Searching \ for '[EE] GW:: ICECAP - Global Warming revisited' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=icecap+global+warming
Search entire site for: 'GW:: ICECAP - Global Warming revisited'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] GW:: ICECAP - Global Warming revisited '
2008\04\09@081650 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
Anyone with a genuine interest in 'Global Warming' should
have a good look at the material on this site.

       http://www.icecap.us/index.php

There you will find, amongst many other things:

- Comment on 94 year old Norman Borlaug, Energiser Bunny
extroadinaire, greatest man on earth (two guys whose opinion
doesn't count say)(but they still may be right) saver of 1
billion lives* (hard to do)(but arguably he's done it). [*
This is what the Nobel committe claimed in 1970 when they
gave him the Peace Prize].

- An 'interesting' global temperature prediction through
2030 using 'models' whose rationale is explained. The
temperatures should start to largely slide from about now
(how's YOUR winter going?)(our summer has been GREAT) and
continue to do so until (hopefully) bottoming out at about
2030. IF this does happen the fall may be akin to "The
little ice age" and far more substantial than the 1970's
"cooling scare". Watch the sunspot cycle ... (but don't look
at the sun without adequate filters :-)).
Graph - no text :-)

       http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ARCHIBALD_TEMPS.jpg

____________________________
... unusual snowy winters of 2007 in the Southern Hemisphere
and 2007/08 in the Northern Hemisphere. It snowed in places
where snow is rare or unheard of, and many all-time snow
records were set in other places used to snow in winter. ...
St. Johnsbury, Vermont came in with a new seasonal snow
record at the Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium with 139.1
inches, just eclipsing the mark of 139.0 inches set in
1968-69 ... records go back to 1894, and the observing site
is essentially the same throughout the period of record. It
has been an amazing winter there Mark noted.  The snowiest
winter season - December, January, and March - with 119
inches, the snowiest December of record - 54.1 inches, the
only winter with two months exceeding 40 inches of snowfall,
and one of the longest continuous snowcover seasons (they
still have 15 inches of snow at the stake).

... northwest, Spokane, Washington found their seasonal
total move into second place all-time with 89.4 inches,
second only to 1949-50. Stowe, Vermont is pushing 400 inches
and Vail, CO 420 inches with another storm brewing.

... the UK is getting an unusual April snow. Britain saw its
worst April snowfall for nearly 20 years yesterday. Up to
three inches of snow fell in parts of southern England and
temperatures were below freezing in many places even at
midday. The Arctic cold snap meant more misery for
passengers at Heathrow’s Terminal 5, where British Airways
cancelled more than 100 flights. Both Heathrow’s runways
briefly closed for de-icing. Gatwick’s runway closed for two
hours to clear snow, with 55 flights abandoned.


2008\04\09@091602 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>- An 'interesting' global temperature prediction through
>2030 using 'models' whose rationale is explained. The
>temperatures should start to largely slide from about now
>(how's YOUR winter going?)(our summer has been GREAT) and
>continue to do so until (hopefully) bottoming out at about
>2030. IF this does happen the fall may be akin to "The
>little ice age" and far more substantial than the 1970's
>"cooling scare". Watch the sunspot cycle ... (but don't look
>at the sun without adequate filters :-)).
>Graph - no text :-)
>
>         http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ARCHIBALD_TEMPS.jpg
>

One of my interests is ham radio. We're very interested in solar
activity, of course, since it drives HF radio propagation. According
to the original forecasts Solar Cycle 24 should have already begun,
and it was supposed to be a very active cycle. As I am typing this,
the sunspot number is zero. The latest forecasts are for a much less
active cycle, so it will be interesting to see what actually happens.
The inverse correlation between solar cycle length and activity is
fairly well established.

If this does translate into lowering temperatures, I'm curious how
the global warming industry will spin it.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\04\09@094259 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
RUSSELL! you know very well that GW is very OT.

--BA

Apptech wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\04\09@163522 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> RUSSELL! you know very well that GW is very OT.

No. I certainly do not know that.
Look at the site.
Look at the nature of the articles/papers and the science
involved.
It is always possible to take ANY scientific subject and
arbitrarily deem it untalkable about. This may almost
(almost) be acceptable if the treatement is non scientific
and not 'an truth' [tm] (ie mishandling science), but when
the content is aiming, with the best abilities of the
informed and competent proponents, to deal with the subject
scientifically then hopefully we haven't fallen to that
level yet. But, maybe we have.

What other fully & truly scientifically TREATABLE subject
when truly and fully scientifically TREATED is disallowed
for discussion here. Note that the one other which I can
think of which could qualify is claimed not to be scientific
by the holders of the 'other position' in both cases so is
reasonably well (only reasonably well) disqualified.

Note that this is simply a request for rational and
reasonable treatment of a rational and reasonable and often
very badly treated subject.

Did you look at the article re Norman Borlaug - hardly
related to GW. per se. Do you know who he is? Do you know
what he did? Do you know why he got the Nobel Peace prize
way back in 1970 and why the Nobel committee said he had
saved the lives of 1 million people with his hardest of hard
science? Is that verboten?



       Russell


Apptech wrote:
> Anyone with a genuine interest in 'Global Warming' should
> have a good look at the material on this site.
>
>         http://www.icecap.us/index.php
>

2008\04\09@164101 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
I second the motion. All in favor of GW being OT?

-Bob

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:42:15 -0700, "Bob Axtell" <spam_OUTengineerTakeThisOuTspamcotse.net>
said:
> RUSSELL! you know very well that GW is very OT.
>
> --BA

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
 http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html

2008\04\09@192243 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> I second the motion.

Of course you do. Never in doubt.

The idea of proper scientific discussion on a scientific
subject that is largely being treated elsewhere by media
circus is abhorrent to some. I thought about saying  " ...
to some of the circus clowns." but that would be unfair.
You have ongoingly shown that you are an intelligent person
and capable of complex and rational thought.

Why the blind spot for one area of scientific endeavour and
*apparent* shilling to the media circus is puzzling. And why
reasonable discussion on a vexed subject is not felt
permissible is also puzzling. The treatment of this subject
comes exceeding close to the "Where they are burning books,
soon they will be burning men" of another era. Already we
have the (stupid) label "Global warming denier" and people's
careers are damaged if they don't follow the party line. Big
financial interests are undeniably at work. Saving the
planet can be a very profitable business if you sing the
right tune.

As I said:

What other fully & truly scientifically TREATABLE subject
when truly and fully scientifically TREATED is disallowed
for discussion here?

LOOK at the nature of the articles/papers and the science
involved.

It is always possible to take ANY scientific subject and
arbitrarily deem it untalkable about. This may almost
(almost) be acceptable if the treatment is non scientific
and not 'an truth' [tm] (ie mishandling science), but when
the content is aiming, with the best abilities of the
informed and competent proponents, to deal with the subject
scientifically then hopefully we haven't fallen to that
level yet. But, maybe we have.

Note that this is simply a request for rational and
reasonable treatment of a rational and reasonable and often
very badly treated subject.

Let the book burning commence / continue ?



       Russell


2008\04\09@195628 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Apptech wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I wish you wouldn't do this stuff, Russell. Bob B and I simply see the
subject as OT.
I have studied GW carefully and decided that it simply doesn't merit
much of my time.
If it is labeled OT I can turn it off easily. If it is labeled EE, I
think its a technical issue.

--Bob Axtell

--Bob Axtell

2008\04\09@203243 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> I wish you wouldn't do this stuff, Russell. Bob B and I
> simply see the
> subject as OT.

Renoting:

What other fully & truly scientifically TREATABLE subject
when truly and fully scientifically TREATED is disallowed
for discussion here?

>> Let the book burning commence / continue ?

> I have studied GW carefully and decided that it simply
> doesn't merit
> much of my time.

Bob - most and genuinely respectfully (I am pleased to be
able to share a list with you)(which is not something I'd
say to everyone :-) ) - you may have decided that it doesn't
merit much of your time. That's your choice. But, it
certainly merits much of the worlds time. It's a trillion
dollar level industry worldwide. If the populist view is
correct the future of civilisation as we know it is at
stake. If they are wrong then ... . You have every right to
be uninterested in this but hardly to proscribe the interest
of others.

> If it is labeled OT I can turn it off easily. If it is
> labeled EE, I
> think its a technical issue.

I think the words "Global Warming" in the subject line are
enough of a clue as to alert you as to what its about :-).
And it very much IS a technical issue. As you would see
after a very brief look at that page. Erudite and capable
scientists (and others :-) 0 are presenting their views and
information.

Technical issue?        - Where in the populist media have
you read / heard that, according to NASA data,  the
2007-2008 Antarctic ice melt rate is at 40% of the 20 year
average and at the second lowest level in 20 years? You will
probably however have heard about a recent large ice shelf
break away (which, being sea ice, has no direct effect on
sea levels).
Surely that alone is unquestionably technical enough to
merit attention by those interested - hard data straight
from the horse's satellites.

I sometimes despair. You can take a satellite to (sea-)water
but you can't make it drink.



           Russell






2008\04\09@222153 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Apptech wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I love ya anyway, Russell. Have a great day.
Carry on.

--Bob Axtell

2008\04\10@005901 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
>> I wish you wouldn't do this stuff, Russell. Bob B and I
>> >> simply see the
>> >> subject as OT.
> >
> > Renoting:
> >
> > What other fully & truly scientifically TREATABLE subject
> > when truly and fully scientifically TREATED is disallowed
> > for discussion here?
> >
>>> >>> Let the book burning commence / continue ?

Russell,

If it was an ENGINEERING subject that might qualify it, but if it is
SCIENTIFIC bordering on POLITICAL and RELIGIOUS, please take it OT.

Note that EE subject is for EVERYTHING ENGINEERING so unless you have a
process for engineering the planet take your theories OT.

Wow, I think I made that fairly clear!

Cheerful regards,
Bob



2008\04\10@020403 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Indeed. But there is a vast body of high precision evidence
that can be replicated experimentally at will. About
99.9999% of anyone in the range of normal (or maybe make
that the upper half of the range of normal)(a rather wide
range) will be willing and able to wade through the ecidence
and arrive at the same conclusion inconrovertibly and
incontroversally.

Whereas:

> There is a huge scientific body of evidence for global
> warming.

Indeed there is.
It clearly happens daily and annually.
And "climate change" (CC) as oppoed to Global Warming (GW)
happens all over all the time on all sorts of geographic and
temporal scales. No argument about that. AND there is little
doubt that there are periods when the system as a whole
generally gets hotter AFTER the known cyclical variations
are allowed for - over months to years and centuries and
more. BUT it is by no means clear by any reasonable meaning
of the term "clear" what is causing how much of the change
over any period.

If you dig behind recent IPCC news you'll find some utterly
astounding comments from one of its chief architects who is
currently distancing himself from some of the more dangerous
past positions.

As I referenced recently, a major climate model (or perhaps
better 'reporting methodology') had a major error which went
unnoticed until the end of last year. A year or so ago it
caused the graphs to show an anomalous upturn that was
reported as an indication that things were happening as
expected. At around the 2007-2008 boundary the same error
caused a substantial anomalous downturn and as this was not
what was wanted or expected the reasons were investigated
and the methodology error was found. This fact has been
admitted by the IPCC scientist concerned. And he is now
carefully backing away from past positions. He is much more
open and honest than many.

As I referenced: In the midst of reportedly unprecedented
[except historically] upsurges in global temperatures it is
interesting that <magic buzz words mode on> recent NASA
Satellite data <Reset> has shown that Antarctic melting is
at the second to lowest value in 20 years, 40% of the 20
year average and more than 4 time slower than in several
equivalent seasons in the last 20.

One Swallow etc. BUT at least a little intelligent
questioning is in order.

> It is
> studied by a vast array of people from all sorts of
> fields, all kinds of
> colleges in all kinds of countries and it is generally
> agreed upon (except
> for a small minority and you ALWAYS have them) to be real
> and something
> that needs to be stopped or figure out how to deal with
> the results.

The minority is not "small" as would be expected to be meant
by that term. BUT it is not easy to identify the size -
"Reputable" peer reviewed journals decline to publish
analyses of such matters - even when within the normal
publishing guidelines.

> I can not belive that there is some huge, global
> conspiracy secretely
> funding all these people.. and that the only ones who are
> speaking the
> truth are think tanks and a few people who are funded
> by... ahem.. big
> energy corporations.

And that is a major problem. The 'conspiracies' (not my
terminology) don't seem to need to be very secret to be
invisible to most who won't look for them. Or at them. I am
NOT claiming secrte conspiracies here - just good old
visible vested interest, just as you are. Is my persepective
"conspiracy theory" and yours rational thinking for some
reason? Gargoyle +"carbon trading" (549,000) and +"carbon
credits" (703,000), +"emissions trading" (1280000). Look at
the Gargoyle ads that pop up in each case. Look through the
material you find in web hits and ads. How many are
interested in the impact of CO2 etc on climate? How many are
interested in it as 'the next big thing' to trade and make
money on? Look for lectures on carbon trading and similar.
Look at the motivations announced and the reasons that you
should attend. Report back.

> Lets see, why might they want to spend millions
> trying to confuse the subject?  Who made tens of billions
> in profit this
> year that would be threatened if we started to conserve or
> find alternate
> energy sources?

I have slightly more time for 'big oil' than I do for
cigarette companies. Slightly. And they so obviously promote
vested interestes that it is hardly worth saying. And
certainlt not worth hiding behind. If one's best defence is
to point to an obvious vested interest and claim that it
proves your case then you are on shaky ground. Neither
carbon trading nor oil interestes prove or disprove GW -
they just help muddy the waters. If you use either one (or
both) as your lodestone you will be lead quietly off into a
place where you can do no harm, or good.

> Cherry-picking your data isn't a good method for getting
> to the truth.

I agree absolutely. And it happens all over. Human nature
and vested interest ensures it. As I pointed out, to an
audience of about none, a while ago - when the IPCC
repeatedly could not make their data fit their target
position for some years they firstly vagueified the wording
and then, in a fit of brilliance, moved the goalposts.
Making the goalposts come to the data is a far far better
way of getting it to say what you want than by
cherrypicking. Now the large part of IPCC data fits their
assertions whereas previously, *NONE* of it did to a
standard of measurement that has been the scientific norm
for centuries.

> There is a huge, HUGE amount of work that confirms what is
> going on.
> I can say, "But my room is COOL when I run my air
> conditioner so global
> warming is a myth.

I assume you don't need a response to that ...

> I can point to the oil indurstry as being behind the
> majority of
> publications saying global warming is not happening.  A
> small amount of
> digging will show you where the money comes from.  Can you
> do the same?

Maybe. Maybe not. I am not overly concerned WHERE money
comes from as long as the data, methods and results are open
to inspection. It helps get going on the right path to know
who the sponsors are, but hopefully most interested have
enough brains to tell if there is significant bias.
Conclusions alone are a good first guide of possible bias.
One can work from there. Not that it SHOULD be that way.

> Who is funding these thousands of scientists you say are
> part of this
> conspiracy?  What companies are behind it and why?

A look at the way that the IPCC came into existence and
where it sits in the international 'power structure' gives
some clues of how it got the leverage it did. But there
doesn't have to be a vast secret funding netwrok involved.
Just lots of prestige and power at the core (more important
than funds to an important subset) and then lots of funds.
The funds don't have to be secret. Just conditional. The
machine becomes self perpetuating. What's the odds that the
value of "carbon credits" utterly swamps the values of
vested oil interests. If the values of each are even vaguely
comparable the battle is joined.

How does eg Indonesia stand to gain from this?

       http://www.rainforestcoalition.org/documents/CarboncreditsabigearnerforIndonesia.pdf

$39 Billion per annum ? !!!!!!!!
How does that, for one country, line up against oil companty
vested interests?
(The writer notes that that value may be high - it may only
be $10 billion pa)

Carbon trading is predicted by some (what would I know) to
be a $1 Trillion market by about 2020.

Is that enough vested interest to allow us to dispense with
that aspect and allow us to focus on the technical merits of
the question?


1.    Anthropogenic induced Global Warming is happening.
2.    Anthropogenic induced Global Warming may or may not be
a or the major contributor to GW as a whole.
3.    We may be doing irrevocable, or revocable or
relatively little harm with CO2 emissions - or even doing
net good! We can't tell which is what or what is which or
... because we don't know enough. We need to know more. We
need to work out how to know more and do it.
4.    While we are finding out if what we are doing matters
we should take steps to do as well as we can in  the interim
as otherwise we may pass the point of no return while we are
still finding out.
5.    Putting money in people's pockets for doing spurious
things which may or may not help reduces the net
avail;ability of funds to do known useful things or to find
out more asap. We should try and minimise stupidity and
maximise useful expenditure of funds.

Do we really think that differently on this?


       Russell






2008\04\10@021827 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> > What other fully & truly scientifically TREATABLE
>> > subject
>> > when truly and fully scientifically TREATED is
>> > disallowed
>> > for discussion here?

>>>> >>> Let the book burning commence / continue ?

> If it was an ENGINEERING subject that might qualify it,
> but if it is
> SCIENTIFIC bordering on POLITICAL and RELIGIOUS, please
> take it OT.

> Note that EE subject is for EVERYTHING ENGINEERING so
> unless you have a
> process for engineering the planet take your theories OT.

> Wow, I think I made that fairly clear!

Absolutely clear.
You have refined science as religion in an area that you
wish it to be so.

[EE] by all past definitions includes science.
This is the science of planetary climate.
It's not that it's hard (which is is) but that it's being
done at all levels with blatant dishonesty, appeal to
emotion, bullying, name calling (literally) and Cant.  How
can this subject possibly NOT be science?

Questions:

- What are the factors that affect climate?
- How significant is each relatively?
- How much impact will the things we are doing have?
- Might we push things past a point of no return at the
current rate before we find out the 1st 3 answers?
- What should we do in the mean time?

1 - 4 are Science
5 is policy and politics which can be  informed by Science

5 by itself with fake religious pretence to be addressing
the other points is religion.


       Russell


2008\04\10@024235 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
This commentary by a university professor is unnecessarily
triumphalist.
>From my "seeking the truth" position in no-man's land I
dislike people in either enemy camp using sarcasm and
ridicule to make their point. [When I do it it's OK [tm]].
:-)

BUT read what it says. Then think.

       http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,21977114-27197,00.html


The following is my honest attempt at a synopsis of key
reported message:
I'll change a few words here and there to try and soften the
Prof's unncessary braying ...

No changes of meaning intended and hopefully none present.

I MAY stop about here (or the book-burners may catch up with
me). Open honest informed debate most welcome.
I'm puzzled by Bob Axtell's attitude. That's not meant to be
a put down of any sort. I greatly respect Bob. [Anyone who
was THAT close to the birth of the microprocessor get's 'the
benefit of the doubt' indefinitely :-) ]. But I really can't
see why this is something that can't be discussed
intelligently and scientifically and why it isn't of more
interest to more. I'm also surprised that so many seem, by
my perspectives of course, to have been won over by the
"great majority" argument and are prepared to see the great
carbon trading party in full swing without having the most
severe misgivings.

Remember who told you when the glaciers come :-)


   Russell

_______________


KEVIN Trenberth is head of the large US National Centre for
Atmospheric Research and one of the key advisors of the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Trenberth has had a distinguished career as a climate
scientist with interests in the use of computer General
Circulation Models (GCMs), the basis for
most of the public concern about ... global warming.

When such a person gives an opinion about the scientific
value of GCMs as predictive tools, it is obviously wise to
pay attention.
In a contribution to Nature magazine's Climate Feedback
blog, Trenberth concedes GCMs cannot predict future climate
and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate
prediction.

Trenberth asserts ". . . there are no (climate) predictions
by IPCC at all. And there never have been". Instead, there
are only "what if" projections of future climate that
correspond to certain emissions scenarios.

According to Trenberth, GCMs ". . . do not consider many
things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance,
or observed trends in forcing agents".

"None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the
observed state and none of the climate states in the models
corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.
"The state of the oceans, sea ice and soil moisture has no
relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any
of the IPCC models.

"There is neither an El Nino sequence nor any Pacific
Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet
these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific
rim countries and beyond . . . the starting climate state in
several of the models may depart significantly from the real
climate owing to model errors" and "regional climate change
is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are
initialised".

GCMs "assume linearity" which "works for global forced
variations, but it cannot work for many aspects of climate,
especially those related to the water cycle . . . the
science is not done because we do not have reliable or
regional predictions of climate".
[[Prof: I could have sworn that I heard somewhere that the
science was supposed to be settled.]]

Trenberth's statements are a direct admission of the
validity of similar criticisms that have been made of GCMs
and the IPCC by climate rationalists for many years.

His tail-covering assertion that the IPCC doesn't make
climate predictions or forecasts anyway does not match IPCC
statements elsewhere.

In a paper being presented at the 27th International
Symposium on Forecasting in New York this week, Scott
Armstrong and Kesten Green audit the relevant chapter in the
IPCC's latest report. They find that "in apparent
contradiction to claims by some climate experts that the
IPCC provides 'projections' and not 'forecasts', the word
'forecast' and its derivatives occurred 37 times, and
'predict' and its derivatives occur 90 times" in the
chapter.

... the public has this misimpression that the IPCC predicts
future climate,

Having analysed the IPCC's approach in detail, Armstrong and
Kesten conclude that "because the forecasting processes . .
. overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC
forecasts of climate change are not scientific". Like
Trenberth's advice, this also may well be news to some
people.

___________

... a lead author of the IPCC Working Group 1 science
report, Jim Renwick, recently admitted "climate prediction
is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is
not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically
well".

Renwick was responding to an audit showing the climate
forecasts issued by New Zealand's National Institute of
Water and Atmosphere were accurate only 48 per cent of the
time.
In other words, one can do just as well by tossing a coin.
These various criticisms of climate modelling can be summed
up in the following statement - there is no predictive value
in the current generation of computer GCMs and therefore the
... IPCC statements about human-caused global warming are
unjustified. Yet Australia has an Opposition and a
Government that profess to set their climate policies on the
basis of IPCC advice. Both also seem determined to impose an
inefficient, ineffective and costly carbon trading or
taxation system on the economy, for the aspirational ... of
"stopping climate change".
...
Professor Bob Carter is a James Cook University geologist
who studies ancient environments and climate. His website is
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm





2008\04\10@083421 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>>
>> icecap.us/images/uploads/ARCHIBALD_TEMPS.jpg
>>
>
> One of my interests is ham radio. We're very interested in
> solar
> activity, of course, since it drives HF radio propagation.
> According
> to the original forecasts Solar Cycle 24 should have
> already begun,
> and it was supposed to be a very active cycle. As I am
> typing this,
> the sunspot number is zero. The latest forecasts are for a
> much less
> active cycle, so it will be interesting to see what
> actually happens.
> The inverse correlation between solar cycle length and
> activity is
> fairly well established.

Here's a sunspot for you :-)

Space Weather News for March 26, 2008

       http://spaceweather.com

Solar activity is surging.  Three large sunspots have
materialized and at least one of them harbors energy for
strong solar flares.  An M2-class eruption on March 25th
hurled a coronal mass ejection (CME) into space and emitted
radio bursts audible in shortwave receivers on Earth. NOAA
forecasters estimate a 50% chance of more M-flares during
the next 24 hours.



       Russell

2008\04\10@120244 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>
>Here's a sunspot for you :-)
>
>Space Weather News for March 26, 2008
>
>         http://spaceweather.com
>
>Solar activity is surging.  Three large sunspots have
>materialized and at least one of them harbors energy for
>strong solar flares.  An M2-class eruption on March 25th
>hurled a coronal mass ejection (CME) into space and emitted
>radio bursts audible in shortwave receivers on Earth. NOAA
>forecasters estimate a 50% chance of more M-flares during
>the next 24 hours.

Yes, there was a short burst of activity. The sunspot group quickly
disappeared, and we're back to a SSN of zero.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\04\10@120633 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:42:03 +1200, "Apptech" <.....apptechKILLspamspam@spam@paradise.net.nz>
said:
> But I really can't
> see why this is something that can't be discussed
> intelligently and scientifically and why it isn't of more
> interest to more.

Russell,

I can imagine what it would be like to share an apartment with you. Your
roommates complain that leaving blocks of ice on the floor gets the
house wet. Your reply would be something like "Those blocks of ice were
completely solid when I brought them in here. I can't be held
responsible for what others do to it with their warm ways."

Let's see, Bob A, Chops and I have all told you that GW is OT. Maybe the
three of us would not have made your perfect roommates. We like it not
quite so wet.

You already have the entire OT space to yourself, why do you insist on
polluting EE? I regularly read posts from people who say something to
the effect "Gee, I thought this was the piclist, I've gotten 100 emails
today of pure drivel".

Please take your blocks of ice OT.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
                         love email again

2008\04\10@141125 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Bob Blick wrote:

> Let's see, Bob A, Chops and I have all told you that GW is OT.

Last I checked that was the job of list admins, no? Define what's
appropriate in the categories and what not, and tell people when they're
off topic for a category?

I didn't say anything so far, but since you seem to want a count: for me,
the science part of it is ok in EE :)

> Please take your blocks of ice OT.

Shouldn't you rather ask James for a redefinition of EE then?


FWIW, the piclist.com home page seems to be one of the sources of the
confusion with EE. There is written:

:: This label is for topics that, while not necessarily about PICs, are of
:: general interest to the Electronics Engineering community. How to hook
:: something up to a microcontroller or other computer (not related to the
:: PIC on board peripherals), analog circuitry, how to measure something,
:: how something works, news about companies involved in EE, etc...

This seems to contradict directly James's own definition ("everything
engineering") as stated on this list numerous times, for example here
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.hardware.microcontrollers.pic/97790/match=everything+engineering>.

Since I'm not a native speaker, and as such I don't have the luxury of
simply assuming I know what everything means, here's what Wikipedia thinks
of "Engineering":

:: Engineering is the discipline and profession of applying scientific
:: knowledge and utilizing natural laws and physical resources in order to
:: design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems,
:: and processes that realize a desired objective and meet specified
:: criteria.

"Applying scientific knowledge to design and implement processes that
realize a desired objective" seems to be what (part of) the GW discussion
is about. And while we probably all agree that there is a lot of discussion
that doesn't fit this description, I think that Russell tries hard to make
it fit. (Most of the times, at least.)


FWIW, I find the ice block analogy awfully lacking (not a good example of
analogy engineering, so to speak :). An ice block wets the floor all by
itself in a normal apartment, but a scientific discussion about GW (or
anything else) only moves into non-EE areas by the active actions of
participants. More akin to an ice block in a sturdy plastic bag inside the
apartment on a hot day. Some would appreciate the cooling effect, while
others may just find fun in poking holes in the plastic bag as it fills
with water.

Gerhard "not sure I'm really cheerful today"

2008\04\10@150415 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:10:32 -0300, "Gerhard Fiedler"
<listsspamKILLspamconnectionbrazil.com> said:
> here's what Wikipedia
> thinks
> of "Engineering":

> And while we probably all agree that there is a lot of
> discussion
> that doesn't fit this description, I think that Russell tries hard to
> make
> it fit. (Most of the times, at least.)

When I read stuff like this I tend to think the writer, a smart person,
is intentionally trying to seem thick so as to achieve their goal. In
other words, it's a tactic.

Why not look at the "spirit of the law". If something like Global
Warming generates giant amounts of OT chatter, it belongs OT no matter
what the people who say they want "serious scientific discussions"
intend.

In other words, it defines itself as OT because of the effect it has.

Russell has the whole OT space to discuss hot-button issues.

If I was a list admin I could force it. I'm not, so I said "please".

If Russell wants to discuss specific engineering issues related to the
use of lasers to measure ice thickness, and what the differences between
what the laser decides is ice and what we define ice to be, that sounds
engineering related and it might be possible to keep it on topic. But
that's not what he proposed or how he proposed it.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                         unladen european swallow

2008\04\10@195041 by piclist

flavicon
face
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Since I'm not a native speaker, and as such I don't have the luxury of
> simply assuming I know what everything means, here's what Wikipedia thinks
> of "Engineering":
>
> :: Engineering is the discipline and profession of applying scientific
> :: knowledge and utilizing natural laws and physical resources in order to
> :: design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems,
> :: and processes that realize a desired objective and meet specified
> :: criteria.
>
> "Applying scientific knowledge to design and implement processes that
> realize a desired objective" seems to be what (part of) the GW discussion
> is about. And while we probably all agree that there is a lot of discussion
> that doesn't fit this description, I think that Russell tries hard to make
> it fit. (Most of the times, at least.)

Heh, I just can't stay away from this thread.

Anyway, the above is forgetting half of the topic name.. electrical.

Not much electrical about global warming arguments, and it's has little to
do with hooking up electronic components.  So by the web site definition
it is not an EE discussion.

But thats written by the admins/owner and so it really boils down to what
the admins say.  If it really is an EE subject, the web site could use a
rewrite. :-)

Anyway again, go PIC!  

--
Ian Smith

2008\04\12@000244 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Heh, I just can't stay away from this thread.

> Anyway, the above is forgetting half of the topic name..
> electrical.

> So by the web site definition
> it is not an EE discussion.

It helps to read the site FAQ before you declaim on such
things.
Here [EE] means, and long has, "Everything Engineering".

As for

> Not much electrical about global warming arguments

Summarising:        Sunspot cycles and magnitude are
believed to be caused by a "dynamo" effect within the sun.
Each cycle is a half cycle of the sun's dynamo with the
polarity reversing per half cycle. There is some correlation
with the 1/2 frequency of the cycles but I don't know if
this related in an assymetry win the physical mechanisms in
the sun.  The magnitude of the suns magnetic field affects
the numbero of cosmic particles reaching the earth,. A
decrease in the sun's magnetic field results in more cosmic
impacts an an increase in the medium to low cloud cover. The
amount of cloud cover affects planetary albedo with
increased cloud cover increasing albedo and this decreasing
available solar insolation and decreasing planetary
temperature.This much is established fact.

It is suggested by some that this effect is *THE* primary
and overriding global temperature driver. We may very well
know a lot more about this in the next few years depending
on whether sunspot cycle 24 is as low level as some experts
predict. If these theories are supported by what happens in
the next while it may be that global temperature will
commence a rapid and severe downturn, possible with a period
of  20+ years and a magnitude as great as or below the
"little ice age" of the first part of the last millenium.

So, it MAY be that Global Warming is overwhelminglt related
to electrical matters.
And may not :-).


       Russell

2008\04\12@014538 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
Apptech wrote:

> Summarising:        Sunspot cycles and magnitude are
> believed to be caused by a "dynamo" effect within the sun.
> Each cycle is a half cycle of the sun's dynamo with the
> polarity reversing per half cycle. There is some correlation
> with the 1/2 frequency of the cycles but I don't know if
> this related in an assymetry win the physical mechanisms in
> the sun.  The magnitude of the suns magnetic field affects
> the numbero of cosmic particles reaching the earth,. A
> decrease in the sun's magnetic field results in more cosmic
> impacts an an increase in the medium to low cloud cover. The
> amount of cloud cover affects planetary albedo with
> increased cloud cover increasing albedo and this decreasing
> available solar insolation and decreasing planetary
> temperature.This much is established fact.

Yawn. So tell me what you're Engineering here? Because discussing
"theories" about "half cycles of the sun's 'dynamo'" doesn't seem like
Engineering to me. Show me the code or the circuit or something. This
sounds more like Astrology to me, or Tea Leaves, or just wanting to have
Long Meaningful Talks about things that are Off Topic and Not
Engineering. Engineering is Doing Something. What are you proposing to
Do here? I don't see anything being built, or designed, or any code
being written. If you just want chit-chat, you have Off Topic for all
the chit-chat you want.

So far only one person has joined you in support of this crusade of
yours to pollute the EE list with OT threads.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2008\04\12@082413 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Bob Blick wrote:

> Yawn.

Very objective. Very "engineering".

> So tell me what you're Engineering here? Because discussing "theories"
> about "half cycles of the sun's 'dynamo'" doesn't seem like Engineering
> to me. Show me the code or the circuit or something. [...] Engineering
> is Doing Something. What are you proposing to Do here? I don't see
> anything being built, or designed, or any code being written.

I'm not sure from which planet you are writing this, but on my planet
there's a big engineering effort in the making, about reducing CO2
emissions globally. Several measures are being designed and implemented
(you probably could say "engineered") with the objective to actively affect
CO2 emissions. While only a few are actively involved in implementing the
related measures, many of us are involved (whether actively or passively)
in defining the design constraints of these measures. (Yes, engineering
management is engineering, and in this case who you're voting for is part
of the engineering management.) And this is going on whether you are in it
or not, so just ignoring it doesn't make it go away, nor does it mean
you're not taking sides. Not taking sides has effects on the outcome, too.
Given all this, getting a solid grip on the factual basis of the issues
involved is related to engineering.

All IMO, of course, and YMMV. But so far, I didn't see a reason why your
opinion should be necessarily more valid than mine -- and you didn't really
make any effort so far to explain why you think it is not engineering. You
mostly explained why you don't want it in EE (which is something
different).

> If you just want chit-chat, you have Off Topic for all the chit-chat you
> want.

If you'd undertake the effort to analyze this thread for the origin of the
"chit-chat" on it that's not about science, you'll probably see that it
didn't come from Russell. This whole discussion should be taking place in
OT, and I tried to take it there, but you seem to think your opinions about
this are definitely EE.

> So far only one person has joined you in support of this crusade of
> yours to pollute the EE list with OT threads.

This one person (if I read you correctly here) has tried to take this "EE
polluting" OT branch of this thread to OT, but you replied on the EE part
of the thread instead -- contradicting yourself with your own actions. "Do
as I say, not as I do", or so...

FWIW, as Jinx said, just filter out anything with "global", "warming" or
"gw" in the subject (or filter out all of Russell's posts to EE :) and
you're all set. Why pollute the EE space with discussions about what should
be in it (which should be in OT)?

Gerhard

2008\04\12@093435 by olin piclist

face picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Why pollute the EE space with discussions about
> what should be in it (which should be in OT)?

C'mon now Gerhard.  It's the only place all those watching the EE channel
can see, obviously.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\04\12@104128 by Dr Skip

picon face
I actually enjoy the education from the various EE subjects that come up. GW is
an emotional one, and I would object to bimbo-like emotional commentary and
calls to action, but offering sources of info and argument is a good thing, and
peripherally EE related. One might argue it would be the same as posting and
discussing some new particle, or a discovery of some silicon property that
might reduce chip sizes - pure science, but it will require engineering later...

There are other topics that might not be of interest to me, even in PIC, that
might not affect my work or interest. I just delete them after a 1/2 second
glance. Very effective.

You can't learn if you ask for the filtering of knowledge in advance.

In a previous posting I mentioned the engineering propensity to look for an
'optimal' solution, while failing to define the larger system requirements.
This might be related to another engineer mindset - if it doesn't relate to my
specialty it's irrelevant-unimportant-a waste of time, etc.

I've found that having a lot of areas of knowledge, and finding combinations
that provide interesting or useful perspectives to opportunities, improves
one's career, opportunities, and income (as an engineer), and the more talked
about the area, the more chance for opportunity. And there is little more
talked about than GW!



Bob Blick wrote:
> So far only one person has joined you in support of this crusade of
> yours to pollute the EE list with OT threads.
>
> Cheerful regards,
>
> Bob

2008\04\12@104728 by piclist

flavicon
face
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Apptech wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > Heh, I just can't stay away from this thread.
>
> > Anyway, the above is forgetting half of the topic name..
> > electrical.
>
> > So by the web site definition
> > it is not an EE discussion.
>
> It helps to read the site FAQ before you declaim on such
> things.
> Here [EE] means, and long has, "Everything Engineering".

The FAQ says "This label is for topics that, while not necessarily about
PICs, are of general interest to the Electronics Engineering community.
How to hook something up to a microcontroller or other computer (not
related to the PIC on board peripherals), analog circuitry, how to measure
something, how something works, news about companies involved in EE,
etc..."

Global warming and consparicy theories don't seem to fit the spirit of the
above definition.

If it truly is "Everything" and not "Electronics" then the FAQ should be
updated.  

See, this is why I like programming.  1 == 1 and 1 != 2.  Very easy to
understand and follow the rules.  Once people get involved.. well.. not so
much with the easy to understand part. :-)

--
Ian Smith
http://www.ian.org

2008\04\12@113041 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Bob Blick wrote:
{Quote hidden}

who was that? I just HAVE to pay closer attention...

--Bob A

2008\04\13@093945 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Bob Axtell wrote:

>> So far only one person has joined you in support of this crusade of
>> yours to pollute the EE list with OT threads.
>>  
>
> who was that? I just HAVE to pay closer attention...

That was me, and I also posted a short explanation why I think this has to
do with engineering (not only with science). So far none of the ones who
think it's not engineering has addressed any of this, just as so far none
of the ones who think everything related to global warming is
pseudo-science has really addressed which of Russell's posts in EE are not
science. (I suspect they'll find very few, if any.)

This all looks to me like a big witch hunt, with the hunters really not
bringing forth many (or any) arguments besides "I don't like it, so stop
it". And it is a much bigger "pollution" of the EE space than anything
Russell has ever posted. (You can easily confirm that I don't necessarily
agree with Russell on his conclusions, but I think he's very hard trying to
"play by the rules" -- more so than the ones who want to hold this
discussion in EE, possibly for the only reason that they are too lazy to
enable OT delivery for this purpose. Which is quite ironic, IMO.)

Gerhard

2008\04\13@094722 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
piclist@ian.org wrote:

> See, this is why I like programming.  1 == 1 and 1 != 2.  

Determinism in programming is largely a (sometimes useful) illusion.
Realtime systems and large systems are usually anything but deterministic.
Results of equations depending on picosecond race conditions on a memory
bus, and other fine details like this :)

> Once people get involved..

The thing is that there's no professional engineering without people
involved. You're usually trying to solve someone's problem... Some
engineers have a harder time accepting this than others, but it's a simple
fact (of professional engineering :)

Gerhard

2008\04\14@095055 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> Why pollute the EE space with discussions about what should be in it
>> (which should be in OT)?
>
> C'mon now Gerhard.  It's the only place all those watching the EE
> channel can see, obviously.

I kind of thought that this would come, sooner or later. But I still think
that this discussion is OT, and that whoever wants to have it should go OT
with it (and spend the little effort to enable OT temporarily for this
purpose, or read the messages in one of the reflectors). If you add up the
non-EE traffic this discussion has generated on EE, the claim that the
purpose of it is to keep the EE channel clean is a bit strange. This
discussion has probably created much more definitely non-EE traffic than
Russell has ever created.

If all those who complain about the email traffic went news and read what
they want to read through gmane.org, for example, this all would be a
complete non-issue. I don't read posts that don't interest me, and I don't
even have to set up filters.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...