OT: What is Al going to do for a living now?

On 7/29/2011 3:35 PM, Swingman wrote:

> The research paper, by two Phd "Research Scientists" at University of
> Alabama, under the auspices of same and presented to a peer review
> journal, and which was the subject of the article in Forbes, is getting
> drowned out by a hatred of the messenger.

For those with a propensity to shoot the messenger before looking in his
dispacth case, here is the actual news release from the University of
Alabama/Huntsville.

NOTE: This is from _an American university_, NOT some newspaper article,
NOT the "Heartland Institute", NOT a left/right wing blog:

<start news release>

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite
shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more
efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast
climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially
faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research
scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of
Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based
forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a
slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate
and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing”
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s
Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the
atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere
actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events
between 2000 and 2011.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost
to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer
said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts
that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously
thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models
forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a
warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate
system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical
warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate
models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances
during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate
that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon
dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have
theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the
slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud
cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive
feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat
rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the
different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it
impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s
changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right
number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is
that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric
feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative
forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface
temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great
Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s
Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used
the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative
forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

</news release>


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/29/2011 5:42 PM, Han wrote:

> When are you coming to this neighborhood? I'm not likely going to Houston
> ... We are thinking of trying out RVing to nice places, though (don't take
> that too badly, Houston, it is MY problem!).

We have a lake house, on Lake Hamilton in Hot Springs, AR ... a good 7
hour drive North East of Houston, which should give you an ample
protective zone. :)

Should you exercise your RV in that direction, by all means give us some
advance notice. I'm serious ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> <http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmi
>> sm-192334971.html>
>
> I sure hope the wishful thinking here is correct. The writer is
> affiliated with institutions that deny global warming, so it is a bit
> self-serving. I am not qualified to go to the original reasearch ...
>

Tip of the hat to you Han for that closing statement. I often feel that
although I may have an opinon on a matter - and I may believe that said
opinon is at least noteworthy, I try to recognize when all I really have are
thoughts, and that I am not qualified to genuinely examine the "facts" from
either side. Hell - in my state of ignorance, all I can really expect is to
be impressed by something I read.

Takes a bigger man than we usually see here spouting off "facts", to admit
what you did.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 8/6/2011 7:59 AM, Jack Stein wrote:
> With Thunderbird, if you highlight any text before replying, only that
> text will be quoted in the message. If you inadvertently highlight just
> one letter (or just a period), just that letter will be carried over
> into the quote when you reply.

Didn't know that ... thanks for the tip!

(The last few years I just get software to do what I need, then quit
exploring other features).

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/29/2011 11:01 AM, Han wrote:
> -MIKE-<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> Yes, I am a flaming liberal who thinks we should contain CO2 emissions
> etc etc, because they cause global warming. I also know Earth has been
> through hot periods before, and might have gotten hot without human
> caused CO2 emissions. But why exacerbate what can't be good for us?
>
Where's the evidence that, on a global long-term scale, a little global
warming can't be good for us?

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:26:20 BST, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

>in 1505645 20110804 071220 [email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>>Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
>>>
>>>He claimed he was "instrumental in creating" it.
>>
>>And he was. See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>>http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
>>http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-October/000442.html
>>http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
>>
>>There's a big difference between saying you created something
>>and saying you invented it. I created a dozen mortise and tenon
>>joints today, but I didn't invent the mortise and tenon joint.
>
>But there is only one internet.

No, there are many internets but there is only one Internet.

On 8/3/2011 11:06 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 03 Aug 2011 11:45:03 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> I agree with that entirely. What I can't believe is that liberals are
>>> OK with coal burning but not with CO2-free nuke power. Uncanny!
>>
>> I would rather have nukes than coal, and I'm still a liberal.
>
> You're one of the few more sensible libs, Han. Good show!
>
> --
> Win first, Fight later.
>
> --martial principle of the Samurai

I'd rather have nukes than any other method except may be hydro. But
what I don't like about nukes is those the regulate them. Clueless.

On 29 Jul 2011 17:09:29 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Han <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> <http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarm
>>> i sm-192334971.html>
>>
>> I sure hope the wishful thinking here is correct. The writer is
>> affiliated with institutions that deny global warming, so it is a bit
>> self-serving. I am not qualified to go to the original reasearch ...
>>
>> The writer's institution refers to opinion articles in Nature that are
>> highly critical of "The Heartland Institute" <sic>. This is 1 of the
>> articles :<http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/475440a.html>
>> I did have access through my old siubscriptions ...
>
>This just in:
>The Forbes article is just a bunch of hot air, and represents bad
>research:
><http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-
>does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/>
>or:
>http://tinyurl.com/3n4u9q6

And we know bloggers are never, ever wrong...
Another of Discover mag's unbiased writers is here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/tag/media-bias/
Note the titles of his books, too. <sigh>

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 29 Jul 2011 22:12:51 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:-
>[email protected]:
>
>Karl, a news release is just that. Moreover, it is an attempt by the
>university to make itself look better. That is the PR office's job. Weill
>Cornell Medical College (employer until I retired) does it too, and I could
>laugh about it. The motive is to elevate the university and their
>researchers in the eyes of the public and the granting agencies.

I believe grants are released only to people who go with the
"concensus", the alarmists.


>A spectacular news release does not make the research better or worse. The
>reviews I have pointed too say roughlythat Spencer and Braswell's methods
>weren't totally right, and their conclusions overblown.

Imprecise computer models aren't overblown? If any computer modeler
ever tells you that his model is perfect, he's lying. They've added
hundreds of new data nodes to them over the past decade and no honest
modeler thinks they're done perfecting them yet.


>I am truly sorry I got into this, because I do not want to besmirch
>anyone's work. I just had doubts about the spectacular conclusions and the
>overblown editorial by Taylor, who definitely has an agenda.

It's a good thing that alarmists don't have any agenda, isn't it? ;)

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 7/29/2011 4:44 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/29/2011 3:35 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunate, because it is an article, following established
>>> scientific
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>
>>> procedure/methods, that is well worthy of consideration in the search
>>> for valid conclusions to be drawn from both climate computer
>>> modeling, and satellite acquired warming data.
>>
>> Obviously, that should be "research paper", not "article".
>
> AFAIAC the words paper, article and publication are synonymous.

Not in this context ... the "article" was about the "research paper".
There is a BIG difference.


> problem is that the manusccript wasn't sufficiently critically examined.
> That happens all too often in science, either because of sloppy
> reviewing or (unfortunately) because the authors get a helping hand from
> the reviewers. DAMHIKT!!!
>
> In this case, the original authors (Spencer and 1 other) are NOT
> well-respected in their field see here for references to the
> problems<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new
> -data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/>

To paraphrase a bit of commentary, "I will take the word of a reputable
university over the word of one blog poster known to be biased on the
issue. Especially given the nearly hysterical tone in which this one
seems to have been written."

> So I very respectfully disagree with you, Karl. The article(s) are
> worth only the paper they are printed on or the electrons maltreated
> by the pdf's.

As I've reiterated time after time, Han; and what has been my main point
has not changed from the beginning, let's allow traditional scientific
method practices be the final arbiter of that:

"Computer models, or satellite data. Take your pick..."

Sound familiar?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 08 Aug 2011 14:43:51 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 08 Aug 2011 14:21:03 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>><snip>
>
>>
>>>I'll fly again when I want to. But the TSA is putting a bad damper on
>>>that.
>>
>> I think the Powers That Be want it that way. Doesn't the gov't want
>> to keep us dumb and immobile while they rake in the dough from
>> everywhere and waste it on themselves?
>
>My minivan still works. And pretty soon I'm going to try an RV ...

With the gov't allowing gasoline/oil futures, they still get their
pound of flesh.

--
I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues.
--Duke Ellington

On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 01:07:18 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Gerald Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> <http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html>
>>
>>NASA should have kept their mouth shut. You see what happened to
>>them-they got shut down.
>>
>>I suspect the climate has been changing since before the cave men
>>started burning wood. Maybe even before Big Al invented the internet.
>
>Yes, the climate changes all the time. The problem isn't climate
>change, it's *rapid* climate change. Change faster than the ecosystem
>can adapt. That's what's happening now.

Where's your proof, Ed? Specifics, please. And please don't quote
climate models which still have holes the size of the planet in them.
They can't even predict the immediate past, let alone historical data.
And all of them have continually been revised downward as they see
that the original premises were a far cry away from any professionally
captured data we've seen yet, even by the alarmists themselves (if you
can still call them professional after their email fiasco.)


>Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.

"I took the initiative in creating the internet." sounds awfully
damned close to that claim to me. Does anyone else feel that way?

in·i·ti·a·tive/i?niSH(e-)?tiv/Noun
1. The ability to assess and initiate things independently.
2. The power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

in 1505645 20110804 071220 [email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>>[...]
>>>Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
>>
>>He claimed he was "instrumental in creating" it.
>
>And he was. See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
>http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-October/000442.html
>http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
>
>There's a big difference between saying you created something
>and saying you invented it. I created a dozen mortise and tenon
>joints today, but I didn't invent the mortise and tenon joint.

But there is only one internet.

On 8/4/2011 8:33 AM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 8/4/2011 2:26 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>>
>>> But there is only one internet.
>>
>>
>> Beat me to it ...
>>
>
>
> Actually, I belive there is only one Internet.
> I believe one may speak of internets.
>
> Can anyone back me up on that?

neither capitalization, nor punctuation; nor speeling, or grammar, is
not required when posting on the internet.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Edward A. Falk wrote:
>
> There's a big difference between saying you created something
> and saying you invented it. I created a dozen mortise and tenon
> joints today, but I didn't invent the mortise and tenon joint.

"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the
seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day
and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of CREATING that
he had done."

I just KNEW there were parallel universes!

On 8/7/2011 9:50 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Monday morning q-b'ing, in essence.
>>
> Overall as others have pointed out, the commercial nuclear safety record
> is quite remarkably good in comparison to virtually any other venture of
> similar complexity and risks are extremely low in comparison to those
> taken routinely in other activities.
>
> As for an absurd design flaw, what about that little lap belt that is
> all they give you in a commercial airliner flying at 24.000 ft and 400
> mph when it has an accident (and those happen far more often than do
> nuclear ones)? That's really going to help...otoh, a NASCAR driver has
> pretty good odds because he's got a full harness, neck restraints, roll
> cage, etc., etc., etc., ... That's the kind of gear for safety's sake
> airline passengers should be wearing but it what are the odds?
>
> --

harness would not help a bit since the seat tears out at lower forces.

dpb wrote:
>
> But how many more survivors would there be if the seats didn't become
> missiles and folks were more securely protected?
>
> But, the point wasn't specifics but the generic; it's clear airliners
> _could_ be made safer but there are tradeoffs of practicality and what
> is is considered "good enough". OTOH, many who accept that risk and
> many others even higher as routine activity somehow think there should
> be a way to have absolutely no risk from commercial nuclear power.
>

A more down-to-earth example is whether school busses should be equipped
with seat belts. Currently, they are not.

Similar trade-offs obtain.

On 7/29/2011 4:59 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/29/2011 12:09 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> This just in:
>>> The Forbes article is just a bunch of hot air, and represents bad
>>> research:
>>> <http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data
>>> - does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/>
>>> or:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3n4u9q6
>>
>> A modest proposal: Let's allow scientific method and peer review,
>> which in the case of the subject research case has obviously passed
>> the "essential to academic quality" test by being published under the
>> auspices of a respected university, to sort out the research paper's
>> ultimate worth, not the slobbering of some left/right wing blog.
>>
>> :)
>
> Yes, let us do that. I was just referring to a general discussion of
> the work of Spencer and Braswell, and the paper in Remote Sensing in
> particular, and I have pointed out my initial doubts and the doubts of
> the scientific community.
>
> To recapitulate:

lOL ... but you continue to editorialize with "yabbuts", Han. Stop it! :)

> Nevertheless, before it is too late, let us heed warnings that it might
> not be a good idea to fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. It is
> just so we later don't have to say, too bad, it was just one of those
> unintended consequences.

My point, once again: Let's not fall in the trap of discounting, out of
hand, ANY research paper which may provide clues to that aim, regardless
of its source.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> ><http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html>
>
> Good coverage of this at
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/
>
> And: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
>
> Executive summary: it's wrong.
>
> Note that the Journal of Remote Sensing is not exactly dedicated to
> climate science.

No, it's dedicated to remote sensing, which is a tool of climate
science. If the tool is broken you can't do much science with it.

> Follow the links above for a pretty thorough debunking of Spencer's claims.

Wnen that "debunking" is published in a peer-reviewed journal get back
to us.

> Both Spencer and the author of the Forbes article about his paper
> are members of the author for the ultra-conservative Heartland Institute
> which gets major funding from ExxonMobil

Ad hominem.

> Spencer is also a creationist who signed onto ""An Evangelical Declaration
> on Global Warming"
>
> "We believe Earth and its ecosystems -- created by God's intelligent
> design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence --
> are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably
> suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate
> system is no exception."

More ad hominem.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Monday morning q-b'ing, in essence.
> >
> >There are _always_ going to be circumstances in any human endeavor that
> >are not accounted for a priori.
>
> The flaws at Fukushima *were* known a priori. There were GE
> engineers who quit in protest because they knew the design was
> unsafe.

Please find a statement by any of the "GE Three" that "the design is
unsafe".

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> dpb wrote:
> >
> > But how many more survivors would there be if the seats didn't become
> > missiles and folks were more securely protected?
> >
> > But, the point wasn't specifics but the generic; it's clear airliners
> > _could_ be made safer but there are tradeoffs of practicality and what
> > is is considered "good enough". OTOH, many who accept that risk and
> > many others even higher as routine activity somehow think there should
> > be a way to have absolutely no risk from commercial nuclear power.
> >
>
> A more down-to-earth example is whether school busses should be equipped
> with seat belts. Currently, they are not.
>
> Similar trade-offs obtain.

Airliners are particularly problematical though--Stapp's research showed
that 32 g is survivable with minimal injury if the seat stays put and if
it's rear-facing. Airline seats are stressed to 16g (well, they're
required by the FARs to be--that doesn't mean that the manufacturers
don't make them stronger) and facing forward. Military transport seats
(the ones in purpose-built transports anyway) face aft and are stressed
to 32.

On 7/29/2011 5:35 PM, Han wrote:
>

> Karl, this has gone too far. I am stopping here. I am not going to do a
> full critique of the Spencer paper because I am not qualified. I just
> wanted to show that I had my doubts, and then that there were others, more
> knowledgeable than I, who had doubts too.

See my last that crossed this ..
>
> We're under tornado watch right now ... (Bergen County, NJ)

Stay safe, my friend!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Doug Winterburn wrote:
> <http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html>

NASA should have kept their mouth shut. You see what happened to
them-they got shut down.

I suspect the climate has been changing since before the cave men
started burning wood. Maybe even before Big Al invented the internet.

--
Gerald Ross

In just two days, tomorrow will be
yesterday.

Big Mr. I Invented chose a topic in time. The sun Spots were backing
off to a 11 year low (not coming back) and the weather goes wacky.

Mars lost it's poles. No snow.

One jet stream in the U.S.A. - normally two.
Storm track north not south.

As the sun sports and storms increase for the next 11 years we will
get more weather like we remember.

It is like predicting the new moon and saying it will start blacking out...

Martin

On 7/29/2011 6:09 AM, Gerald Ross wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> <http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html>
>>
>
> NASA should have kept their mouth shut. You see what happened to
> them-they got shut down.
>
> I suspect the climate has been changing since before the cave men
> started burning wood. Maybe even before Big Al invented the internet.
>

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> <http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmi
> sm-192334971.html>

I sure hope the wishful thinking here is correct. The writer is affiliated
with institutions that deny global warming, so it is a bit self-serving. I
am not qualified to go to the original reasearch ...

The writer's institution refers to opinion articles in Nature that are
highly critical of "The Heartland Institute" <sic>. This is 1 of the
articles :<http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/475440a.html> I did
have access through my old siubscriptions ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> <http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alar
>>> mi sm-192334971.html>
>>
>> I sure hope the wishful thinking here is correct. The writer is
>> affiliated with institutions that deny global warming, so it is a bit
>> self-serving. I am not qualified to go to the original reasearch ...
>>
>
> Tip of the hat to you Han for that closing statement. I often feel
> that although I may have an opinon on a matter - and I may believe
> that said opinon is at least noteworthy, I try to recognize when all I
> really have are thoughts, and that I am not qualified to genuinely
> examine the "facts" from either side. Hell - in my state of
> ignorance, all I can really expect is to be impressed by something I
> read.
>
> Takes a bigger man than we usually see here spouting off "facts", to
> admit what you did.

Hey, Thanks Mike!
There are a few things I am expert in. And then there are LOTS of things
I have an opinion on. Mostly I don't say it's just an opinion, here on
usenet that is usually "selbstverständlich" - goes without saying.

I do pontificcate too much, as my grandkids, kids and wife will testify
to ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 7/29/11 6:20 AM, Han wrote:
>> I sure hope the wishful thinking here is correct. The writer is
>> affiliated with institutions that deny global warming, so it is a bit
>> self-serving.
>>
>
> The guy who says, "Um, no, the sky is fine, there's no reason to be
> alarmed," isn't self serving.
> The guys who are yelling, "the sky is falling" and seek to profit from
> it are the ones who are self-serving.

You left out the part where I said that I didn't go to the original
research because I'm lazy as well as not qualified in the area. However,
I am qualified to test whether the statements of these guys in the
original link might be influenced by their views. I conclude that the
statements in their report <http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-
hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html> are self-serving because the
authors are funded by their "non-profit" that holds the same views. I
could go and see whether they overstate the results of the oiginal
research report in the journal "Remote Sensing", but my prejudices (I
admit it) say that is too much trouble.

Yes, I am a flaming liberal who thinks we should contain CO2 emissions
etc etc, because they cause global warming. I also know Earth has been
through hot periods before, and might have gotten hot without human
caused CO2 emissions. But why exacerbate what can't be good for us?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> <http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarm
>> i sm-192334971.html>
>
> I sure hope the wishful thinking here is correct. The writer is
> affiliated with institutions that deny global warming, so it is a bit
> self-serving. I am not qualified to go to the original reasearch ...
>
> The writer's institution refers to opinion articles in Nature that are
> highly critical of "The Heartland Institute" <sic>. This is 1 of the
> articles :<http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/475440a.html>
> I did have access through my old siubscriptions ...

This just in:
The Forbes article is just a bunch of hot air, and represents bad
research:
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-
does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/>
or:
http://tinyurl.com/3n4u9q6

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/29/2011 5:35 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>
>> Karl, this has gone too far. I am stopping here. I am not going to
>> do a full critique of the Spencer paper because I am not qualified.
>> I just wanted to show that I had my doubts, and then that there were
>> others, more knowledgeable than I, who had doubts too.
>
> See my last that crossed this ..
>>
>> We're under tornado watch right now ... (Bergen County, NJ)
>
> Stay safe, my friend!

Just 2 fairly heavy showers. In between we biked to a local diner for a
bit of food.
For a change we went here <http://www.landandsearestaurantnj.com/>
rather than here <http://dutchhousetavern.com/>

Next time back to the old haunt.
Both all of 0.4 miles from home.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/29/2011 5:42 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> When are you coming to this neighborhood? I'm not likely going to
>> Houston ... We are thinking of trying out RVing to nice places,
>> though (don't take that too badly, Houston, it is MY problem!).
>
> We have a lake house, on Lake Hamilton in Hot Springs, AR ... a good 7
> hour drive North East of Houston, which should give you an ample
> protective zone. :)
>
> Should you exercise your RV in that direction, by all means give us
> some advance notice. I'm serious ...

Wow, that is almost next to the Great Smokey Mountains, where the AT
starts. (get back tongue!!)

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Spencer is also a creationist who signed onto ""An Evangelical
> Declaration on Global Warming"
>
> "We believe Earth and its ecosystems -- created by God's intelligent
> design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence
> -- are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting,
> admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.
> Earth's climate system is no exception."

Do you have a cite for that? Of, forget it, searching for "An
Evangelical
> Declaration on Global Warming"" found this as "prominent endorsers"
(among others):
"scientists and medical doctors like Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Principal
Research Scientist in Climatology, University of Alabama, Huntsville,
U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer
aboard NASA’s Aqua Satellite, and author of Climate Confusion: How Global
Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and
Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor)"

I rest my case ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/29/2011 3:35 PM, Swingman wrote:
>
>> Unfortunate, because it is an article, following established
>> scientific
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>> procedure/methods, that is well worthy of consideration in the search
>> for valid conclusions to be drawn from both climate computer
>> modeling, and satellite acquired warming data.
>
> Obviously, that should be "research paper", not "article".

AFAIAC the words paper, article and publication are synonymous. The
problem is that the manusccript wasn't sufficiently critically examined.
That happens all too often in science, either because of sloppy
reviewing or (unfortunately) because the authors get a helping hand from
the reviewers. DAMHIKT!!!

In this case, the original authors (Spencer and 1 other) are NOT
well-respected in their field see here for references to the
problems<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new
-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/>

So I very respectfully disagree with you, Karl. The article(s) are
worth only the paper they are printed on or the electrons maltreated by
the pdf's.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/29/2011 12:09 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> This just in:
>> The Forbes article is just a bunch of hot air, and represents bad
>> research:
>> <http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data
>> - does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/>
>> or:
>> http://tinyurl.com/3n4u9q6
>
> A modest proposal: Let's allow scientific method and peer review,
> which in the case of the subject research case has obviously passed
> the "essential to academic quality" test by being published under the
> auspices of a respected university, to sort out the research paper's
> ultimate worth, not the slobbering of some left/right wing blog.
>
>:)

Yes, let us do that. I was just referring to a general discussion of
the work of Spencer and Braswell, and the paper in Remote Sensing in
particular, and I have pointed out my initial doubts and the doubts of
the scientific community.

To recapitulate: The editorial in Forbes by Taylor (who definitely has
an opinion against the global warming hypothesis) elevates a scientific
article to gospel, and exagerates its conclusions way out of proportion.
The scientific publication (Spencer and Braswell) properly points out
that measurements and theories have inherent errors, systematic and
otherwise, which make the phenomenon of global warming a bit more
difficult to quantify and extrapolate. However, and this is truly a
VERY REAL BIG POINT, the article and the authors have engendered
increasing doubts in the science community that they are impartial
and/or "good" scientists. I don't know them personally and I myself am
not qualified to judge the work, so I can only rely on others for their
evaluations.

I know very well that what sounds at first as a real good idea is
sometimes later found out not to be so good. And vice versa.

Nevertheless, before it is too late, let us heed warnings that it might
not be a good idea to fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. It is
just so we later don't have to say, too bad, it was just one of those
unintended consequences.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:-
[email protected]:

Karl, a news release is just that. Moreover, it is an attempt by the
university to make itself look better. That is the PR office's job. Weill
Cornell Medical College (employer until I retired) does it too, and I could
laugh about it. The motive is to elevate the university and their
researchers in the eyes of the public and the granting agencies.

A spectacular news release does not make the research better or worse. The
reviews I have pointed too say roughlythat Spencer and Braswell's methods
weren't totally right, and their conclusions overblown.

I am truly sorry I got into this, because I do not want to besmirch
anyone's work. I just had doubts about the spectacular conclusions and the
overblown editorial by Taylor, who definitely has an agenda.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:75KdnXOI-
[email protected]:

>> AFAIAC the words paper, article and publication are synonymous.
>
> Not in this context ... the "article" was about the "research paper".
> There is a BIG difference.

With article you mean the editorial by Taylor? Or what?
The editorial is terrible, the research paper less so, but even that is
considered (apparently) flawed, either somewhat or pretty much.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:75KdnXOI-
[email protected]:

> To paraphrase a bit of commentary, "I will take the word of a reputable
> university over the word of one blog poster known to be biased on the
> issue. Especially given the nearly hysterical tone in which this one
> seems to have been written."

I don't take the word of a university PR mill at all, Karl. Sorry.
Reputable scientists with no ax to grind, that's fine.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:75KdnXOI-
[email protected]:

> As I've reiterated time after time, Han; and what has been my main point
> has not changed from the beginning, let's allow traditional scientific
> method practices be the final arbiter of that:
>
> "Computer models, or satellite data. Take your pick..."
>
> Sound familiar?

Data are just numbers. They are derived by measurements using techniques,
then calibrated and calculated. Finally they are interpreted. There are
apparently problems with the measurement techniques of SPencer and Braswell
that I am not qualified to fully comprehend.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> the research paper less so, but even that is
>> considered (apparently) flawed, either somewhat or pretty much.
>
> "Apparently" does not cut it in science, Han! :)

Ther are people (and I quoted the reference somewhere) who consider the
methodology questionable or somesuch word.

Karl, this has gone too far. I am stopping here. I am not going to do a
full critique of the Spencer paper because I am not qualified. I just
wanted to show that I had my doubts, and then that there were others, more
knowledgeable than I, who had doubts too.

We're under tornado watch right now ... (Bergen County, NJ)

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han, I hope you know I love you, brother!
>
> You are a worthy opponent, my good friend. And may all our minor
> disagreements/debates always be in good spirit!
>
> I'm going to get a glass of wine ... wish we could continue over same
> sometime.

Thank you, Karl!!

When are you coming to this neighborhood? I'm not likely going to Houston
... We are thinking of trying out RVing to nice places, though (don't take
that too badly, Houston, it is MY problem!).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I agree with that entirely. What I can't believe is that liberals are
> OK with coal burning but not with CO2-free nuke power. Uncanny!

I would rather have nukes than coal, and I'm still a liberal.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Ma Nature is always fanning herself, so she already knows when and how
> to cool herself off.

That's why I am leery of the people who are screaming let's alter the
climate and send up some rockets with a screening powder (so to speak) and
make some good upper atmosphere clouds to screen some of the sun's
radiation.

LOL

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> And we know bloggers are never, ever wrong...
> Another of Discover mag's unbiased writers is here:
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/tag/media-bias/
> Note the titles of his books, too. <sigh>

I'm not going to read a diatribe against Fox news. I already know Fox and
Murdoch are ALWAYS wrong.

Larry, don't believe everything you read. The Dutch saying is "Hij liegt
als of het gedrukt staat" or "He is lying as if it were printed" .

<grin>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 8/3/2011 6:50 AM, Han wrote:
>
>> Larry, don't believe everything you read. The Dutch saying is "Hij
>> liegt als of het gedrukt staat" or "He is lying as if it were
>> printed" .
>
>
> In cajun: Un homme sage qui suit ses propres conseils.
>
> ;)

It's a wise man who follows his own advice? (needed to use a translator
for propre in this context).

Yes, indeed!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 8/3/2011 5:49 PM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> what I don't like about nukes is those the regulate them. Clueless.
>
> ????

Leon means that the personnel and/or the regulators don't know enough. or
care enough. Of course in Japan the workers cared, but the chiefs didn't
know what to do, and the regulators should be shot.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 8/3/2011 8:32 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 8/3/2011 7:32 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>
>> That's nonsense.
>>
>> --
>>
> So Three Mile Island, Chernoble, and Japan are of no concern because
> the people in charge had and or have every thing under an acceptable
> level of control? They were prepared for any possibility of something
> going wrong? They knew exactly haw to handle every situation? Its OK
> for those in charge to under report what is happening and only leak
> information about problems when it is inevitable that the public will
> find out?

In none of those instances was "everything under control". Au contraire.
Regulations were incomplete, people in charge at different levels were
incompetent, designs were inherently unstable, or there were
circumstances that should have been foreseen but that weren't. By now,
we SHOULD (emphasis) know better ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:4
[email protected]:

> On 8/6/2011 7:59 AM, Jack Stein wrote:
>> With Thunderbird, if you highlight any text before replying, only that
>> text will be quoted in the message. If you inadvertently highlight just
>> one letter (or just a period), just that letter will be carried over
>> into the quote when you reply.
>
> Didn't know that ... thanks for the tip!
>
> (The last few years I just get software to do what I need, then quit
> exploring other features).
>
Xnews does that too. And it can rewrap those lines that break so funny.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 8/7/2011 12:34 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>, dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Monday morning q-b'ing, in essence.
>>>
>>> There are _always_ going to be circumstances in any human endeavor
>>> that are not accounted for a priori.
>>
>> The flaws at Fukushima *were* known a priori. There were GE
>> engineers who quit in protest because they knew the design was
>> unsafe.
>
> AFAICT from reporting of conditions I've been able to find, the
> _primary_ containment at Fukushima held, the failed buildings are the
> secondary containment (which were not the GE engineers' point of
> contention and are not positive pressure boundaries. The complaint
> was that _primary_ containment might be too small but it doesn't
> appear that was an issue.

What I understood from what I readwas that the primary containment and
cooling systems had somwe flaws that ordinarily would not become
important. However, when the power systems failed miserably as a result
of the tsunami, several facets that were not important before became
rapidly critical. First among them was the inadequate cooling of the
stored spent fuel leading to hydrogen explosions and further damage to
the cooling systems. Although apparently, the cooling of some of the
primary reactor vessels was sufficiently down to allow melting of the
fuel.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

<snip>
>> What I understood from what I readwas that the primary containment
>> and cooling systems had somwe flaws that ordinarily would not become
>> important. However, when the power systems failed miserably as a
>> result of the tsunami, several facets that were not important before
>> became rapidly critical. First among them was the inadequate cooling
>> of the stored spent fuel leading to hydrogen explosions and further
>> damage to the cooling systems. Although apparently, the cooling of
>> some of the primary reactor vessels was sufficiently down to allow
>> melting of the fuel.
>
> Well, when a design constraint is exceeded, bad things happen.
>
> The selection of the design basis EQ and tsunami was not and has
> nothing whatsoever to do w/ the reactor design.
>
> The point above was that the other respondent claimed the GE engineers
> predicted the problem at Fukushima; I'm pointing out that their
> concern wasn't borne out as being a problem even w/ the conditions
> that did occur.

I believe (memory what it is) that the inadequate cooling of the spent
fuel pool was one of the things that had been pointed out. As it turned
out, that was a big thing.

> It is, again, I contend, cherry-picking after the fact to complain
> that there should have been perfect a priori knowledge and design and
> that somehow all of human experience that shows that despite best
> efforts that we evolve into improving all systems. To think somehow
> it should be possible in any one area to make it flawless is wishful
> thinking; we can and should and do try, but one has to be realistic in
> assessing the likelihood of reaching perfection.
>
> Overall as others have pointed out, the commercial nuclear safety
> record is quite remarkably good in comparison to virtually any other
> venture of similar complexity and risks are extremely low in
> comparison to those taken routinely in other activities.

Of course, Monday morning QBíng is easy. But that doesn't mean we
shouldn't pay attention to potential problems. All in all I'm very much
in favor of nuclear power. Does that mean I would like tritium leaking
into my drinking water, or anyone else's? No. Sorusty pipes and leaks
should be fixed ...

> As for an absurd design flaw, what about that little lap belt that is
> all they give you in a commercial airliner flying at 24.000 ft and 400
> mph when it has an accident (and those happen far more often than do
> nuclear ones)? That's really going to help...otoh, a NASCAR driver
> has pretty good odds because he's got a full harness, neck restraints,
> roll cage, etc., etc., etc., ... That's the kind of gear for safety's
> sake airline passengers should be wearing but it what are the odds?

I'll fly again when I want to. But the TSA is putting a bad damper on
that.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 08 Aug 2011 14:21:03 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>><snip>

>
>>I'll fly again when I want to. But the TSA is putting a bad damper on
>>that.
>
> I think the Powers That Be want it that way. Doesn't the gov't want
> to keep us dumb and immobile while they rake in the dough from
> everywhere and waste it on themselves?

My minivan still works. And pretty soon I'm going to try an RV ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Edward
> A. Falk) wrote: [...]
>> Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
>
> He claimed he was "instrumental in creating" it.

Sorta like a rooster is "instrumental" in creating a chick.

On 8/3/2011 8:32 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 8/3/2011 7:32 PM, Han wrote:
>>>
> That's nonsense.
>
> --
>
So Three Mile Island, Chernoble, and Japan are of no concern because
the people in charge had and or have every thing under an acceptable
level of control? They were prepared for any possibility of something
going wrong? They knew exactly haw to handle every situation? Its OK
for those in charge to under report what is happening and only leak
information about problems when it is inevitable that the public will
find out?

On 8/4/2011 10:25 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 7:27 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 8/4/2011 1:12 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Doug Miller<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> In article<[email protected]>, [email protected] (Edward
>>>> A. Falk)
>>>> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
>>>>
>>>> He claimed he was "instrumental in creating" it.
>>>
>>> And he was. See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
>>>
>>> http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-October/000442.html
>>>
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a big difference between saying you created something
>>> and saying you invented it. I created a dozen mortise and tenon
>>> joints today, but I didn't invent the mortise and tenon joint.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So which did Gore do?
>>
>> A. Invent the internet
>>
>> B. Create the internet
>>
>> C. Neither of the above
>
> C. Anyone who was using the Internet (as was I, only a daily basis)
> before Al Gore came along knew full well it was an unstoppable force
> that was going to take wings and fly no matter what any one person had
> to say about it.
>

Yup!

On 7/29/2011 12:09 PM, Han wrote:

> This just in:
> The Forbes article is just a bunch of hot air, and represents bad
> research:
> <http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-
> does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/>
> or:
> http://tinyurl.com/3n4u9q6

A modest proposal: Let's allow scientific method and peer review, which
in the case of the subject research case has obviously passed the
"essential to academic quality" test by being published under the
auspices of a respected university, to sort out the research paper's
ultimate worth, not the slobbering of some left/right wing blog.

:)


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:49:20 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/4/2011 8:33 AM, Bill wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 8/4/2011 2:26 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> But there is only one internet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Beat me to it ...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, I belive there is only one Internet.
>> I believe one may speak of internets.
>>
>> Can anyone back me up on that?
>
>neither capitalization, nor punctuation; nor speeling, or grammar, is
>not required when posting on the internet.

You posted on the Internet, which happens to be an internet. ;-)

Martin Eastburn wrote:
> Big Mr. I Invented chose a topic in time. The sun Spots were backing
> off to a 11 year low (not coming back) and the weather goes wacky.
>
> Mars lost it's poles. No snow.
>
> One jet stream in the U.S.A. - normally two.
> Storm track north not south.
>
> As the sun sports and storms increase for the next 11 years we will
> get more weather like we remember.
>
> It is like predicting the new moon and saying it will start blacking
> out...
> Martin
>

Where are all of these guys coming from? Is there a sign pointing from the
local bar to this newsgroup at closing time?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 03 Aug 2011 11:45:03 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I agree with that entirely. What I can't believe is that liberals are
>> OK with coal burning but not with CO2-free nuke power. Uncanny!
>
>I would rather have nukes than coal, and I'm still a liberal.

You're one of the few more sensible libs, Han. Good show!

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 8/4/2011 2:26 AM, Bob Martin wrote:

> But there is only one internet.


Beat me to it ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:33:55 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Swingman wrote:
>> On 8/4/2011 2:26 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>>
>>> But there is only one internet.
>>
>>
>> Beat me to it ...
>>
>
>
>Actually, I belive there is only one Internet.
>I believe one may speak of internets.
>
>Can anyone back me up on that?

Yes. I didn't see your post before answering the same.

On 7/29/11 6:20 AM, Han wrote:
> I sure hope the wishful thinking here is correct. The writer is affiliated
> with institutions that deny global warming, so it is a bit self-serving.
>

The guy who says, "Um, no, the sky is fine, there's no reason to be
alarmed," isn't self serving.
The guys who are yelling, "the sky is falling" and seek to profit from
it are the ones who are self-serving.



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/29/2011 12:01 PM, Han wrote:
> -MIKE-<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
...

>> The guy who says, "Um, no, the sky is fine, there's no reason to be
>> alarmed," isn't self serving.
>> The guys who are yelling, "the sky is falling" and seek to profit from
>> it are the ones who are self-serving.

Well, some of _both_ are self-serving...

> You left out the part where I said that I didn't go to the original
> research because I'm lazy as well as not qualified in the area. However,
> I am qualified to test whether the statements of these guys in the
> original link might be influenced by their views. I conclude that the
> statements in their report<http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-
> hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html> are self-serving because the
> authors are funded by their "non-profit" that holds the same views. I
> could go and see whether they overstate the results of the oiginal
> research report in the journal "Remote Sensing", but my prejudices (I
> admit it) say that is too much trouble.
>
> Yes, I am a flaming liberal who thinks we should contain CO2 emissions
> etc etc, because they cause global warming. I also know Earth has been
> through hot periods before, and might have gotten hot without human
> caused CO2 emissions. But why exacerbate what can't be good for us?

Well, I did go and skim the original
(at <http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf> )

It's clear the original article should never have been published as
reputable simply by the repeated phrase the author uses of "alarmist
computer models". Without knowing anything else about the author or the
organization with which he is associated that gives away the bias blatantly.

The original article is much less conclusive; in fact it say "we still
don't know, but here's some evidence models need more work". The
abstract follows--draw your own conclusions.

> Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains
> the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
> Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is
> largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
> probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and
> likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite
> and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While
> the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
> lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we
> find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
> in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that
> atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
> primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in
> satellite radiative budget observations.

I would be more inclined to make changes if those in political positions
who are trying to do so hadn't previously tried (mostly unsuccessfully
in the US, slightly more so in Europe) to initiate many of the same
economic changes to further an agenda. To me it seems entirely too
convenient to think they are only motivated by the actual phenomenon but
are using it as a lever to achieve goals otherwise unachievable.

I personally think there would be a gradual shift in generation mix and
reduced greenhouse gas emission anyway and that it could be accommodated
w/o the other political and economic impacts if market forces were left
alone (or at least far more nearly alone). Resource allocation by free
markets is remarkably efficient; it's when other constraints are
introduced that things go out of whack.

Realistically, China, India, eastern Europe and the other developing
economies are _not_ going to do anything drastic to slow their
development nor to raise the costs of their expansion to limit their
horizons--they don't have the luxury we have of being able to
contemplate the niceties while they're still struggling w/ the basics.
That being so, whatever the US and Europe do will have very little
impact globally so we're along for the ride like it or not.

--

On 7/29/2011 12:54 PM, dpb wrote:
...

> It's clear the original article should never have been published as
> reputable ...

That, of course, is intended to refer to "the article originally linked
to in the thread", not the research paper.

--

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
><http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html>

Good coverage of this at
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

And: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

Executive summary: it's wrong.

Note that the Journal of Remote Sensing is not exactly dedicated to
climate science.

Follow the links above for a pretty thorough debunking of Spencer's claims.

Both Spencer and the author of the Forbes article about his paper
are members of the author for the ultra-conservative Heartland Institute
which gets major funding from ExxonMobil

Spencer is also a creationist who signed onto ""An Evangelical Declaration
on Global Warming"

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems -- created by God's intelligent
design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence --
are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably
suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate
system is no exception."

--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

In article <[email protected]>,
Gerald Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> <http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html>
>
>NASA should have kept their mouth shut. You see what happened to
>them-they got shut down.
>
>I suspect the climate has been changing since before the cave men
>started burning wood. Maybe even before Big Al invented the internet.

Yes, the climate changes all the time. The problem isn't climate
change, it's *rapid* climate change. Change faster than the ecosystem
can adapt. That's what's happening now.

Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

On 7/29/2011 8:16 PM, Han wrote:
...

> ... of Climate Confusion: How Global
> Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and
> Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor)"
...

Can he help if if he's right? :)

--

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
[...]
>Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.

He claimed he was "instrumental in creating" it.

On 8/3/2011 5:49 PM, Leon wrote:
...

> what I don't like about nukes is those the regulate them. Clueless.

????

--

On 8/3/2011 7:32 PM, Han wrote:
>>
That's nonsense.

--

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>[...]
>>Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
>
>He claimed he was "instrumental in creating" it.

And he was. See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-October/000442.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html

There's a big difference between saying you created something
and saying you invented it. I created a dozen mortise and tenon
joints today, but I didn't invent the mortise and tenon joint.

--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
>
>"I took the initiative in creating the internet." sounds awfully
>damned close to that claim to me. Does anyone else feel that way?

"Create" and "invent" are two different things. See my previous post.

--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

On 8/4/2011 6:53 AM, Han wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/3/2011 8:32 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2011 7:32 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>> That's nonsense.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>> So Three Mile Island, Chernoble, and Japan are of no concern because
>> the people in charge had and or have every thing under an acceptable
>> level of control? They were prepared for any possibility of something
>> going wrong? They knew exactly haw to handle every situation? Its OK
>> for those in charge to under report what is happening and only leak
>> information about problems when it is inevitable that the public will
>> find out?
>
> In none of those instances was "everything under control". Au contraire.
> Regulations were incomplete, people in charge at different levels were
> incompetent, designs were inherently unstable, or there were
> circumstances that should have been foreseen but that weren't. By now,
> we SHOULD (emphasis) know better ...

Monday morning q-b'ing, in essence.

There are _always_ going to be circumstances in any human endeavor that
are not accounted for a priori.

An airliner crashed on landing in Guyana just the other day; who are you
going to hang for that; it should have been foreseen... :(

I'm not saying there shouldn't be (and there are, of course) continuing
improvements and implementation of "lessons learned" nor that the events
are ok. But the folks involved are not as incompetent and dastardly as
you would try to paint them; nor do they have infinite resources nor the
benefit of knowing the future.

Blame the lack of quoting on the newsreader; for some reason it didn't
load the text; I intended the whole thing to stand as it was. IMO the
whole diatribe is, indeed, nonsense.

--

Swingman wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 2:26 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>
>> But there is only one internet.
>
>
> Beat me to it ...
>


Actually, I belive there is only one Internet.
I believe one may speak of internets.

Can anyone back me up on that?

On 8/4/2011 7:27 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 1:12 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Doug Miller<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>, [email protected] (Edward A. Falk)
>>> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
>>>
>>> He claimed he was "instrumental in creating" it.
>>
>> And he was. See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
>> http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-October/000442.html
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
>>
>> There's a big difference between saying you created something
>> and saying you invented it. I created a dozen mortise and tenon
>> joints today, but I didn't invent the mortise and tenon joint.
>>
>
>
> So which did Gore do?
>
> A. Invent the internet
>
> B. Create the internet
>
> C. Neither of the above

C. Anyone who was using the Internet (as was I, only a daily basis) before Al
Gore came along knew full well it was an unstoppable force that was going to
take wings and fly no matter what any one person had to say about it.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 8/4/2011 9:24 AM, dpb wrote:

> Blame the lack of quoting on the newsreader; for some reason it didn't
> load the text; I intended the whole thing to stand as it was. IMO the
> whole diatribe is, indeed, nonsense.

With Thunderbird, if you highlight any text before replying, only that
text will be quoted in the message. If you inadvertently highlight just
one letter (or just a period), just that letter will be carried over
into the quote when you reply.

--
Jack
When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away!
http://jbstein.com

On 8/6/2011 7:59 AM, Jack Stein wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 9:24 AM, dpb wrote:
>
>> Blame the lack of quoting on the newsreader; for some reason it didn't
>> load the text; I intended the whole thing to stand as it was. IMO the
>> whole diatribe is, indeed, nonsense.
>
> With Thunderbird, if you highlight any text before replying, only that
> text will be quoted in the message. If you inadvertently highlight just
> one letter (or just a period), just that letter will be carried over
> into the quote when you reply.

True, but that wasn't the case this time; occasionally TB (at least the
installation here) just doesn't download the text...that happened in
this case except I didn't notice until too late.

--

On 8/6/2011 8:41 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 8/6/2011 7:59 AM, Jack Stein wrote:
...
>> With Thunderbird, if you highlight any text before replying, only that
>> text will be quoted in the message. ...
>
> True, but that wasn't the case this time; occasionally TB (at least the
> installation here) just doesn't download the text...that happened in
> this case except I didn't notice until too late.
...

And, btw, I attribute it mostly to the slow dialup that causes
occasional timeouts, etc., w/ the server more than TB itself...

--

On 8/6/2011 10:06 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 8/6/2011 7:59 AM, Jack Stein wrote:
>> With Thunderbird, if you highlight any text before replying, only that
>> text will be quoted in the message. If you inadvertently highlight just
>> one letter (or just a period), just that letter will be carried over
>> into the quote when you reply.
>
> Didn't know that ... thanks for the tip!

I discovered the feature by doing exactly what I described above:-(
I always edit messages and occasionally would highlight text before
hitting the reply button. Then, realizing I was not in the reply mode,
would hit reply, and poof, the text was gone. I said "hey, that's a neat
feature" but, I never use it, old habits and such...

> (The last few years I just get software to do what I need, then quit
> exploring other features).

Yeah, me too.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On 8/6/2011 10:11 AM, dpb wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:

>>> With Thunderbird, if you highlight any text before replying, only that
>>> text will be quoted in the message. ...

>> True, but that wasn't the case this time; occasionally TB (at least the
>> installation here) just doesn't download the text...that happened in
>> this case except I didn't notice until too late.

> And, btw, I attribute it mostly to the slow dialup that causes
> occasional timeouts, etc., w/ the server more than TB itself...

I've been getting more of that stuff ever since upgrading to TB 5.0 and
FireFox 5.0. Not sure if it's comcast (doubt it) or TB (good chance) or
windows just being itself. Probably a sick combination of all 3, and I
just don't give f*ck anymore...

--
Jack
Got Change: Now CHANGE IT BACK!
http://jbstein.com

In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>C. Anyone who was using the Internet (as was I, only a daily basis) before Al
>Gore came along knew full well it was an unstoppable force that was going to
>take wings and fly no matter what any one person had to say about it.

This is the most true answer.

Brief history: There used to be multiple networks: uucp net, bitnet,
decnet, arpanet, and many others. Arpanet was the most sophisticated,
and started as a government research experiment. Eventually, gateways
were created between the networks, and as the routing protocols became
increasingly sophisticated, the networks started to merge together into
what we now call the internet. Eventually, the arpanet protocols
dominated.

By the time the DARPA experiment was over, the internet was too useful
to kill. But it wasn't DARPA's job to run the internet, so they gave
a deadline to the users: find a new infrastructure by this date because
we're shutting down.

Al Gore drafted the legislation that authorized the NSF to take over,
effectively creating the modern internet.

But it would have happened eventually, with or without him.

He may have exaggerated his role in creating the internet, but
he never claimed to have "invented" it. That came from Declan
McCullagh and was pushed by Rush Limbaugh et al.

--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Monday morning q-b'ing, in essence.
>
>There are _always_ going to be circumstances in any human endeavor that
>are not accounted for a priori.

The flaws at Fukushima *were* known a priori. There were GE
engineers who quit in protest because they knew the design was
unsafe.

--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

On 8/7/2011 12:34 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Monday morning q-b'ing, in essence.
>>
>> There are _always_ going to be circumstances in any human endeavor that
>> are not accounted for a priori.
>
> The flaws at Fukushima *were* known a priori. There were GE
> engineers who quit in protest because they knew the design was
> unsafe.

AFAICT from reporting of conditions I've been able to find, the
_primary_ containment at Fukushima held, the failed buildings are the
secondary containment (which were not the GE engineers' point of
contention and are not positive pressure boundaries. The complaint was
that _primary_ containment might be too small but it doesn't appear that
was an issue.

--

On 8/7/2011 7:20 PM, Han wrote:
> dpb<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/7/2011 12:34 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>, dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Monday morning q-b'ing, in essence.
>>>>
>>>> There are _always_ going to be circumstances in any human endeavor
>>>> that are not accounted for a priori.
>>>
>>> The flaws at Fukushima *were* known a priori. There were GE
>>> engineers who quit in protest because they knew the design was
>>> unsafe.
>>
>> AFAICT from reporting of conditions I've been able to find, the
>> _primary_ containment at Fukushima held, the failed buildings are the
>> secondary containment (which were not the GE engineers' point of
>> contention and are not positive pressure boundaries. The complaint
>> was that _primary_ containment might be too small but it doesn't
>> appear that was an issue.
>
> What I understood from what I readwas that the primary containment and
> cooling systems had somwe flaws that ordinarily would not become
> important. However, when the power systems failed miserably as a result
> of the tsunami, several facets that were not important before became
> rapidly critical. First among them was the inadequate cooling of the
> stored spent fuel leading to hydrogen explosions and further damage to
> the cooling systems. Although apparently, the cooling of some of the
> primary reactor vessels was sufficiently down to allow melting of the
> fuel.

Well, when a design constraint is exceeded, bad things happen.

The selection of the design basis EQ and tsunami was not and has nothing
whatsoever to do w/ the reactor design.

The point above was that the other respondent claimed the GE engineers
predicted the problem at Fukushima; I'm pointing out that their concern
wasn't borne out as being a problem even w/ the conditions that did occur.

It is, again, I contend, cherry-picking after the fact to complain that
there should have been perfect a priori knowledge and design and that
somehow all of human experience that shows that despite best efforts
that we evolve into improving all systems. To think somehow it should
be possible in any one area to make it flawless is wishful thinking; we
can and should and do try, but one has to be realistic in assessing the
likelihood of reaching perfection.

Overall as others have pointed out, the commercial nuclear safety record
is quite remarkably good in comparison to virtually any other venture of
similar complexity and risks are extremely low in comparison to those
taken routinely in other activities.

As for an absurd design flaw, what about that little lap belt that is
all they give you in a commercial airliner flying at 24.000 ft and 400
mph when it has an accident (and those happen far more often than do
nuclear ones)? That's really going to help...otoh, a NASCAR driver has
pretty good odds because he's got a full harness, neck restraints, roll
cage, etc., etc., etc., ... That's the kind of gear for safety's sake
airline passengers should be wearing but it what are the odds?

--

On 8/7/2011 10:23 PM, Richard wrote:
...

>
> harness would not help a bit since the seat tears out at lower forces.

Well, there's that, too, that's absurdly under-engineered as well.

I was figuring the whole thing together even though only mentioned the
belt, I sorta' thought the mention of the roll cage in the NASCAR
comparison covered the mechanical end of it w/o going into a full design
report/analysis... :)

--

On 8/8/2011 3:23 AM, Richard wrote:
> On 8/7/2011 11:16 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 8/7/2011 10:23 PM, Richard wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> harness would not help a bit since the seat tears out at lower forces.
>>
>> Well, there's that, too, that's absurdly under-engineered as well.
>>
>> I was figuring the whole thing together even though only mentioned the
>> belt, I sorta' thought the mention of the roll cage in the NASCAR
>> comparison covered the mechanical end of it w/o going into a full design
>> report/analysis... :)
>>
>> --
>
> Hardly a reasonable comparison, though.
>
...

You've missed the whole point, sorry... :(

--

On 8/8/2011 9:21 AM, Han wrote:
...

> I believe (memory what it is) that the inadequate cooling of the spent
> fuel pool was one of the things that had been pointed out. As it turned
> out, that was a big thing.

Only once the other design was exceeded...when lost cooling owing to
full loss of offsite power, then yes, it became a problem.

>> It is, again, I contend, cherry-picking after the fact to complain
>> that there should have been perfect a priori knowledge and design and
>> that somehow all of human experience that shows that despite best
>> efforts that we evolve into improving all systems. To think somehow
>> it should be possible in any one area to make it flawless is wishful
>> thinking; we can and should and do try, but one has to be realistic in
>> assessing the likelihood of reaching perfection.
>>
>> Overall as others have pointed out, the commercial nuclear safety
>> record is quite remarkably good in comparison to virtually any other
>> venture of similar complexity and risks are extremely low in
>> comparison to those taken routinely in other activities.
>
> Of course, Monday morning QBíng is easy. But that doesn't mean we
> shouldn't pay attention to potential problems. All in all I'm very much
> in favor of nuclear power. Does that mean I would like tritium leaking
> into my drinking water, or anyone else's? No. Sorusty pipes and leaks
> should be fixed ...

Of course; that I fully agree with. It is and has been a continuing
process of improvement and modifications to both operating and new(er)
designs. TMI led to a "virtual plethora" of additional fixes, both
design/mechanical as well as operational for the one example. Fukushima
will make its contribution as well.

>> As for an absurd design flaw, what about that little lap belt that is
>> all they give you in a commercial airliner flying at 24.000 ft and 400
>> mph when it has an accident (and those happen far more often than do
>> nuclear ones)? That's really going to help...otoh, a NASCAR driver
>> has pretty good odds because he's got a full harness, neck restraints,
>> roll cage, etc., etc., etc., ... That's the kind of gear for safety's
>> sake airline passengers should be wearing but it what are the odds?
>
> I'll fly again when I want to. But the TSA is putting a bad damper on
> that.

Much higher risk there than from nuclear based on actuarial
statistics...there's inordinate attention giving to perceived risk in
one activity vis a vis a whole range of other activities that are far
more dangerous and that are accepted routinely.

--

On 8/8/2011 9:37 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
...

> Then again, how many planes crash with survivors? I think it's a
> pretty low percentage, so isn't harness safety a moot point?

...

But how many more survivors would there be if the seats didn't become
missiles and folks were more securely protected?

But, the point wasn't specifics but the generic; it's clear airliners
_could_ be made safer but there are tradeoffs of practicality and what
is is considered "good enough". OTOH, many who accept that risk and
many others even higher as routine activity somehow think there should
be a way to have absolutely no risk from commercial nuclear power.

That's the goal and any accident is a failure somewhere, but it's
inevitable there will be at least some irregardless of the best of
intentions.

The subthread begin w/ a complaint that there's rampant incompetence and
worse; that's what I said is simply nonsense--it's just people doing
best they know how in the circumstances there in as in every other
activity. And, of course, there are those who are truly exceptionally
talented and some who aren't quite so much involved.

--

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 06:13:08 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
>>
>>"I took the initiative in creating the internet." sounds awfully
>>damned close to that claim to me. Does anyone else feel that way?
>
>"Create" and "invent" are two different things. See my previous post.

What? You're saying that inventors don't create? <sigh>
He was taking credit for the internet. Do you buy that? I don't.
He may have been one of 5,000 people doing so, but it's likely that he
did it either 1) mistakenly or 2) only for the glory.

Oh, I see. You're one of those Clinton "What 'is' is." folks.
Adios, sucker. It's back in the box for you. <plonk>

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:36:35 -0600, Just Wondering
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/29/2011 11:01 AM, Han wrote:
>> -MIKE-<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>> Yes, I am a flaming liberal who thinks we should contain CO2 emissions
>> etc etc, because they cause global warming.

As a flaming conservative, I don't believe we caused a bit of warming.
2 opinions, nothing more.


>I also know Earth has been
>> through hot periods before, and might have gotten hot without human
>> caused CO2 emissions. But why exacerbate what can't be good for us?

I agree with that entirely. What I can't believe is that liberals are
OK with coal burning but not with CO2-free nuke power. Uncanny!


>Where's the evidence that, on a global long-term scale, a little global
>warming can't be good for us?

Ma Nature is always fanning herself, so she already knows when and how
to cool herself off.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Monday morning q-b'ing, in essence.
>>
>> There are _always_ going to be circumstances in any human endeavor
>> that are not accounted for a priori.
>
> The flaws at Fukushima *were* known a priori. There were GE
> engineers who quit in protest because they knew the design was
> unsafe.

The book, "Systemantics" postulates a number of "laws" by which to judge
systems. One of them, in fact the F.I.T. (Functional Indeterminacy Theorem),
states:

"In complex systems, malfunction and even total non-function may not be
detectable for long periods, if ever. (Such systems may, however, persist
indefinitely or even expand.)"

Other applicable laws:
"The mode of failure of a complex system cannot ordinarily be predicted from
its structure."

"When a fail-safe system fails, it fails by failing to fail safe."

On 8/4/2011 8:49 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 8:33 AM, Bill wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 8/4/2011 2:26 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> But there is only one internet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Beat me to it ...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, I belive there is only one Internet.
>> I believe one may speak of internets.
>>
>> Can anyone back me up on that?
>
> neither capitalization, nor punctuation; nor speeling, or grammar, is
> not required when posting on the internet.
>

I heared that.

On 8/8/2011 8:06 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 8/8/2011 3:23 AM, Richard wrote:
>> On 8/7/2011 11:16 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2011 10:23 PM, Richard wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> harness would not help a bit since the seat tears out at lower forces.
>>>
>>> Well, there's that, too, that's absurdly under-engineered as well.
>>>
>>> I was figuring the whole thing together even though only mentioned the
>>> belt, I sorta' thought the mention of the roll cage in the NASCAR
>>> comparison covered the mechanical end of it w/o going into a full design
>>> report/analysis... :)
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Hardly a reasonable comparison, though.
>>
> ...
>
> You've missed the whole point, sorry... :(
>
> --


Really?

The airframe could be built to withstand impact loads like F1 cars.

But the plane wouldn't be able to fly!

Now, what WAS your point?

On 8/3/2011 6:50 AM, Han wrote:

> Larry, don't believe everything you read. The Dutch saying is "Hij liegt
> als of het gedrukt staat" or "He is lying as if it were printed" .


In cajun: Un homme sage qui suit ses propres conseils.

;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/29/2011 3:35 PM, Swingman wrote:

> Unfortunate, because it is an article, following established scientific
^^^^^^^^

> procedure/methods, that is well worthy of consideration in the search
> for valid conclusions to be drawn from both climate computer modeling,
> and satellite acquired warming data.

Obviously, that should be "research paper", not "article".


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/29/2011 1:18 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 7/29/2011 12:54 PM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
>> It's clear the original article should never have been published as
>> reputable ...
>
> That, of course, is intended to refer to "the article originally linked
> to in the thread", not the research paper.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is where all the knee jerking is making a left turn ... no pun
intended. :)

The research paper, by two Phd "Research Scientists" at University of
Alabama, under the auspices of same and presented to a peer review
journal, and which was the subject of the article in Forbes, is getting
drowned out by a hatred of the messenger.

Unfortunate, because it is an article, following established scientific
procedure/methods, that is well worthy of consideration in the search
for valid conclusions to be drawn from both climate computer modeling,
and satellite acquired warming data.

It is imperative that these types of correlations be made and understood
if we are to follow the correct path in any climate change scenario.

There is something very sad about the adamant inability to see past
one's preconceived prejudices to the actual subject research paper.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 08 Aug 2011 14:21:03 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

><snip>
>Of course, Monday morning QBíng is easy. But that doesn't mean we
>shouldn't pay attention to potential problems. All in all I'm very much
>in favor of nuclear power. Does that mean I would like tritium leaking
>into my drinking water, or anyone else's? No. Sorusty pipes and leaks
>should be fixed ...

Agreed.


>> As for an absurd design flaw, what about that little lap belt that is
>> all they give you in a commercial airliner flying at 24.000 ft and 400
>> mph when it has an accident (and those happen far more often than do
>> nuclear ones)? That's really going to help...otoh, a NASCAR driver
>> has pretty good odds because he's got a full harness, neck restraints,
>> roll cage, etc., etc., etc., ... That's the kind of gear for safety's
>> sake airline passengers should be wearing but it what are the odds?

That would require heavier-duty seat frames (a lot more weight) and
more harness materials/labor (also weight), so cost/weight are big,
big concerns with that.

Then again, how many planes crash with survivors? I think it's a
pretty low percentage, so isn't harness safety a moot point?


>I'll fly again when I want to. But the TSA is putting a bad damper on
>that.

I think the Powers That Be want it that way. Doesn't the gov't want
to keep us dumb and immobile while they rake in the dough from
everywhere and waste it on themselves?

--
I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues.
--Duke Ellington

On 7/28/2011 11:25 PM, Doug Winterburn said this:
> <http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html>

The facts never much mattered before to either the "Sky Is Falling"
crowd or the "It Can't Possibly Be So" crowd. When an issue divides
perfectly along ideological lines, you can pretty much bet there is
no science there.

That said, Gore is an opportunist, intellectual fraud, and political
hack. I'm surprised he's not head of the DNC in the US...


In related news:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/




--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

On 8/4/2011 1:12 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Doug Miller<[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>, [email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet.
>>
>> He claimed he was "instrumental in creating" it.
>
> And he was. See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
> http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
> http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-October/000442.html
> http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
>
> There's a big difference between saying you created something
> and saying you invented it. I created a dozen mortise and tenon
> joints today, but I didn't invent the mortise and tenon joint.
>


So which did Gore do?

A. Invent the internet

B. Create the internet

C. Neither of the above

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:56:33 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/8/2011 9:37 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>...
>
>> Then again, how many planes crash with survivors? I think it's a
>> pretty low percentage, so isn't harness safety a moot point?
>
>...
>
>But how many more survivors would there be if the seats didn't become
>missiles and folks were more securely protected?

If a plane hits hard enough to rip all the seats off their tracks,
you're likely going to die, anyway. <shrug> And it's not the fall
which kills you. It's the sudden stop. 50Gs while you're buckled in
nice and secure would still kill you, not to mention the lack of
freedom and comfort during the flight. Hey, there's another good
marketing ploy for the airlines. They could make certain rows overly
safe and restraining for those passengers who are into BDSM or are
safety Nazis/paranoids. Those seats would cost them twice the normal
rate. Win/Win, wot?


BTW, please state cites of "missile seats".


>But, the point wasn't specifics but the generic; it's clear airliners
>_could_ be made safer but there are tradeoffs of practicality and what
>is is considered "good enough". OTOH, many who accept that risk and
>many others even higher as routine activity somehow think there should
>be a way to have absolutely no risk from commercial nuclear power.

Right. The seats protect us for any odd belly landing at a field, or
the occasional crash into a terminal or other plane, plus they hold
the passengers in their seats during turbulence and wind-shear.
What more do you want?



>That's the goal and any accident is a failure somewhere, but it's
>inevitable there will be at least some irregardless of the best of
>intentions.

"Without no regard", huh?


>The subthread begin w/ a complaint that there's rampant incompetence and
>worse; that's what I said is simply nonsense--it's just people doing
>best they know how in the circumstances there in as in every other
>activity. And, of course, there are those who are truly exceptionally
>talented and some who aren't quite so much involved.

--
I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues.
--Duke Ellington

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:06:00 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/4/2011 2:26 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>
>> But there is only one internet.
>
>
>Beat me to it ...

Something I saw the other day

"What on the internet stays on the internet, like forever."

Nark

In article <[email protected]>,
Han <[email protected]> wrote:

> rather than here <http://dutchhousetavern.com/>
>

Nary a kroket, nor uitsmijter to be found. Nor steak tartar nor stamppot.

So what is so 'Dutch' about this tavern?...eh?

On 8/7/2011 11:16 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 8/7/2011 10:23 PM, Richard wrote:
> ...
>
>>
>> harness would not help a bit since the seat tears out at lower forces.
>
> Well, there's that, too, that's absurdly under-engineered as well.
>
> I was figuring the whole thing together even though only mentioned the
> belt, I sorta' thought the mention of the roll cage in the NASCAR
> comparison covered the mechanical end of it w/o going into a full design
> report/analysis... :)
>
> --

Hardly a reasonable comparison, though.


The 747-400 gross weight is listed at 870,000 POUNDS
(364,000 to 440,000 pounds empty weight).
Max payload is 244,000 pounds with a 5000 mile fuel load.

It can carry up to 400 people at over 600 miler per hour (mach .92).

It will burn roughly 300 pounds of fuel (about 50 gallons) per person on
a 2500 mile flight.

Formula one cars weighs 1200 - 1300 pounds and carry one fool around in
a circle at maybe 220 mph and gets about 3.1 MPG at 175 mph.

A flying machine is ALL about weight.
Any added weight comes off of the payload or range, and speed.

At some point it won't be able to fly, but it becomes economically
unflyable long before that.

On 7/29/2011 5:21 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:75KdnXOI-
> [email protected]:
>
>> To paraphrase a bit of commentary, "I will take the word of a reputable
>> university over the word of one blog poster known to be biased on the
>> issue. Especially given the nearly hysterical tone in which this one
>> seems to have been written."
>
> I don't take the word of a university PR mill at all, Karl. Sorry.
> Reputable scientists with no ax to grind, that's fine.

Give me one such, Han ... cite please.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/29/2011 5:20 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:75KdnXOI-
> [email protected]:
>
>>> AFAIAC the words paper, article and publication are synonymous.
>>
>> Not in this context ... the "article" was about the "research paper".
>> There is a BIG difference.
>
> With article you mean the editorial by Taylor? Or what?
> The editorial is terrible, the research paper less so, but even that is
> considered (apparently) flawed, either somewhat or pretty much.

Come now, Han. Who considers it flawed? ... cite please.

It's only been out three days, fercrissakes ... no time for a "peer
reviewed", _scientific_ rebuttal.

All else is opinion ... and we know what that will get you. :)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/29/2011 5:23 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:75KdnXOI-
> [email protected]:
>
>> As I've reiterated time after time, Han; and what has been my main point
>> has not changed from the beginning, let's allow traditional scientific
>> method practices be the final arbiter of that:
>>
>> "Computer models, or satellite data. Take your pick..."
>>
>> Sound familiar?
>
> Data are just numbers. They are derived by measurements using techniques,
> then calibrated and calculated. Finally they are interpreted. There are
> apparently problems with the measurement techniques of SPencer and Braswell
> that I am not qualified to fully comprehend.

And S&P are pointing out problems with measurement techniques by
computer climate models.

You must have BOTH, Han ... otherwise you have no science!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/29/2011 5:20 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in news:75KdnXOI-
> [email protected]:
>
>>> AFAIAC the words paper, article and publication are synonymous.
>>
>> Not in this context ... the "article" was about the "research paper".
>> There is a BIG difference.
>
> With article you mean the editorial by Taylor? Or what?
> The editorial is terrible,

Jeeeezzzuuuss, how I agree!! :)

the research paper less so, but even that is
> considered (apparently) flawed, either somewhat or pretty much.

"Apparently" does not cut it in science, Han! :)


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/29/2011 5:23 PM, Han wrote:

> Data are just numbers. They are derived by measurements using techniques,
> then calibrated and calculated. Finally they are interpreted. There are
> apparently problems with the measurement techniques of SPencer and Braswell
> that I am not qualified to fully comprehend.

Han, I hope you know I love you, brother!

You are a worthy opponent, my good friend. And may all our minor
disagreements/debates always be in good spirit!

I'm going to get a glass of wine ... wish we could continue over same
sometime.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/29/2011 5:12 PM, Han wrote:

> I am truly sorry I got into this, because I do not want to besmirch
> anyone's work. I just had doubts about the spectacular conclusions and the
> overblown editorial by Taylor, who definitely has an agenda.

I didn't pay too much attention to the actual article, other than the
first sentence with the word "alarming" in it.

I went straight to the research paper ... all else is guaranteed spin,
and BS.

The research paper may turn out to be the same, but so have the computer
climate models.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)