[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
In article <IbFG+CAZYcByEw4p@wandana.demon.co.uk>,
Jim Barr <JimBarr@wandana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4u3avt$su3@condor.ic.net>, All locked up and
nowhere to go
>>
>>The observation that the atmosphere reacts very
substantially
>>to a forcing function with a period of 1 year proves that
the
>>"long process time constant" is short even on human time
scales.
>>
>>> What about the
>>>fact that this long response time can also be beneficial
in
>>>that sudden disturbances may have little or no impact?
>>
>>This one sentence contains several faulty assumptions. To
>>list a few:
>>
>>1.) It assumes the disturbance is a delta function which
is
>> never repeated. A more accurate model would be a
ramp
>> function.
>>
>>2.) It assumes that the response time is long compared to
>> the duration of the disturbance. See above.
>>
>>3.) It assumes that the system is linear and stable. The
>> best data to date suggests that it is chaotic.
>>
>>
I did not make any assumptions here. There are most likely
many disturbances entering the atmosphere, in all frequency
ranges and all types of "forcing function shapes" (step,
impulse (or delta), ramp, sinusoid, etc.). I have no doubt
that a shorter "atmospheric process time constant" would be
affected by one or more of these disturbances, if we could
shorten the response time from where it is now. Thus, the
response time of the atmosphere, by itself, is not
particularly relevant to this discussion.
>Listen to this chap.. He is making a lot of sense
>Jim Barr Machine Conversation, Bedfordshire England
> Best is the enemy of good enough
> Leaves Rustle....Blades turn..... Water
moves
How do you know he is making a lot of sense? Admittedly, he
is using the "jargon" correctly. However, that doesn't
prove that his conclusions are correct. Think about it.
Follow-Ups:
References: