Posts by Ron 6

Re: I agree

"Have you tried graphing it and comparing it? There's no significant difference between NASA's data 20 years ago and the same data today, except of course that there is 20 additional years of data."

20 years isn't climate, it's weather. The Weather Service has data going back to the 1800s and the older data has been manipulated several times over the last decade. Note: I'm referring to the historically climate network not satellite data which does not show warming.

What is really interesting is that people will go on-line now and pull down the currently posted data and assume it has remained the same since it was put on-line. It should but it hasn't. NASA is applying corrections retroactively to archived. In my mine this is intellectually questionable.

Re: Huh??

Huh? Isn't the intersection of the sets "manned" with "unmanned" aircraft the NULL set? (For non-biological flyers, ie birds, bats, etc., which wouldn't be "aircraft" anyway.)

Re: Why do eco-catatrophists always assume the planet is so fragile ?

You ask "Why do eco-catatrophists always assume the planet is so fragile ? "

The simple answer is "Because that is were the money is." You have to have a urgent cause to draw in money to groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, or IPCC. Otherwise they go away and all those 'activists' have to work for a living.

Re: "Motorola won a ban on Xboxes that ended up blocked by a US court"

The only thing I can see being done is for M$ to ship the boxes to Germany. Which then seizes them. The question then becomes, what will be done with the Xboxes:

1) Destroy them at customs?

2) Put them in customs storage? (If so, at who's cost?)

3) Send them back to M$ in the USA?

Re: 4,000 years worth of supercomputer simulations

I concur, unless you can prove the simulation is formally correct, uses the correct numbering (fixed/float/etc.), and has valid input data the results are GIGO (garbage-in/garbage-out or garbage-in/gospel-out.) That iss on top of it being an 'initial value problem' where the chosen initial values (including the date I'd think) may change the final results.

I don't think any climate model has ever been submitted to formal analysis nor do I think the people does those models know what formal methods are (in the computer science sense.)

Silly comment

Rant-on:

You would find it hard to justify your view of the modern battlefield by looking at the mix of equipment provided. The idea that a battleground can exist that is foot or armor only is mind boggling. Even Afghanistan has armor (in the form of aircraft more than tanks.)

In Iraq the armor (including APCs) provided mobility and ,for lack of a better term, do-it-yourself fortresses. The problem with that is the enormous support structure required to keep those forces supplied in the field. The modern battle tank is equivalent to WWII tank company and takes even more resources to support.

The antitank missiles these days, you are more likely thinking of RPGs and IEDs are more of a threat to the APCs and soft skinned vehicles. Which is where you see them being used. Those weapons have caused the development, again, of new vehicles to get troops in relative safely to and from combat. But unless your willing to pound every square foot of ground to a depth of 6 or 10 feet how do you make it safe for the troops?

If you can pound it, will the politicians accept the cost? The US lost Vietnam, it didn't loose it by the lack of dollars spent. The same goes for Korea and Somalia. It will probably be true for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rant-off:

There is IMHO no good solution. The politicians do what they want for the reasons they want and the rest of us have to dance to their tune.

Re: $$$

If wind and solar cost around 5 to 10 times coal based power, and the future is 50% wind and solar, how much is the rest going to cost in order to keep the overall cost down in the same price range and coal based power?

Or do the calculations include a ramp up in the price of fossil fuels due to artificial scarcity caused by eco-regulation?

Re: Never worked out what the hardcore 'denier's were smoking...

Maybe we should call the proponents of AGW "deniers". They deny historical data and physical data (unless it's been "adjusted" like the online NCDC data not matching the printed records.)

Plain and simple, the warming crowd uses techniques that they would crucify their opponents for using.

Re: What's fascinating about this

I think Finagle's constant...

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FinaglesVariableConstant

Re: I've never understood...

Define CO2 rich environment:

"CO2 is a simple asphyxiant and lethal asphyxiations have been reported at concentrations as low as 110,000 ppm (Hamilton and Hardy 1974). "

US submarines have run between 7000ppm and 14000ppm (thought they try to keep it below 10000ppm.) So human life would continue unaffected if the atmosphere was 1% CO2.

What if?

What if 90% of the human population died off and the remainder was living in caves or skin tents? Isn't that what the greens want?

How do you "improve the environment"? Where I live we have streams contaminated with lead and mercury. Naturally.

What is "sustainable energy"? Not rare earth magnets in windmills or solar cells using corrosive chemicals.

What is "pollution"? CO2? N2? Organic waste that a different life form thrives on?