|
|
Post by ron on Dec 26, 2008 21:13:50 GMT
Ron, all I know is that if I had an instrument that could be read to two significant digits, and I gave an answer that was carried out to four, I would get dinged for my answer. Why? Because I introduced greater precision than was present in the instrument. From what I have seen of historical records so far, they were reported to the nearest whole degree, not fraction. Have you not experienced that? I promised not to continue on this but let me ask you.... if your teacher, of professor asked you to take a measurement of a bioling solution using three instruments grdulated to 1 degree, and they read 186, 188 and 189, what temperature would you have reported? How about 188, 188 and 189? What if you were asked for the average of the three? This isn't about a single instrument, this is about multiple instruments. |
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Dec 26, 2008 21:33:23 GMT
Good point Ron,
There are two ways you could report it.
You could report it as 187+/-1 or you could use sig figs and report it as 188.
Look at it this way:
You have a pressure transducer that measures pressure to 1000psi and is accurate to 1% or 10psi. These are anolog devices that produce an voltage output that is linearly proportional to the pressure.
You wish to connect it to an Analog to digital convertor to get a digital output.
You have three choices, a 4 bit, an 8 bit and a 16 bit A/D.
The 4 bit will give a result of 1 part in 16 or about 6% resolution
This would introduce error into the results.
The 8 bit results in 1 part in 256, or about .4% resolution
The 16 bit will give 1 part in 65,536 resolution or about .001% resolution.
Do you gain anything by using the 16 bit A/D converter?
No, because the 8 bit won't introduce error into the results that is greater than the instrument.
Regardless of the resolution of the convertor, or number of decimal places the calculator can use, the accuracy of the instrument is still 1% or 10psi. You can produce a result in the 1/100's of a psi with the 16 bit converter, but they would be meaningless, since the actual instrument can't produce that kind of accuracy. The number may make you feel more accurate, but in truth, it is not.
Same with the thermometers, just because you can calculate out to 50 decimal places, that doesn't mean that the accuracy of your instrument has improved.
Especially if you use different instruments recording different measurements in different locations.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 26, 2008 23:33:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 31, 2008 4:42:12 GMT
Hansen predicts global boiling that has been nailed but from Icecap icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool Archibald suggest we should be thinking about a shortened growing season. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 31, 2008 6:03:59 GMT
Hansen predicts global boiling that has been nailed but from Icecap icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool Archibald suggest we should be thinking about a shortened growing season. Perhaps just as interesting: wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/The good news is that global warming (i.e., the 1977-1998 warming) is over and atmospheric CO2 is not a vital issue. The bad news is that cold conditions kill more people than warm conditions, so we are in for bigger problems than we might have experienced if global warming had continued. Mortality data from 1979-2002 death certificate records show twice as many deaths directly from extreme cold than for deaths from extreme heat, 8 times as many deaths as those from floods, and 30 times as many as from hurricanes. The number of deaths indirectly related to cold is many times worse.
Depending on how cold the present 30-year cooling period gets, in addition to the higher death rates, we will have to contend with diminished growing seasons and increasing crop failures with food shortages in third world countries, increasing energy demands, changing environments, increasing medical costs from diseases (especially flu), increasing transportation costs and interruptions, and many other ramifications associated with colder climate. The degree to which we may be prepared to cope with these problems may be significantly affected by how much money we waste chasing the CO2 fantasy. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 31, 2008 14:30:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Dec 31, 2008 18:51:36 GMT
When you know trouble is coming, you take care of your family and your buddies.
Sounds alot like our Treasury Secretary doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 2, 2009 2:37:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 2, 2009 3:38:36 GMT
You gotta love the chutzpah of hansen - he has NASA, internet sites, most of the world's media & even algore to promote his views yet he makes out he needs to write a letter to be able to tell the PE about agw. I wouldn't mind betting those who were urging him to tell the WHOLE truth actually meant he should start being a real scientist instead of a carbon-tax shill for blood & gore & other companies wanting to maximise profits from their BS. |
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jan 2, 2009 6:03:27 GMT
MENE MENE TEKLE UPHARSIM.
FOSSIL FUEL TAXES ARE COMING.
They even sound alike.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 2, 2009 6:23:27 GMT
MENE MENE TEKLE UPHARSIM.very apt quote: A literal translation would be kilograms(repeated), grams, milligrams. (from heavy to light weight) Only in Babylon, (Iraq!), weights were also money (weight of gold & silver) So using this for Taxes is very apt.But Daniel interpreted this as weighed (valued) in the balance and found wanting. (And the Persians attacked soon after)
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 2, 2009 7:09:55 GMT
Weighted and found wanting sounds very appropriate to CO2 AGW theory!
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jan 2, 2009 14:27:50 GMT
A literal translation would be kilograms(repeated), grams, milligrams. I don't think that qualifies as a literal translation. I didn't know that anyone (historically or presently) knew the exact meaning of the words. Fascinating. |
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Jan 2, 2009 17:08:16 GMT
A literal translation would be kilograms(repeated), grams, milligrams. I don't think that qualifies as a literal translation. I didn't know that anyone (historically or presently) knew the exact meaning of the words. Fascinating. "Minnie, Minnie, tickle my upper shin." |
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jan 2, 2009 18:38:45 GMT
"Minnie, Minnie, tickle my upper shin." Haha! It's a long story but one day about 20 years ago I asked my (now gone  ) mother if she knew what were the words of the "handwriting on the wall" and she said: "Many many tickle a parson"She definitely knew they weren't the real words, but I no longer recall if she knew the real words. Hi Mom! |
|
) mother if she knew what were the words of the "handwriting on the wall" and she said: