How to recognise SBS
Here is Morner's paper - a classic example of SBS:
http://www.junkscience.com/jan04/nils-morner_1.pdf
He says:
(1) observational data show sea level not rising over last Century
(2) IPCC got it wrong
You can detect the likelihood of SBS from the fact that more than half of his paper is rubbishing of IPCC based on selective quotation etc.
Check out the papers citations (from a respectable citation database indexed on the original paper, not junkscience). You immediately discover the team analysing the satellite data that Morner quotes, horrified at Morner's naive use of the data.
It turns out that (unlike everyone else in the field) he uses RAW satellite data instead of carefully checking for bias etc. Why is this no good? There are two major biasses is the data:
(1) progressive error due to altimeter degradation
(2) a step error when the satellite was switched to the backup altimeter
These effects have been carefully checked and cross-validated by the groups familiar with the satellite. After the necessary processing for these errors the resulting time sequence shows linear rise in sea levels.
The group dealing with the satellite data were very surprised that anyone would draw conclusions from raw data without first checking for necessary corrections etc. But in this case Morner clearly has an agenda which is not that of a scientist trying to get to the truth,
Best wishes, Tom
Dim Sun Anyone?
Tom,
That still doesn't account for the Hong Kong jump.
In addition what we are dealing with in GCMs is analogous to trying to model a 30 cm on a side sq. cube Polywell with grid cubes 10 cm on a side. Because it cuts down greatly on the required computer time vs. .1 mm or smaller grid cubes. Nothing stops you from doing it of course. But would you take that to a knowledgeable funder and say, "Look at my wonderful results, a Q of 10,000 with pB11. How about a pile of cash?"
BTW for WV it is admitted that the parameters are not known well. And all it takes is a .01 change in the absolute albedo number (in the range of 0 to 1) for clouds to negate the whole GCM AGW theory.
And then there is the little problem of the human induced CO2 flux vs the natural CO2 flux. The human addition amounts to 4% of the total flux.
In the end though all this "proof" one way or another is of little import except to the crooks in and out of government. They plan to rip us off no matter what reality shows. Fortunately for the USA the cooling started before the population was politically convinced of the Truth of the GCMs. Unfortunately for the Euros and Brits the Kyoto train left the station with them on it. We Americans have been the proud beneficiaries of the movement of German industry caused by Kyoto. THANKS! Keep up the good work.
In American culture the bedrock belief is government is full of crooks and corruption. It places healthy brakes on scientific fads and frauds. It seems like just yesterday when butter was bad and trans fats (margarine) was good. And after 15 or 20 years of that the opposite conclusion was reached. The consensus changed. Heh.
Another 5 or 10 years of cooling will put an end to AGW here. I hope you Brits and Euros stick with it though. The American economy needs all the help it can get.
BTW speaking of science. There is still no good understanding of why long term changes of the sunspot numbers affects climate. And you know since it is not understood it has to be left out of the models. Did I mention that the same lack of understanding is involved in the effect of changes of UV radiation on the climate?
And then there is the little matter of warming on the outer planets. Really good science would at least try to get an estimate of that and subtract it out from any Earth warming to try to find what the real effect of CO2 is. Now there is one big missing parameter. I'm sure you will argue that since we don't understand it how can it be parameterized so that the models can be adjusted for future predictions? And I would have to agree totally. You can't parameterize what you don't understand. GIGO.
That still doesn't account for the Hong Kong jump.
Actually what I know is that GCM are parameterized physical models which is not the same thing. You get the parameters wrong and the errors propagate. And you know some of the important parameters are at best known to +/- 10%. Well that is not too bad I suppose compared to Water Vapor (WV) where not even the sign is agreed to. As you have pointed out so ably above - changing phase by 180 changes everything.As you all know GCMs are physical models, and designed to determine a physical parameter - the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 increase.
In addition what we are dealing with in GCMs is analogous to trying to model a 30 cm on a side sq. cube Polywell with grid cubes 10 cm on a side. Because it cuts down greatly on the required computer time vs. .1 mm or smaller grid cubes. Nothing stops you from doing it of course. But would you take that to a knowledgeable funder and say, "Look at my wonderful results, a Q of 10,000 with pB11. How about a pile of cash?"
BTW for WV it is admitted that the parameters are not known well. And all it takes is a .01 change in the absolute albedo number (in the range of 0 to 1) for clouds to negate the whole GCM AGW theory.
And then there is the little problem of the human induced CO2 flux vs the natural CO2 flux. The human addition amounts to 4% of the total flux.
In the end though all this "proof" one way or another is of little import except to the crooks in and out of government. They plan to rip us off no matter what reality shows. Fortunately for the USA the cooling started before the population was politically convinced of the Truth of the GCMs. Unfortunately for the Euros and Brits the Kyoto train left the station with them on it. We Americans have been the proud beneficiaries of the movement of German industry caused by Kyoto. THANKS! Keep up the good work.
In American culture the bedrock belief is government is full of crooks and corruption. It places healthy brakes on scientific fads and frauds. It seems like just yesterday when butter was bad and trans fats (margarine) was good. And after 15 or 20 years of that the opposite conclusion was reached. The consensus changed. Heh.
Another 5 or 10 years of cooling will put an end to AGW here. I hope you Brits and Euros stick with it though. The American economy needs all the help it can get.
BTW speaking of science. There is still no good understanding of why long term changes of the sunspot numbers affects climate. And you know since it is not understood it has to be left out of the models. Did I mention that the same lack of understanding is involved in the effect of changes of UV radiation on the climate?
And then there is the little matter of warming on the outer planets. Really good science would at least try to get an estimate of that and subtract it out from any Earth warming to try to find what the real effect of CO2 is. Now there is one big missing parameter. I'm sure you will argue that since we don't understand it how can it be parameterized so that the models can be adjusted for future predictions? And I would have to agree totally. You can't parameterize what you don't understand. GIGO.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/W ... se2009.htmIn such circumstances I took the view that journalists should stay close to the data and not let the scientific possibilities, however dramatic and ‘newsworthy,’ obscure what was actually happening, especially when those possibilities rested on a cascade of debateable assumptions being fed into a computer model that had been tweaked to hindcast previous data. It was not a point of view taken by other arms of the BBC one part of which was repeatedly promoting the same scare story coming out of one institution based on said computer models and predictions. I believed that taking a sober approach was the right one, especially for the BBC, which was looked to for responsible reporting. Wanting to get on air with a story and make an impression with editors and management was one thing, but I took the view that a journalist should not tailor the science to suit ones ambitions, or survival, that way. The political journalist John Sergeant summed it up when he said that there were many journalists who reported what they could get away with rather than what they know.
My approach was not favoured by the BBC at the time and I was severely criticised in 1998 and told I was wrong and not reporting the BSE/vCJD story correctly. But with hindsight I was correct in my approach. To date the total number of people afflicted with BSE/vCJD remains very small. In fact, far smaller than many illnesses that never get a mention in the media, and the scientific doom mongers have moved onto new pastures. But the attitude towards science still remains at the BBC and has been evident in its evangelical, inconsistent climate change reporting and its narrow, shallow and sparse reporting on other scientific issues.
Reporting the consensus about climate change (and we all know about the debate about what is a consensus in the IPCC era) is not synonymous with good science reporting. The BBC is at an important point. It has been narrow minded about climate change for many years and they have become at the very least a cliché and at worst lampooned as being predictable and biased by a public that doesn’t believe them anymore.
Times are changing. New data is emerging, the world refuses to warm in the past decade, the sun becomes quiet, and scientists are beginning to study themselves investigating how entrenched positions become established and whether consensus is a realistic concept. History and science will always correct things in the end. It has done so with vCJD and it is not impossible that the judgement of history and science on current environmental reporting will be the same.
We are so lucky in America that the Brits have the BBC. Keep sending your industry our way. We need it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
No, they aren't. Yet the IPCC keeps demanding we use them as a basis for policy as though they were.In fact GCMs are not even design to forecast
Oddly enough this concern never stopped the AGW crowd from using 1998 as an end point when that looked scary. Should we consult the literature and see how often they warned it might be an outlier versus how many times it was cited as evidence of impending doom? Let's call this ABS-1 - Alarmist Bad Science tactic #1, which is to complain when your skeptical opponent does the same thing you've done.If you look back over the last 20 years and pick the highest point on this sequence, then consider trends from this point to the future - I will naturally observe a downwards trend. This is illusory, caused only by the the selected starting point.
Anyways I'm not sure what your point is. I don't think anyone is arguing we should only look at temps from 1998-2009. It's just a period over which the AGW predictions have become more and more out of step with reality. This is like complaining your theory stating balls continue going up forever when thrown isn't being treated fairly because people are arbitrarily pointing to the data where the ball goes down.
Hey, just like Al Gore and James Hansen! Let's put Morner in charge of the GISS numbers and see what happens to them.But in this case Morner clearly has an agenda which is not that of a scientist trying to get to the truth,
Another thing we know from the geological record is that periods of cooling and an increase of volcano activity seem to go together. Which is rather unsurprising. Volcanic activity is also accompanied by discharges of large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I am unaware of any method for predicting global volcanic activity. Neither frequency nor intensity. Another missing parameter.
So the models are limited by what we know and yet are assumed (by politicians at least) to have predictive ability.
As I have said. I hope the Euros and Brits stay on the AGW train. Such an attitude can do nothing but good for American industry. You are doing really good work for us Americans Tom. Keep at it with all the intensity you can muster. Some of us really appreciate it.
I am unaware of any method for predicting global volcanic activity. Neither frequency nor intensity. Another missing parameter.
So the models are limited by what we know and yet are assumed (by politicians at least) to have predictive ability.
As I have said. I hope the Euros and Brits stay on the AGW train. Such an attitude can do nothing but good for American industry. You are doing really good work for us Americans Tom. Keep at it with all the intensity you can muster. Some of us really appreciate it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The whole purpose of the IPCC is to review the science and extract from it information about future changes to climate and uncertainty in that information. It provides information for policy makers. it does not determine policy.Dave wrote:No, they aren't. Yet the IPCC keeps demanding we use them as a basis for policy as though they were [designed to forecast].
On this thread I am presenting the case for this science - and suggesting that the SBS out there which others on this thread quote so readily in not, to an open mind, convincing.
I get the feeling that those who are against AGW have a real objection which is political. Well that is fine - I am not against politics. But I think it is lazy to conflate political issues and science. And you make the best decisions when you have best possible information about the reality and uncertainty of science.
I am sure you will agree that if your perception of the science is based on positive write-ups of Morner's paper then it will be flawed.
So I am not ging to argue the politics (about which I can see there are many difficult issues). I am arguing the science.
Absolutely. Bad science is bad science. The pro-AGW blogs and popular propagandists have been as bad as the anti-AGW ones. It does not help. The IPCC is a bit more careful, and it is a self-correcting process. Where they realise there is a methodological problem in one report they correct it in the next. They have a tough task - to be accurate about the uncertainties and to give politicians clear information.Oddly enough this concern never stopped the AGW crowd from using 1998 as an end point when that looked scary. Should we consult the literature and see how often they warned it might be an outlier versus how many times it was cited as evidence of impending doom? Let's call this ABS-1 - Alarmist Bad Science tactic #1, which is to complain when your skeptical opponent does the same thing you've done.
Did you know that the IPCC have an official scale for translation of probabilities into words - e.g. very likely = >90%. A public survey showed that most people massively discount these words, e.g. they think "very likely" means a lot lesss than 90% probable. people treat scientists like politicians and disbelieve what they say.
it is not helped by the fact that in the past scientists have said some stupid things (e.g. about BSE in the UK). And when scientists get involved in politics it is dificult to keep things straight. Your view of the IPCC is that they are for this reason corrupt. If you read the report & some of the working groups you would see how the job they do, while not perfect (how could it be) is pretty good.
If the science is so good how did the "predictions" miss the last 8 or 10 years of flat temps? Which flatness the head of the IPCC acknowledges.tomclarke wrote:The whole purpose of the IPCC is to review the science and extract from it information about future changes to climate and uncertainty in that information. It provides information for policy makers. it does not determine policy.Dave wrote:No, they aren't. Yet the IPCC keeps demanding we use them as a basis for policy as though they were [designed to forecast].
On this thread I am presenting the case for this science - and suggesting that the SBS out there which others on this thread quote so readily in not, to an open mind, convincing.
I get the feeling that those who are against AGW have a real objection which is political. Well that is fine - I am not against politics. But I think it is lazy to conflate political issues and science. And you make the best decisions when you have best possible information about the reality and uncertainty of science.
I am sure you will agree that if your perception of the science is based on positive write-ups of Morner's paper then it will be flawed.
So I am not ging to argue the politics (about which I can see there are many difficult issues). I am arguing the science.
How can the climate science be of any worth if they leave out volcanism? How can their understanding of the sun be any good if they didn't predict the warming of the outer plants? And how can the IPCC be trusted if they still use the hockey stick after the methodology had been discredited?
I have seen this before in illegal drug science. The government gets the research it pays for.
All I can say is that Polywell is lucky in that it got just enough attention to attract the funding it needed to continue and not enough to develop a significant opposition - yet.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Simon -
Reporting science. I get really annoyed at this but there is no way round. The fact is that most people want simple clear easy to understand messages. science is not like that. It is complex, nuanced, often requires a lot of background. Sometimes can't be understood at all without math most do not have (e.g. GR & a gemetrical view of tensors).
The BBC have a science correspondent called davis whitehouse who simplifies science in a patronising and usually innacurate way. I can't stand him.
Generally television is incapable of conveying complex argument. There are pictures which take the place of words. But pictures are used to convey emphasis not debate. They can't do justice to science even though you can have inspiring pictures of space etc.
Radio is a bit better, but only a very few programs present complex concepts and nuanced views. They are all BBC (in UK).
Reporting science. I get really annoyed at this but there is no way round. The fact is that most people want simple clear easy to understand messages. science is not like that. It is complex, nuanced, often requires a lot of background. Sometimes can't be understood at all without math most do not have (e.g. GR & a gemetrical view of tensors).
The BBC have a science correspondent called davis whitehouse who simplifies science in a patronising and usually innacurate way. I can't stand him.
Generally television is incapable of conveying complex argument. There are pictures which take the place of words. But pictures are used to convey emphasis not debate. They can't do justice to science even though you can have inspiring pictures of space etc.
Radio is a bit better, but only a very few programs present complex concepts and nuanced views. They are all BBC (in UK).
Nice Tom,tomclarke wrote:Simon -
Reporting science. I get really annoyed at this but there is no way round. The fact is that most people want simple clear easy to understand messages. science is not like that. It is complex, nuanced, often requires a lot of background. Sometimes can't be understood at all without math most do not have (e.g. GR & a gemetrical view of tensors).
The BBC have a science correspondent called davis whitehouse who simplifies science in a patronising and usually innacurate way. I can't stand him.
Generally television is incapable of conveying complex argument. There are pictures which take the place of words. But pictures are used to convey emphasis not debate. They can't do justice to science even though you can have inspiring pictures of space etc.
Radio is a bit better, but only a very few programs present complex concepts and nuanced views. They are all BBC (in UK).
However, mentioning only the "certainties" and leaving out the equally vast uncertainties does not strike me as being good science.
For instance how can the modelers get certainties of .2F in their outputs when the temp record is so uncertain? Where is the volcanism parameter? Where is the explanation of warming in the outer planets? etc. etc. etc.
And how can the IPCC be trusted when they still feature Mann's hockey stick? When all many have to go on is trust, how does such behavior engender trust?
Now I will grant you it may be the best science we have at this time but is it good enough? Is it possible the uncertainties have been aliased for CO2?
I am reminded that phlogiston was once the consensus. As was trans fat good butter bad. And a hundred other examples of settled science. Or how about that Hansen calling coal trains (which is all that is standing between most Americans and death due to the lack of electrical power) "death trains". That is another "scientist" that needs to be crossed off your list.
You have done an excellent job shining the light on what we think we know. If you were really scientific you would be equally diligent in shining the light on what we know we don't know. And then you might cap that by admitting that there may be very many things in climate that we are unaware we don't know. And that any one of them might throw the whole AGW CO2 theory into doubt.
If I was as certain about Polywell as you are about AGW I would lose my reputation as an honest broker. I would be called a believer and not an engineer. The funding offers I occasionally get would dry up. And rightfully so. And plasma physics is understood to much greater precision than climate. Despite that - until Bussard came along no one had imagined the Wiffle Ball effect or how it might be used in a fusion reactor. Oh, the bits were known, but not fully integrated.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
ravingdave
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am
Most of what I use Op Amps for don't require much in the way of high frequency response. I build a lot of op amp circuits for audio signal processing, timing, voltage regulation, and control circuits. I seldom get into IF or RF amplifiers, but a few months ago I was looking for an Op-Amp that could give me a 10db power gain in the 460 Mhz range. It's a project i'll get back to eventually when i've taken care of other more pressing needs.tomclarke wrote:Op-amp technology has got much better. The latest stock op-amps (e.g. TLC072) have essentially infinite input impedance (10^12 ohm), low quiescent current, high slew-rate and output drive current and 10MHz GBP. And 7nV/Hz^(1/2) noise, 60uV offset. And DC gain 10^6. All from 5V supply. Extraordinary!
The only problem with these devices is that faster is not always better. They are less stable then the old slower devices - partly because they sacrifice some phase margin at high frequencies to boost the GBP at working frequencies.
Best wishes, Tom
I found an awesome chip. (at least I know of nothing better on the market.) it's the Texas Instruments CC=1111fx microcontroller w built in rf modem. The only problem with it is it's max output power is 10 mw, and it just doesn't have the range I need for the various applications I have in mind for it.
Fortunately, TI came out with a symbiotic sister chip that solves the output power problem well enough. Now I just have to go through the hassle of learning 8051 assembly plus the cc-1111 rf interface architecture. Yeah, i'll get right on that.
Oh, the good news is that the chip is CHEAP $2.00 in US dollars. (that is before President Training pants gets done with us. ) I guess that's something like 1lb in GB ?
Here's a link.
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cc1111f32.pdf
David
No one said they made policy. How could they? They have no power. But they do recommend policies.The whole purpose of the IPCC is to review the science and extract from it information about future changes to climate and uncertainty in that information. It provides information for policy makers. it does not determine policy.
Parse it however you like, you're still left with people trying to base policy on GCMs as though they were forecasts.
Again, I think you're missing the point of scientific skepticism. The burden of proof never rests on the null hypothesis. If AGW is real, and is a real problem, the burden of proof lies (and heavily) on AGW proponents to convince the public. And they have utterly failed to make a convincing case. After billions of dollars, less than half the public believes them.On this thread I am presenting the case for this science - and suggesting that the SBS out there which others on this thread quote so readily in not, to an open mind, convincing.
As soon as you bring the IPCC, a political organization, into it you have involved politics.So I am not ging to argue the politics (about which I can see there are many difficult issues). I am arguing the science.
But the 90% gets pulled more or less out of thin air, so having a standard for translating it into words is somewhat silly. And it's even sillier to complain people don't accept that it means 90%.Did you know that the IPCC have an official scale for translation of probabilities into words - e.g. very likely = >90%. A
There are accepted, tested ways of assigning uncertainty to forecasts, but the IPCC hasn't done them (probably because if they did they'd have to admit the uncertainty is very high). This is why forecasting scientists say the whole thing is a farce.
Assigning a 90% likelihood to computer models that don't outperform a naive forecast is something akin to religious faith.
Dave,
I think we will have little meeting of minds on this issue.
If you allow only stochastic forecasts, and equate GCMs with them, you are right.
I believe you think that because some parameters in GCMs are determined stochastically (from data sets independent from, indeed of a completely different kind from the global temperature that is being predicted) therefore the model has no more validity than an arbitrary stochastic model.
I disagree. The stocahstic elements may or may not be valid. They can be, and are, cross-validated. Just as the models them selves are cross-validated. there is certainly a (scientific) issue of whether this whole edifice holds up. It may not do so, but I think it most likely that it does. Crertainly none of the anti-AGW vignettes posted here seem convincing when examined carefully. Of course, replying to blog simplifications and slur by more blog simplifications and slur does not get us very far. To survey properly the relevant literature and come to a truly informed opinion takes time. But if you don't believe the scientific consensus then either you remain in a state of uncertainty, or you do this work.
The IPCC is a scientific organisation set up to advise politicians. It has scintific objectives. The IPCC has no power - just possibly it has influence, though based on the last ten years that seems unlikely. Political imperatives usually win.
As for scientific proof. It is not a matter of null hypothesis vs something complex. Climate exists, CO2 clearly influences climate. the scientific question is how much, and it boils down to a single parameter. Determining that parameter is complex. Assuming that it is zero when that is clearly not true is invalid. Assuming that it is insignificant may or may not be valid. In a Bayesian sense the more free parametes you have the less likely the theory. However in this case the theory is mostly known, it is all that physics etc that governs the climate. Climate sensitivity is simply an outcome of the theory correctly applied and given realistic initial conditions.
I don't believe you would be so set against this if it were not for the political ramifications.
Best wishes, Tom
I think we will have little meeting of minds on this issue.
If you allow only stochastic forecasts, and equate GCMs with them, you are right.
I believe you think that because some parameters in GCMs are determined stochastically (from data sets independent from, indeed of a completely different kind from the global temperature that is being predicted) therefore the model has no more validity than an arbitrary stochastic model.
I disagree. The stocahstic elements may or may not be valid. They can be, and are, cross-validated. Just as the models them selves are cross-validated. there is certainly a (scientific) issue of whether this whole edifice holds up. It may not do so, but I think it most likely that it does. Crertainly none of the anti-AGW vignettes posted here seem convincing when examined carefully. Of course, replying to blog simplifications and slur by more blog simplifications and slur does not get us very far. To survey properly the relevant literature and come to a truly informed opinion takes time. But if you don't believe the scientific consensus then either you remain in a state of uncertainty, or you do this work.
The IPCC is a scientific organisation set up to advise politicians. It has scintific objectives. The IPCC has no power - just possibly it has influence, though based on the last ten years that seems unlikely. Political imperatives usually win.
As for scientific proof. It is not a matter of null hypothesis vs something complex. Climate exists, CO2 clearly influences climate. the scientific question is how much, and it boils down to a single parameter. Determining that parameter is complex. Assuming that it is zero when that is clearly not true is invalid. Assuming that it is insignificant may or may not be valid. In a Bayesian sense the more free parametes you have the less likely the theory. However in this case the theory is mostly known, it is all that physics etc that governs the climate. Climate sensitivity is simply an outcome of the theory correctly applied and given realistic initial conditions.
I don't believe you would be so set against this if it were not for the political ramifications.
Best wishes, Tom
Last edited by tomclarke on Tue May 26, 2009 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
raingdave -
Yes - 2$ is cheap, now £1.30.
I have virtually given up using assembler (and particularly detested 80xx assembler the few times I met it). Do you have enough ROM/RAM resources for a compiler? Simon would probably argue you use FORTH - perhaps better than assembler. Don't forget if resources are limited that you always end up using twice as much ROM as you initially expect
There are current-mode op-amps now with GHz bandwidth but I am not good enough at RF design to use them without hassle. (I could follow app notes with pcb layouts, given a spectrum analyser and time I could sort out problems, but I will avoid it if I can!). I prefer design where I can work out roughly what a circuit will do before I build it, andbefore I simulate. It is partly down to experience - I used not to be able to predict what designs up to 100kHz would do without building them. And sometimes they still surprise me.
Tom
Yes - 2$ is cheap, now £1.30.
I have virtually given up using assembler (and particularly detested 80xx assembler the few times I met it). Do you have enough ROM/RAM resources for a compiler? Simon would probably argue you use FORTH - perhaps better than assembler. Don't forget if resources are limited that you always end up using twice as much ROM as you initially expect
There are current-mode op-amps now with GHz bandwidth but I am not good enough at RF design to use them without hassle. (I could follow app notes with pcb layouts, given a spectrum analyser and time I could sort out problems, but I will avoid it if I can!). I prefer design where I can work out roughly what a circuit will do before I build it, andbefore I simulate. It is partly down to experience - I used not to be able to predict what designs up to 100kHz would do without building them. And sometimes they still surprise me.
Tom
Well this is the aspect of anti-AGW argument that I most agree with. It is just that the specific holes you pick in the AGW case do not stack up, and I am inclined to trust not the individual scientists but the process of competing models, peer review, when it has been going on for many years. Science does make progress, and climate is a solvable problem - much less complex than the biological problems that medical research face.Nice Tom,
However, mentioning only the "certainties" and leaving out the equally vast uncertainties does not strike me as being good science.
For instance how can the modelers get certainties of .2F in their outputs when the temp record is so uncertain? Where is the volcanism parameter? Where is the explanation of warming in the outer planets? etc. etc. etc.
And how can the IPCC be trusted when they still feature Mann's hockey stick? When all many have to go on is trust, how does such behavior engender trust?
Now I will grant you it may be the best science we have at this time but is it good enough? Is it possible the uncertainties have been aliased for CO2?
I am reminded that phlogiston was once the consensus. As was trans fat good butter bad. And a hundred other examples of settled science. Or how about that Hansen calling coal trains (which is all that is standing between most Americans and death due to the lack of electrical power) "death trains". That is another "scientist" that needs to be crossed off your list.
You have done an excellent job shining the light on what we think we know. If you were really scientific you would be equally diligent in shining the light on what we know we don't know. And then you might cap that by admitting that there may be very many things in climate that we are unaware we don't know. And that any one of them might throw the whole AGW CO2 theory into doubt.
If I was as certain about Polywell as you are about AGW I would lose my reputation as an honest broker. I would be called a believer and not an engineer. The funding offers I occasionally get would dry up. And rightfully so. And plasma physics is understood to much greater precision than climate. Despite that - until Bussard came along no one had imagined the Wiffle Ball effect or how it might be used in a fusion reactor. Oh, the bits were known, but not fully integrated.
So I am not certain about AGW, though I think it very likely - I just get annoyed at simplistic anti-AGW SBS!
PS - if Polywell had the decades of open data, experiment and analysis published that AGW has you, and everyone else, would be a lot clearer about its chances.
Short leads. Lots of bypass capacitors. At least for industrial work. For commercial work you do what Mad Man Muntz used to do. Build a circuit that works and start throwing away parts until it fails.tomclarke wrote: There are current-mode op-amps now with GHz bandwidth but I am not good enough at RF design to use them without hassle. (I could follow app notes with pcb layouts, given a spectrum analyser and time I could sort out problems, but I will avoid it if I can!). I prefer design where I can work out roughly what a circuit will do before I build it, andbefore I simulate. It is partly down to experience - I used not to be able to predict what designs up to 100kHz would do without building them. And sometimes they still surprise me.
Tom
In digital circuits (TTL, High Speed CMOS) a bypass on every other chip is suggested. I always bypassed every chip. And the bypass should be between the chip pins. Never to ground. I never had a problem in production. I'm reminded of a digital circuit I built according to orders that I told the folks would be a problem (lead lengths too long). I was told I was an idiot. And lo and behold the first 10 preproduction prototypes worked perfectly. Then they knew I was an idiot. But it gets better. Around 99% field failures. Heh.
Well anyway. I'm a fiend when it comes to supply bypass. More is better. With the new smaller chips, SMT bypass, and multilayer boards things are some better. Except that everything (including edge rates) are faster. Watch out for ground bounce. Plus a 10 to 50 ohm resistor in series with every output to minimize line reflections when using fast chips.
And slow circuits can kill you too. MOSFET drivers that can push/pull 4 A require a lot of care. di/dt Keep your mind on the current loops. And remember ground is a convention. They are never zero ohms. Analog over any significant distance should be differential. And what is significant? Well it depends.
BTW I love assembler. I have practice in about 6 or 10 major flavors and can pick up a new one in a couple of weeks. But it doesn't make sense any more for handling slow stuff (anything with direct human interaction for one - like key inputs). It should be reserved for where high processing speed (like high speed - under 1 mS - PID loops, DSP) is essential.
Back in the day I used to know all the 8080 codes by heart. (I still remember 0hC3 is a jump). But with very fast, lots of built in peripherals, chips are so fast (100 MHz for an STM chip with CAN bus, multiple serial channels, A to Ds, funky D to As, and 1 MWords of FLASH, 20 K words of RAM, for $13 in onsies) it makes no sense except in extremely cost constrained items to go with the older chips. For development always allow yourself 10X as much RAM and ROM as you expect to need. You can always cut back for production. The military requires 2X spare memory resources in an initial delivered item to allow for mods and upgrades.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.