response that happens
with this kind of volatile system dynamics are quite like
bird flocking. In that the lead bird chirps, and the entire flock
turns on a dime. Or, any little news and the buyers and sellers
suddenly stop competing against each other, and start moving
in the same direction.
Jonathan
> -tg
I M @ good guy
wrote:
No, about the future temperatures. Actually
"guessing" is a charitable description of what has been
passed off as "science", some might call it "sloppy",
others may call it inappropriate adjustment, and it
is conceivable some investigators will call it
criminal.
I M @ good guy
What effect, warmer temperatures? Where,
when 1951? 1932? 6400 BC?
I M @ good guy
Yes, and I think before believing BS, outhouse
gossip is not my source of information, hurricanes
depend on the upper atmosphere being cold, if
it was warm everyplace like at the equator there
would be no hurricanes.
Warming means getting warmer, nothing else,
and it hasn't been warmer than 1998.
I M @ good guy
Even the newsgroup name is idiotic.
tg
There are no climate deniers who are also physicists, since we have no
one willing to take the quiz.
-tg
jmfbahciv
I have a very difficult time with politicians who want to do
that "managing". There exists a high possibility that one
can make such a big mess that the Earth may not recover.
Obama's science adviser has already suggested such a thing.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> On Jan 7, 7:02 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 10:59 pm, "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> Really, the question of climate change is whether we will continue
>>> to hope, guess and accept whatever the atmosphere has in store
>>> for us? Or will we decide to manage our biosphere for the benefit
>>> of all?
>> <...>
>>
>> I agree wholeheartedly. What I remain skeptical about is the effect
>> of the inputs, notably controlling carbon emissions. I'm not sure
>> we're not just guessing.
>
> Guessing about what?
Both, causes and effects.
> That reducing the burning of fossil fuels
> reduces emissions?
>
> -tg
/BAH
jmfbahciv
/BAH
M Purcell
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <ttydnbgXS-LbGNvWnZ2dnUVZ_tedn...@giganews.com>,
> > "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote:
>
> >> Have I wondered into an ng full of idiots?
>
> > There is no question about this, yes!
>
> So explains why you all in alt.philosophy seem to be ineducable.
Jonathan was replying to Androcles who is posting from sci.physics.
You really are incapable of rational conclusions arn't you?
Bret Cahill
> > hemisphere, Katrina and Wilma, go directly....over my house....
> > is climate change to me.
>
> Not very old and very good at exaggerating, aren't you?
> Man has been witnessing hurricanes for at least 3,000,000 years
Humans only left Africa 60,000 years ago so, before that maybe a few
saw some storms in the Indian Ocean.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> > > There is no question about this, yes!
>
> > So explains why you all in alt.philosophy seem to be ineducable.
>
> Jonathan was replying to Androcles who is posting from sci.physics.
> You really are incapable of rational conclusions arn't you?
Cross posting is generally fruitful.
Bret Cahill
(crossposting from alt.philosophy)
tg
What's interesting is that there are no physicists among the deniers.
Perhaps they understand complex dynamic non-linear systems.
-tg
Bret Cahill
>
> > > > There is no question about this, yes!
>
> > > So explains why you all in alt.philosophy seem to be ineducable.
>
> > Jonathan was replying to Androcles who is posting from sci.physics.
> > You really are incapable of rational conclusions arn't you?
>
> What's interesting is that there are no physicists among the deniers.
> Perhaps they understand complex dynamic non-linear systems.
Even if your field isn't atmospheric science you might avoid siding on
any issue where your only scholarly support comes from Liberty U.
Bret Cahill
tg
Sometimes they start out sounding like they know some physics, but it
quickly falls apart---they can't answer basic questions, like the one
at the end of this thread.
-tg
> Bret Cahill
mrbawana2u
> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in messagenews:htsak59dg6h13km7q...@4ax.com...
>
> >>No, that's not climate change. It's weather. There's a difference.
> >>Try to figger it out.
>
> > Maybe he would like;
>
> >http://www.imdb.com/media/rm127504896/tt0040506
>
> >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040506/
>
> When it comes to the national debate over global warming, hurricanes
> Katrina and Wilma provided the 'swing vote', and ended the debate
> in the minds of most thinking people.
Come on....nobody is THAT stupid.
Who/what implanted that stupid idea into your non functioning brain?
> Do you even read the daily
> paper, or even think before speaking?
Lib-turd-retard's 'science by press release', eh fucktard?
mrbawana2u
> [yawn/flush]
> Have I wondered into an ng full of idiots?
How many sockpuppets are you using, retard?
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Jan 8, 10:17 am, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
How do you know there are no physicists, perhaps
you are stringing words together without knowing what
they mean.
Perhaps everybody that claims AGW is a fact belongs
to some "scientists know best" organization hell bent on
"taking over for the good of the public".
What other area of science has so many bad-mouthed
egotistical nutcases?
Fred Weiss
> Perhaps everybody that claims AGW is a fact belongs
> to some "scientists know best" organization hell bent on
> "taking over for the good of the public".
>
> What other area of science has so many bad-mouthed
> egotistical nutcases?
Be gentle with them, poor things. With the combined effects of
ClimateGate and the weather not cooperating with their ginned up
predictions, all they have left is intimidation and ad hominem.
Fred Weiss
dorayme
wrote:
Yes, it does! The first time I have known you to be right about anything
in a good while. But *not all* the people here are morons.
But guess what? Many other groups, Google Groups mainly, are similar. A
few sensible beings like me, brimming with heart and grace but brutal
when provoked.
So don't celebrate too early, you pretentious little shit. You have
always folded at the point in discussion where you threaten to be
educated with something. Your fragile ego could not stand that! You
would not catch me doing this ever. Ever!
--
dorayme
Jonathan
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:8pcdk59i3s2c9scnd...@4ax.com...
Depends on the perspective one choses to use.
The trend in the last thirty years is rather clear.
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
The US govt agency officially charged with studying and reporting
on climate change is NASA. And this is their opinion, which is now
the official opinion of the United States of America. Since Bush left
office they have been able to issue scientific opinions without
any political influence
If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what makes scientists
think that humans are causing global warming now?
The main reason that scientists think humans caused warming since 1950 is
that none of the natural processes that influence Earth's climate have changed
enough during that time period to explain the warming.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarmingQandA/
>
>
>
>
Benj
> Sometimes they start out sounding like they know some physics, but it
> quickly falls apart---they can't answer basic questions, like the one
> at the end of this thread.
And that question would be? Perhaps you actually mean the one at the
end of the post that started this thread?
> I'll be continuing my survey of people who can/will not answer The
> Question:
> "What is 'climate change' ", or "what would constitute evidence of
> climate change for you?"
> You can also tell us "what is a transitional fossil", if you are so
> inclined.
Is that it?
Let's go at this scientifically rather than philosophically, OK? So
let's start with Climate. Climate is basically the average of weather.
As far as we know climate is and has been undergoing continuous change
for as long as there was climate. So we conclude that "climate change"
is a real phenomenon and therefore exists. So that completely answers
your question as far as you have stated it. For me personally the most
recent evidence of climate change is the last ice age. Evidence of
such abounds in the geological and other records. I conclude
therefore that climate change is not only real but also on-going.
So now we've settled all the scientific questions. What we haven't yet
settled are the political questions. The assertion that is being made
politically is that not only is there climate change, but that in fact
it's a warming change, and furthermore this warming is caused by
creation of man-produced CO2 gas. So lets take this assertion on not
with bogus computer models, or "expert" opinions or breathless dire
warnings from the mass media. Let's just look at some hard data.
It's simple. The earth has a lot of water and the colder it gets the
more of it stays frozen at the poles. When the earth gets warmer, the
ice melts and flows into the oceans raising their levels. Hence, the
level of our oceans is a pure indicator of climate change either up or
down. So lets look at the data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level
Pay particular attention to two charts the first one shows the effect
of warming climate change after the ice age and displays sea level
from about 22,000 years ago until now. What we see is what we expect:
As ice melted oceans rose at a quite steep rate until the ocean rise
stabilized at a nearly but not completely flat rate of rise. The
second curve of interest is the linear rise in modern times. Note well
that this curve is LINEAR. That is important because it demonstrates
that since the time period in question covers the massive growth of
industry and transportation since the industrial revolution, it is
revealing. We know, in fact, that fossil fuel consumption rose to
astounding levels in this period. We also know that rain forests were
also massively destroyed with great percentages of them gone. Both
these things should be extremely relevant were CO2 that actual CAUSE
of global warming. The sea level should be the smoking gun "hokey
stick" proving that all the claims of AGW are completely true.
Only there is NO such data. The sea rise is slow and linear and
completely uninfluenced by all the CO2 increases. This is
incontrovertible proof that AGW is a lie. Even though there are other
scientific reasons that show that CO2 simply cannot have any
significant effect on global warming due to it's trace amounts and
narrow IR bands, that doesn't matter since these data show that while
climate change is real there is no apparent link to man's activities.
The bottom line is that while climate change does exist and continues
to occur, all the supposed links to fossil fuels and man's activities
are bogus. So the answer to the political questions are that yes,
there is apparently a very small climate change existing in the last
couple of centuries. And yes it is indeed a warming change. But no,
there is absolutely no evidence that fossil fuel burning, industry,
rain forest deforestation or any other recognizable activities of
mankind are producing any significant alterations in what appears to
be the usual climate change mechanisms for the planet.
From this we conclude (now going beyond science) that all the
propaganda blaming CO2 emission for dire weather changes and the calls
to heavily tax fossil fuels is some sort of political scheme having
nothing to do with actual climate changes.
As for the last question as to what is a "transitional fossil fuel".
That is obvious too, though from a different viewpoint. Crude oil is
wonderful stuff. It is a great concentrated source of energy for
transportation and a wonderful source of chemicals to make plastics,
medicines and other technological items. Burning it to heat homes is
rather stooopid. And the reason it's stooopid is because everybody
knows there a limited supply of it. That means that LONG before we
begin to run out of it, humans will be smart enough to start jockeying
for position in the final days. This means wars and conflicts and what
have you. They've already started.
But what about other forms of energy? You know all those great 19th
century ideas like wind and dams and burning food? Any person of
science can show with a quick back of the envelope calculation that
such suggestions are utter nonsense. They are just feel-good gum-
flapping designed to make some people without either scientific
knowedge or brains feel like they are "smart" and "contributing".
It's a lot like letting your young daughter "help" you in the yard by
carrying pebbles around.
So what is the solution. The solution has to be the proverbial "free
energy" machine or something else that can provide the level of energy
density that oil can. Nobody knows how to build a "free energy
machine". That means for now we'll have to do the best we can with
what we've got. And then we'll have to hope that tomorrow's technology
may somehow solve today's problems.
Well, we can do that. That is because oil is not the only fossil fuel.
There is natural gas and coal. Some say even 300 years of it or so.
Maybe twice that if we quit wasting it. There do exist processes to
use these fuels. Hitler ran most of WWII on gasoline made from coal
(process licensed from U.S. oil companies, natch). Right today big
cities have vehicles running on natural gas. And since coal is a major
source of electric power, and electric cars clearly are in the future,
obviously that technology represents a quick switch from oil to coal.
Note that none of this SOLVES and problems coal and gas run out too.
But it does buy us time. Hence they are the transitional fuels between
oil and the un-named future fusion or whatever sources. And that
allows us to save what oil we have left for plastics and other very
useful materials that need it as raw materials.
And that is a very logical and truthful assessment of our energy
problems. Unmentioned here are the problems of pollution with coal
which remain to be solved but are clearly solvable. The particularly
nasty aspect of AGW politics is that it takes massive amounts of
resources (money) and deflects them away from real problems (clean
coal) and directs them into the pretend solution of a problem that
doesn't even exist. And that is criminal. Apparently the holowarmers
don't live on the same planet the rest of us do.
Does that explain it so even you can understand?
mrbawana2u
> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in messagenews:8pcdk59i3s2c9scnd...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:01:58 -0500, "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote:
>
> >>"Shrikeback" <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:0d6ff1c8-70ac-49e8...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> No, that's not climate change. It's weather. There's a difference.
> >>> Try to figger it out.
>
> >>I was describing an effect of climate change, obviously the notion
> >>of warmer temperatures having effects on the atmosphere
> >>is beyond you. It's not beyond most third grade children
>
> > What effect, warmer temperatures? Where,
> > when 1951? 1932? 6400 BC?
>
> Depends on the perspective one choses to use.
>
> The trend in the last thirty years is rather clear.
>
Pigs at the trough.
> The US govt agency officially charged with studying and reporting
> on climate change is NASA.
Pigs at the trough.
> And this is their opinion,
Pigs at the trough.
> which is now
> the official opinion of the United States of America. Since Bush left
> office they have been able to issue scientific opinions without
Pigs at the trough.
> If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what makes scientists
> think that humans are causing global warming now?
>
> The main reason that scientists think humans caused warming since 1950 is
> that none of the natural processes that influence Earth's climate have changed
> enough during that time period to explain the warming.
>
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Pigs at the trough.
So, you insipid retard, that sounds like "science making shit up".
Pigs at the trough.
I M @ good guy
Ok, so you think CO2 has caused it to be so cold?
tg
> On Jan 8, 11:08 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Sometimes they start out sounding like they know some physics, but it
> > quickly falls apart---they can't answer basic questions, like the one
> > at the end of this thread.
>
> And that question would be? Perhaps you actually mean the one at the
> end of the post that started this thread?
>
> > I'll be continuing my survey of people who can/will not answer The
> > Question:
> > "What is 'climate change' ", or "what would constitute evidence of
> > climate change for you?"
> > You can also tell us "what is a transitional fossil", if you are so
> > inclined.
>
> Is that it?
>
> Let's go at this scientifically rather than philosophically, OK? So
> let's start with Climate. Climate is basically the average of weather.
That sentence is basically gibberish. How do we calculate the 'average
of weather'?
Instead of writing a lot, why don't you try writing meaningful
sentences. If the question is: "what would you consider *evidence* of
climate change", then you have to tell us what the *evidence* would
be.
> As far as we know climate is and has been undergoing continuous change
> for as long as there was climate. So we conclude that "climate change"
> is a real phenomenon and therefore exists. So that completely answers
> your question as far as you have stated it.
Umm---no. See above; I asked about *evidence*.
> For me personally the most
> recent evidence of climate change is the last ice age.
I thought you said the climate is undergoing continuous change. If the
climate hasn't changed since the last ice age, how could it be
undergoing continuous change?
Why don't you figure out what you are trying to say and get back to us
with a coherent paragraph or two so we can actually discuss this.
-tg
jmfbahciv
"You all in alt.philosophy" did not include androcles since he's
in sci.physics. and you dropped your humor coin along the
way.
/BAH
M Purcell
Bret thought it was funny. So you believe Jonathan's wonder if
sci.physics is full of idiots explains why those in alt.philosophy are
ineducable?
Shrikeback
> "Shrikeback" <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0d6ff1c8-70ac-49e8...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
> > No, that's not climate change. It's weather. There's a difference.
> > Try to figger it out.
>
> I was describing an effect of climate change,
No you weren't. You discussing some weather
phenomena.
> obviously the notion
> of warmer temperatures having effects on the atmosphere
> is beyond you.
Apparently, the lack of evidence of a link between
global warming and Katrina is beyond you. I know,
I know, it's all in Al Gorm's greenola march. But
you do realize he believes the Earth's core is several
million degrees, don't you? Don't take his word for
anything, he's a whackjob.
> It's not beyond most third grade children
It is if they have developed some critical thinking
skills.
Here's a clue: there is no connection between global
warming and Katrina. None. Nichevo. Nada. It's a
dumbed-down bit of fluff from the big dumbed-down
bit of flab known as Al Gorm. Hell, there isn't even
a connection between global warming and the number
and inensity of hurricanes. Just ask the folks at the
US Hurricane Center. There is a multi-decadal cycle
in the Atlantic Ocean. 1933 was the most active
year on record for hurricanes in the Atlantic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Atlantic_hurricane_season
The Indian and Pacific Oceans have seen no increase
in hurricane activity, in spite of the same level of warming
occuring in those Oceans.
Anyway, go forth, and stop confusing weather with
climate.
Shrikeback
Meta-conclusion: there are no greenolas who are
mathematicians and none of them can figger out
that every non-linear system is unique. Hell, the
whole point of th mathematics of chaos is that it
is possible to construct systems that are completely
deterministic but whose states are not predictable.
A butterfly farting in China causes an empire to
crumble in Moscow. When there are octillions of
butterflies farting all over, you just try to predict
the future price of a teabag in Washington. Go
ahead, try.
M Purcell
Many people do. Climate and weather are very chaotic and it's looking
like a bull market, should we raise intrest rates?
Shrikeback
That reminds me of once when an MBA predicted to
me that we were moving into an era, with the boomers
reaching retirement age, when selling would be the
predominant activity on the markets, since these
boomers are going to be accessing their money. I
mentioned it to the President of the startup, and he
poo-poo-ed it, saying, "Read _A Random Walk Down
Wall Street_."
I haven't read that, but I'd say good luck to any
bureaucrat trying to predict the future of the
economy. Things may work out the way
you expect, as long as you expect surprises.
tg
And the data keeps coming in, with no counterexamples.
-tg
I M @ good guy
<shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>That reminds me of once when an MBA predicted to
>me that we were moving into an era, with the boomers
>reaching retirement age, when selling would be the
>predominant activity on the markets, since these
>boomers are going to be accessing their money. I
>mentioned it to the President of the startup, and he
>poo-poo-ed it, saying, "Read _A Random Walk Down
>Wall Street_."
>
>I haven't read that, but I'd say good luck to any
>bureaucrat trying to predict the future of the
>economy. Things may work out the way
>you expect, as long as you expect surprises.
When major events happen in technology
or money, it becomes easier.
Under normal circumstances the well known
improvement in Extended Range Electric Vehicles
(like the Chevy Volt) would cause a big surge in
the economy, but at the moment, there is such
a reduction in equity, tight credit, and not much
money to spend, with the spectre of the US and
other governments expected to borrow far more
than the interest they pay out, this removes so
much money from existing accounts that big
economic problems can not be avoided, unless;
All governments in debt and those who
have a big part of the work force idle simply
protect equity by increasing the money supply
by putting "computer money" in the hands of
the needy and those with low income, all that
is needed is to deposit money in bank accounts
or mail checks.
There was a time when the only money was
gold or silver, then currency was seen as big
problem if there was too much of it, but over
the years Trillions were "created" in accounts
of all kinds, and now, restoring equity and
pumping in enough on a regular basis to get
the economic engine going at cruise speed
is essential to ward off the prospect of major
economic failures.
To do nothing but tax and spend or to
borrow and spend is fiscally irresponsible,
even though up until the last few years it
was the only way to be fiscally responsible.
Keeping the economy going and some
measure of protecting equity is the second
most important government can do (after
protection of the nation and it's citizens).
Taxing won't do it, and borrowing has
become neutral or a drag on the private
sector, both remove capital from where it
is needed for prosperity.
tg
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I find it shocking, shocking no less, that you require a counter-
> example at all. Here's one, though, the orignal chaotic system,
> from the behavior of gases, no less, which is actually one of
> the earliest studied chaotic systems: the Lorenz attractor.
>
> Feel free to try to dodge and wiggle, but here you go:
>
> http://www.zeuscat.com/andrew/chaos/lorenz.html
>
> Construct a simple system: take a box, a simple solid
> rectangular solid. Within this box, place a homogenous,
> preferably elemental, gaseous substance. Heat the box,
> sit back, and observe.
>
> What happens to the gas? It is, of course, common
> knowledge that warm gases rise, while cooler gases
> sink; and initially, the portions of the gas closest to
> the walls of the box (e.g. closest to the external heat
> source) will become heated and rise. At certain
> temperatures, the gas will begin to form cylindrical
> rolls spaced like jellyrolls lying lengthwise in the box.
> On one side of the box, the gas rises, and on the other,
> it sinks; the rising gases converge on one side and
> carry warmer gases up with them; as the gas cools,
> it falls on the other side of the box.
>
> With a regularly applied temperature, a smooth box
> interior, and a system completely closed with respect
> to the gas itself, it might be expected that the circular
> motion of the moving gas should be regular and predictable.
>
> Nature, however, is neither regular nor predictable. It
> turns out that the motion of the gaseous cylinders is
> chaotic. The rolls do not simply roll around and around
> in one direction like a steam-roller; they roll for a while
> in one direction, and then stop and reverse directions.
> Then, seemingly at random, the gas reverses direction
> again; these fluctuations continue at unpredictable
> times, at unpredictable speeds.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>
> Unpredictability is the issue.
Right into the "no answer" column. The data continues to pile up,
verifying that denialists are not physicists.
-tg
Fred Weiss
Well, if the "affirmatists" are physicists (you mean, like Al Gore?),
they are clearly not very good ones.
For example they can't explain what's going on and their predictions
are failing.
"It's a travesty that we can't explain...."
Well, gee, thanks for finally admitting it. Some of us already knew
that.
Fred Weiss
Harry
I think the Lorenz Attractor is an answer. It speaks
to the unpredictability of convection currents, and,
by extension, to the unpredictability of the behavior
of the atmosphere in general. Certainly, the excursions
of the weather have no predictable relationship with
the average temperature of the Earth. That's just a
talking point, and the use of oversimplified mechanical
models which don't even attempt to model atmospheric
behavior, which has a myriad degrees of freedom, isn't
going to help establish it as some point of doctrine.
tg
>
> "In addition to its interest to the field of non-linear
> mathematics, the Lorenz model has important
> implications for climate and weather prediction.
> The model is an explicit statement that planetary a
> nd stellar atmospheres may exhibit a variety of
> quasi-periodic regimes that are, although fully
> deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly
> random change."
>
> From wikipedia.
>
> Greater or smaller weather excursions are not proportional
> to the state of the climate. You lose. Case closed.
Nonsense. If you knew anything about the subject, you would be able to
make your case in your own words---and you obviously don't even
understand the words you are copying. Go back to Creationist
University and ask for a refresher course in quote-mining.
-tg
I M @ good guy
Is a daily range of temperature for a particular
day of the year from 8 below zero F to 72 above zero F
considered a "myriad degrees of freedom"? :-)
Those 0.4 degree anomalies are really scary,
at least the money wasted is.
Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > Try dragging the top ball to clock locations like 4:30, 3:00, 2:00,
> > > > > > 1:30.
>
> > > > > > Observe.
>
> > > > > > Think of the bottom ball as a jet stream.
>
> > > > > mechanics.
>
> > > > > The calculations necessary for climate modeling make that somewhat
> > > > > messy equation of motion look elegant.
>
> > > > Jeez Bret, it actually *is* elegant when you think about it.....
>
> > > > But the animation as an analogy is apt, because it shows the
> > > > relationship between energy of the system and the excursions in the
> > > > elements of the system.
>
> > > It's closed system.
>
> > > The earth, as far as AGW is concerned, is an open system.
>
> > > This distinction is important because AGW deniers often try to claim
> > > the Le Chatelier Principle applies to the earth which would tend to
> > > mitigate AGW but Le Chatelier only applies to closed systems, not the
> > > earth.
>
> > ..and of course the earth is an infinite system...
>
> > Moron.
>
> > The Le Chateleir principle does not require a closed system, it
> > requires a *finite* system. You can pump energy into or out of a
> > system to your heart's concent, and as long as now new species are
> > introduced, the equilibrium will seek to restore itself.
>
> > The more important fact to note is that if an overall positive
> > feedback mechanism were present (a requirement for 'runaway' global
> > warming), then the system would have blown up as a consequence of the
> > first perturbation - billions of years ago.
>
> That's a pretty obvious fallacy, for two reasons.
>
> 1) It isn't the same system. If we could predict the behavior of one
> system from another, they wouldn't be complex dynamic non-linear
> systems, would they.
>
> 2) 'Blown up' is hyperbolic and meaningless, and 'overall positive
> feedback mechanism' is simply meaningless. Maybe the system has
> changed multiple times due to positive feedback. And maybe it will
> change now due to positive feedback---it can only 'run away' so far.
> The question is whether we will like the ride and/or the destination.
The Le Chatelier Principle is derived from the 1st and 2nd laws of
thermo -- it's a partial differential equation in physical chemistry
-- but it has such a "general validity" can often be applied without
much math to other fields.
The real application depends on if you are changing the internal or
external constrants.
The most spectacular application is in politics. Many progressives
are frauds and keep changing the _external_ constraints to pretend
that they "are on the job" in what is kind of a moonwalk. They like
to put on a big production scraping the scum off the pond knowing full
well that just creates more scum.
Basically they want job security and they become as venomous as a 2
card Monte couple when you expose their scam.
In sharp contrast free speech on economic issues changes the
_internal_ constraints so there is no Le Chatelier mitigation effect.
Free speech on economic issues drains the pond so the scum never comes
back.
The political equivalent to the AGW hockey stick will be the 2012 GOP
nat'l convention. Better watch the riots at home on youtube but if
you want to go, try to get a seat next to an emergency exit.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> .... If you knew anything about the subject,...
Tiggy's posturing and bluff.
Nothing Tiggy has said on this "subject" has anything whatever to do
with the issue.
So like Brat's phony Question which has nothing to do with anything,
Tiggy has made up one of his own - both of them pulled out of their
asses.
Here's what their "global warming" looks like at the moment:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm
(Oh, see, they forgot to tell us that global warming meant that we'd
be freezing to death).
Fred Weiss
Jonathan
"tg" <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:776e83b9-c333-487d...@o35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Now that you've familiarized yourselves with the basic character of
> complex dynamic non-linear systems, examine graphic #4 on this site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm
> The test is to correctly identify whether the large temperature
> excursions are more consistent with:
> 1) Constant energy system
> 2) Increasing energy system ('warming')
> 3) Decreasing energy system ('cooling')
The answer is 1.
Or does that pattern show a...
1) critically interacting system (dynamic)
2) supercritical system (chaotic)
3) subcritical system (static)
Or does it behave like a .....
1) fluid (dynamic)
2) gas (chaotic)
3) solid (static)
Or even...
1) chaos with order (dynamic)
2) excessive freedom (chaotic)
3) excessive constraint (static)
Or like a
1) democracy (dynamic)
2) anarchy (chaotic)
3) dictatorship (static)
Or ...
1) natural selection (dynamic )
2) mutation (chaotic)
3) genetics (static)
Or maybe....
1) inertia (etc)
2) cosmic expansion (etc)
3) gravity (etc)
How about....
1) light
2) energy
3) matter
And ny personal favorite....is that the chart of....
1) philosophy
2) religion
3) science
And the ultimate system of all, this paradign takes the form
1) space-time
2) quantum motion
3) claasical motion
It is the properties which emerge at the boundary between
quantum and classical motion that are responsible for all
order, life and intellgence in the universe.
The Grand Unified Theory is really rather straight forward.
Life emerges at the unstable equilibrium between
quantum and classical behaivor.
Darwin emerges at the critical interaction between
Heisenberg and Einstein. To put it most clearly....
Life is the result of the unstable mix of light and motion.
A planet in the water zone, for instance.
Harry
> > > > > > > > Question:
>
> > > > > > > > "What is 'climatechange' ", or "what would constitute evidence of
> > > > > > > >climatechange for you?"
>
> > > > > > > > You can also tell us "what is a transitional fossil", if you are so
> > > > > > > > inclined.
>
> > > > > > > > -tg
>
> > > > > > > Now that you've familiarized yourselves with the basic character of
> > > > > > > complex dynamic non-linear systems, examine graphic #4 on this site:
>
> > > > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm
>
> > > > > > > The test is to correctly identify whether the large temperature
> > > > > > > excursions are more consistent with:
>
> > > > > > > 1) Constant energy system
> > > > > > > 2) Increasing energy system ('warming')
> > > > > > > 3) Decreasing energy system ('cooling')
>
> > > > > > > And for extra credit, give a description of what one might expect for
> > > > > > > the two you didn't choose. A short paragraph for each will suffice.
>
> > > > > > > Good luck.
>
> > > > > > > assume that these are longer-term averages. What matters is that you
> > > > > > > recognize the pattern.
>
> > > > > > > -tg
>
> > The model is an explicit statement that planetary a
> > nd stellar atmospheres may exhibit a variety of
> > quasi-periodic regimes that are, although fully
> > deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly
> > random change."
>
> > From wikipedia.
>
> > Greater or smaller weather excursions are not proportional
>
> Nonsense. If you knew anything about the subject, you would be able to
> make your case in your own words---and you obviously don't even
> understand the words you are copying.
Oh, please. That doesn't follow, which only serves to
point to your own inability to apply logic. The purpose
of citing a quote is to avoid ad hominems against
me having any effect whatsoever. Moreover, you
are wrong. Fractals and chaos have been interests
of mine for a good long time, which is why I replied
to a guy who thinks a couple of pendulums somehow
gives an idea of how all non-linear systems behave.
This is Usenet, and there's a lot of chutzpah out there.
You might say it's been devalued as a currency.
But the nerve of a guy who has no idea what he's
talking about going on about non-linear systems
and trying to claim someone else is the ignorant
one is just pathetic.
> Go back to Creationist
> University and ask for a refresher course in quote-mining.
Please. At least the example I gave has something
to do with the behavior of gases. The example you
gave does not, and you want to pretend they are
representative of all non-linear systems. How absurd
you are, even more so in the above, which has to
be an example of a corrollary of Godwin's Law,
regarding Creationism instead of Nazism. Hell,
you may as well call me a Nazi. That works just
as well.
There used to be a guy in one of the dorms about
whom it was said, "Man, he's got a twenty second
tape loop." I see it's not an uncommon condition,
since you seem to go through this same loop
over and over again in all of your posts. There just
has to be some underlying issues causing that fixed
action pattern, don't you think? So, I would suggest
a remedial course in the mathematics of Chaos for
you. They may even have a senior discount.
Bawana
tgtard..a retard and a bigot...
typical damaged lib-tard shit eater.
Harry
I think so. There is absolutely no reason to assume
any weather anomolies are related to the climate,
and the Lorenz attractor demonstrates that convection
currents conditions of constant irradiation in a
homogenous gas are unpredictable and show seemingly
random swings. That's why anybody who makes a claim
about the weather being _caused by_, _indicative
of_, or in any way connected to AGW is talking nonsense.
> Those 0.4 degree anomalies are really scary,
> at least the money wasted is.
Yeah, I'm ready to move back to Luddite Central,
straightaway.
Shrikeback
Y'see, it's like this: just cuz you didn't unnerstand the
quotes, doesn't mean someone else also didn't. I
think that's the fallacy of solipsism, or something.
Shrikeback
Heh. What tg means to say is, now that we've
familiarized ourselves with a basic fallacy of
generalization made by a pompous and pretentious
twit, we can continue to promulgate the illogicality.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm
>
> The test is to correctly identify whether the large temperature
> excursions are more consistent with:
>
> 1) Constant energy system
> 2) Increasing energy system ('warming')
> 3) Decreasing energy system ('cooling')
You call this a test? That's not a test. It's a
rationalization for dogma.
Obviously, you haven't scratched the surface of
dynamic non-linear systems, and you are just
a whackjob propagandist poseur.
The obvious answer to the question in the header,
"What if climate were weather?" is:
We couldn't predict it five days out (and even
within five days, it would be pretty iffy.)
Shrikeback
The focus of tg's jihad here seems to be to
defend baseless wild predictions about the
results of AGW against charges of unpredictability,
as far as I can see. The hope is that the standard
greenola operating procedure of looking for omens
and portents in the weather can be continue
without being called out, I guess.
The end is nigh. Sinners repent.
Shrikeback
You've pirated the excitin' soundtrack via bittorrent.
You've seen the excitin' boat video on alt.binaries.
But what if climate really were Pamela Andersen's
tits? Could we predict how infecting her with a
2 degree fever would affect the accumulation of
sweat just underneath her protruberances? Could
we tell how the melting silicone would affect the
Gulf Stream?
As it says in the Declaration of Interdependence,
"All non-linear systems are created equal." So
perhaps all we'd have to do is swing a couple of
teabags from a double pendulum to predict exactly
how aging would affect the swing of Pamela's
breasts in 2100.
Bret Cahill
The four elements are earth wind and fire.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Just use yer divining rod. The LaRouche wing of the GOP would be
proud.
Bret Cahill
Jonathan
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:0dea1098-2355-4008...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> The four elements are earth wind and fire.
The three universal behaviors are classical, quantum and
a mix of the two. All visible order is the result of the
properties that spontaneously emerge at the transition
/between/ classical and quantum behavior.
> Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
Or to be more precise, two divining rods hanging from
a double pendulum. If you throw in a fluidizing negative
entropy tin foil microwage beam weapon you've got
something that captures the character of all non-linear
systems, don't you know.
> The LaRouche wing of the GOP would be
> proud.
LaDouche is a Democrat, didn't you know?
Oh yeah, so is Harry Reid, but don't let that skeer
you away.
Bret Cahill
A good dowser should have a gulf bag full of 'em.
. . .
> > The LaRouche wing of the GOP would be
> > proud.
> LaDouche is a Democrat, didn't you know?
AGW conspiracy theorists are drafting him to run on the Palin ticket.
Are you taking yer AK-47 to the 2012 GOP Nat'l Convention?
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
I guess you're going to have to dial 1-800-FLY4LESS
and hot foot it to Sweden to git yourself some for that
universal non-linear algorithm you and tg are puttin'
together.
> > > The LaRouche wing of the GOP would be
> > > proud.
> > LaDouche is a Democrat, didn't you know?
>
> AGW conspiracy theorists are drafting him to run on the Palin ticket.
You were supposed to take the red pill, the green
one was for your donkey.
> Are you taking yer AK-47 to the 2012 GOP Nat'l Convention?
The daughter's gonna need it at home for the when the
double pendulum dowser experiment causes the Day
After Tomorrow (an excitin' Hollywood Michal Bay Global
Warmin' movie) to come true, on account of all the ice
wolves that will pop up. Global warmin' will kill us all;
you know who is to blame.
Bret Cahill
> universal non-linear algorithm you and tg are puttin'
> together.
Well we finally have something in common. We are both firsts:
I was the first to point out AGW isn't a simple dynamics problem as tg
suggested.
You were the first one to cite a dowser.
. . .
> > Are you taking yer AK-47 to the 2012 GOP Nat'l Convention?
> The daughter's gonna need it at home for the when the
> double pendulum dowser experiment causes the Day
> After Tomorrow
You dowsers are too much for me but I'm glad you are going to the 2012
GOP convention.
You can see first hand the mess issue dodging rightard economists have
caused.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
No you weren't. Show me your Nobel Prize.
> You were the first one to cite a dowser.
I didn't "cite" a dowser. I used a dowser as an
example of a Swede who contradicted a claim
you made about dumb Swedes. You stuck on
stoopid or something?
Shrikeback
And I've been tryin' to larn you that chaos is the
reason for climate unpredicatability for a long time.
One thing tg was right about though: the ice caps
could melt, Florida could become one Great Red
Jupiter Spot of an eternal hurricane, and Al Gore
could freeze over without a smidgen of a change
in the average surface temperature of the Earth.
That's something you need to larn too.
> > You were the first one to cite a dowser.
>
> I didn't "cite" a dowser. I used a dowser as an
> example of a Swede who contradicted a claim
> you made about dumb Swedes. You stuck on
> stoopid or something?- Hide quoted text -
Shrikeback
> > > >http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html
>
> > > > Try dragging the top ball to clock locations like 4:30, 3:00, 2:00,
> > > > 1:30.
>
> > > > Observe.
>
> > > > Think of the bottom ball as a jet stream.
>
> > > mechanics.
>
> > > The calculations necessary for climate modeling make that somewhat
> > > messy equation of motion look elegant.
>
> > Jeez Bret, it actually *is* elegant when you think about it.....
>
> > But the animation as an analogy is apt, because it shows the
> > relationship between energy of the system and the excursions in the
> > elements of the system.
>
> It's closed system.
>
> The earth, as far as AGW is concerned, is an open system.
That's not the really big difference. The really
big difference is that instead of two teabags
hanging pendulously, you have octillions of
balls bouncing in three dimensions. Even
an enclosed homogenous gas doesn't behave this
way. See that post about the Lorenz attractor
in this thread.
> This distinction is important because AGW deniers often try to claim
> the Le Chatelier Principle applies to the earth which would tend to
> mitigate AGW but Le Chatelier only applies to closed systems, not the
> earth.
They do? Why would they bother with that. It's
Chaos that applies most of all to the atmosphere.
Chaos has it's roots in the study of the beahvior
of gases anyway. tg likes to say, "You gotta
have an alternative theory before the old one is
thrown out." Well, there is one that 'splains
the warming over the last century, and the
current flat line trend.
tg
The difference is that tg knows there is no sense in the statement:
"chaos is the reason for unpredictability".
That's exactly equivalent to saying: "a rise in the average surface
temperature of Earth will cause warmer winters in Canada."
You should both reconsider the implications of the double pendulum
paradigm. Stop thinking like engineers and think like physicists----
energy is energy.
-tg