- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 38,198
- Reaction score
- 15,841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
If you are trying to imply that man could possibly pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to create a poisonous condition, let me be the first to tell you that you are absolutely out of your mind. Can't happen, period.
If that ISN'T what you are trying to imply then your post is in no way relevant to anything I said.
I have no doubt, modifying the the electronics would void the warranty, just part of the experiment.The old switching power supply, still going strong and the cause of lower than normal power factors everywhere.
I use to hobby build when I was in my teens and early 20s and built a few among other things. Then I had kids....
They also offer very little in the way of power consumtion. Under perfect operating conditions they practically use no power so it comes down to which supply voltage is more effecient.
Plus, those inverter ductless systems have a pretty good warranty on them.
Any monkeying with the PCB and it will void its warranty Im sure.
The dc motor in the hot rod e bike i built
has a.brushless motor.
The rare earth magnets eventually lose their "oomph", but no brushes.
I always have a critical logic and well common sense challenge with OP's like this. If it's really "secret" and everyone knows about it, they aren't very good at what they do are they?
A few other, well, elementary school level questions. When we can't predict tomorrow's weather, how, when the earth is billions of years old and we have 150 years of recorded data, are we able to predict future weather? So many people claim global warm.....er.....wait now it's climate chang......er....no now it's anthropogenic global climate change, is "scientific" and if you don't buy the (Uncle Joe's fav word) mularkey they offer you are a "science denier", yet those same people accept "consensus". How is this rationalized?? Please explain to me, using "scientific" principles (btw for the low information voters here, "consensus" is antithetical to "science"), how having the conclusion prior to even forming a hypothesis, let alone using ALL data available and not just seven trees that support your pre drawn conclusion, how you expect to be credible. What caused the end of the last ice age? How much CO2 was emitted during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius?
<scratching head>
I have no doubt, modifying the the electronics would void the warranty,
just part of the experiment.
Keep any scopes and such you might have, When my son was a teen,
I showed him how to scope out and repair guitar amps.
I first ran into the mini split ACs in Europe, Some are heat pumps, and both heat and cool.Ive got a old tektronics at home ( 50 mhz ) and a 200 mhz dual channel at work. The one at home is packed away currently.
Those ductless systems just started to get popular in the US in the last few years.
At first I had my doubts but they're pretty dependable and highly effecient.
The small line going from the condenser to the air handler unit is actually the metering device distributor line. ( saturated refrigerant leaving the metering device and entering the evaporater coil )
In a conventional unit its usually carries medium temp liquid to the TXV metering device and distributor in the indoor unit.
The TEV ot TXV is in the outdoor unit, not the indoor unit. Both the lines have to be insulated to stop condensation problems.
You can measure the temp of each line with a K or J type thermocouple and get a "super heat" reading when your unit is cooling.
You can determine the correct charge under normal load conditions. should be around 12 to 16 degrees.
I first ran into the mini split ACs in Europe, Some are heat pumps, and both heat
and cool.
I like the high efficiency the inverter units are hitting.
If people want to really reduce high energy use in the US, home comfort is the low hanging fruit.
Better insulation, radiant barrier, windows, all reduce the heat load, the next piece is the
Heat/humidity removal.
Really ? The only brushless DC motor I am aware of is the ECM motor.
Electrical commutated motors and again, uses an inverter to send a manufactured sinusoidal waveform to basically do the work of the commutator.
And to what solar rig are you referring to ? A electronics parts outlet in my city runs a solar rig that incorporates at least 6 batteries ?
Funny, you guys make similar accusations of climate scientists: They supposedly are trying to hide information that they... publish in research journals.I always have a critical logic and well common sense challenge with OP's like this. If it's really "secret" and everyone knows about it, they aren't very good at what they do are they?
Nobody is trying to predict future weather. They're trying to predict future climate. They aren't trying to predict individual weather events, but rather a statistical average that can be expected in the future. It's a pretty important difference.A few other, well, elementary school level questions. When we can't predict tomorrow's weather, how, when the earth is billions of years old and we have 150 years of recorded data, are we able to predict future weather?
Wrong. All of those terms have been around for decades, and are often used interchangeably.So many people claim global warm.....er.....wait now it's climate chang......er....no now it's anthropogenic global climate change,
Also wrong. There are climate deniers, and there are skeptics. The deniers are the ones who, deliberately or not, present ridiculous arguments, straw men, or outright lies. There are skeptics in the scientific community who do excellent and important work. You should familiarize yourself with those people.is "scientific" and if you don't buy the (Uncle Joe's fav word) mularkey they offer you are a "science denier", yet those same people accept "consensus". How is this rationalized?? Please explain to me, using "scientific" principles (btw for the low information voters here, "consensus" is antithetical to "science"), how having the conclusion prior to even forming a hypothesis, let alone using ALL data available and not just seven trees that support your pre drawn conclusion, how you expect to be credible.
A change in northern hemisphere insolation due to regular, cyclical changes in the earth's axial tilt. This isn't difficult information to come by. If you lack even this basic knowledge of climate history, you should refrain from posing these "questions" with the assumption that nobody can answer them.What caused the end of the last ice age?
On average, global volcanic activity generates about 200 million tons of CO2 per year, according to the US Geological Survey.How much CO2 was emitted during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius?
All of these are excellent questions that will go largely ignored by the true believers of the AGW religion. And the usual retort is to come after your character as some sort of dolt, denier, or worse. So in their world, personal attack is fine when they can't reasonably answer the hard questions.
Because the Daily Mail said so? You understand that's a tabloid, right?
They weren't very hard.
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Cat's out of the bag. The funding demonstrates that the conservative agenda is not about actual science, but preserving their business model.
And although these think tanks have influence over government, the people donating to them can remain anonymous. Clandestined financial cabals such as these are the reason why democracy is threatened in most of the western world. They can use their massive fortunes to sway government without the public ever knowing who they are.
As a democratic people, we must stand up and insist our government create legal reforms that prevent lobbying on this massive scale.
The Daily Mail is the only source that still had an open link. That same story is in the NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, etc...it just isn't available without a subscription.
They also have a proven history of twisting quotes on this very subject.
"twisting quotes".... Translation = Exposing the truth.
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes,
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Cat's out of the bag. The funding demonstrates that the conservative agenda is not about actual science, but preserving their business model.
And although these think tanks have influence over government, the people donating to them can remain anonymous. Clandestined financial cabals such as these are the reason why democracy is threatened in most of the western world. They can use their massive fortunes to sway government without the public ever knowing who they are.
As a democratic people, we must stand up and insist our government create legal reforms that prevent lobbying on this massive scale.
No. For example, in 2010 they published this article:
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.
No global warming since 1995? Interesting "admission." Let's see their source, an interview with Phil Jones with the BBC. (an actual news organization)
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
The relevant question:
And the answer:
Or rather, this must be where the Daily Mail author stopped reading, because the actual answer is:
So, the Daily Mail headline says there's been no warming, yet here is their own source explaining to you exactly how much warming there was in that period. (.12C/decade) And that's not even getting into the whole statistical significance part of the situation, in which 1995-2009 is a pretty blatant cherry-pick. 1994-2009 has statistically significant warming. 1995-2010 also has statistically significant warming, but obviously that data wasn't available in February of 2010.
Hmmm....Because it looks to me like instead of letting the respondent equivocate, and qualify his own exposure for telling the truth, you want 50 shades of grey to cloud the issue....Question asked, question answerd "yes".... end of story.
Wait, I want you to clarify this for me.
You're suggesting the headline is accurate? There was no global warming in the period of 1995-2009?
Nothing significant, and certainly nothing that can conclusively be directly tied to human activity....
I am checking now, and as far as I know Manhattan is still dry....Tell me, how'd that happen with all the ocean's rising crap we heard?
Now you're moving the goal posts. So you do agree that there was warming. Good. Therefore you also agree the headline was misleading. It wasn't a discussion as to the cause of that trend, or lack of trend.
Next, statistically significant is a term with specific meaning. It's not a synonym for "important" like how you'd normally use the word "significant." It essentially is a measure of how confident you are that the observed trend is indeed an underlying trend, rather than a result of random noise. Temperature, as I'm sure you know, fluctuates up and down from year to year, and quite a bit. So if you take a tiny data set you can easily be fooled into seeing a trend, or lack thereof, that isn't really there.
Wouldn't you consider using data sampling of 150 or so years, out of several billion that the planet has been in existence is also such a small slice of time as to negate any 'real' scientific conclusions about any trends that are, or are not occurring, and the cause of these possible changes?
If you ask me, I don't know if the earth is actually warming, or if it is just another contrived political ploy to whip up the masses with fear, and other hyperbole designed to make people say, "help us", thus giving up rights, control, and money in the form of taxes.
No, because statistical significance doesn't work that way. It also speaks nothing to the cause of those trends, merely their existence. The cause is a different discussion.
Now we're back to a conspiracy theory involving millions of fabricated temperature recordings.
Are we really arrogant enough to believe that we can control climate?
The movement left itself open to that as soon as they abandoned practical science, for political concerns, and outside agendas. East Anglea didn't help either.
Nobody said that. There's a difference between "let's control climate" and "let's stop messing with climate so much." And you're changing the subject again. You still never admitted that the Daily Mail headline was misleading.
Oh, right, you probably think the "trick" to "hide the decline" involved hiding temperature measurement records that show a decline in global temperature. Which proves you didn't even read the email in question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?