Author Topic: Free Energy is just a bad name...  (Read 174206 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #775 on: February 23, 2016, 12:23:42 am »
Actually there IS consensus on that point. See here, here, and here.

From the papers that I've read, the theories seem to range from "CO2 emissions may be accelerating or influencing an existing natural climate shift" to "greenhouse gasses are turning our atmosphere into a blanket of death and we're all going to boil in our skin". I'm obviously paraphrasing and exaggerating there, but I guess my point is that I was unaware the global scientific community had reached a unanimous consensus on just how much we have affected climate change. Perhaps this has changed in the last few years? I don't really keep up on it anymore, to be honest. I'll take a look at those links.

I just realized I goofed one of those three links- I duplicated one - doh!. The correct third one is here.

Quote
I don't doubt that we're causing damage. I just question how much. It's hard to get a straight answer because I feel like *both* sides are engaging in hyperbole (or FUD, muddying the waters, whatever you want to call it). And if I, as an otherwise smart and logical engineer think this, imagine what the general public thinks!
I think that you feel that way is a testament to the successful strategy the fossil fuel industry has employed. After all they don't have to prove anything - all they need to do is create doubt and achieve the impression that both sides are on the same footing regarding the science. Thanks for explaining your view so well.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #776 on: February 23, 2016, 12:43:47 am »

Well - that bunch of nonsense -clearly demonstrates much about your mental clarity and agenda. Religion, Streisand effect, eating pigs and farting cows. Again - we're back in the la la crazy land where this thread started. ::) 

Perhaps it was a bait and you took it, again and again..or not. You seams to be very angry all the time particularly if questioned around things you claim absolute facts and the only truth!
 
Basically, you started it throwing tantrums, such as "Cherry picked" "poor reading comprehension" "mental clarity", "political agenda is shameless", "consensus", "not a climate scientist ", "trolls", "old nut", "nonsense","pseudoscience", "ideologists", "debunked", "factually deficient disinformation", just a "weatherman not a climate scientists", " there were no mammals alive bigger than a tree shrew". "worldwide conspiracy", consensus","not honestly","manipulating data, not a climate scientist", etc, etc, etc and every other label possible the mindset of a character assassin mini pope could come up with.

This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.

We have here a large and diverse user population and some are not that compatible with civilized discussions. As Bernard Shaw said, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2528
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #777 on: February 23, 2016, 12:46:07 am »
Well, I don't think they're on the same footing regarding the science. Because I *do* believe in climate change. I think my biggest problem is that I've seen what happens when  science and politics mix and it doesn't always turn out well. My biggest worry is that experiments aren't being performed properly, they're being rushed so that they can get another round of funding or whatever. Or that data is being manipulated.

I don't know, I mean maybe if I sat down and spent a few weeks researching it in depth I'd feel more comfortable? The reason I haven't done that is, it doesn't interest me very much and there's no practical benefit to the knowledge for me.

In the end, for me, it's always come down to this: Fossil Fuel = Finite Resource = True; Climate Change = True. Beyond that, I've never seen a reason to have in depth knowledge of the whys or how's. So, when presented with the question of, what causes climate change, I'm pensive about committing to an answer, because I just have a feeling that nobody is being entirely honest.

So, since I don't really care "why" plus the fact I believe in climate change, I'd say some disinformation campaign by Big Oil isn't my problem. Clearly I also believe in the scientific evidence of climate change itself. Why should *I* care why?

Does that make sense?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #778 on: February 23, 2016, 12:55:28 am »
At the very least, burning coal and oil creates smog, which makes it difficult to breath.

Generating electricity from coal and oil can actually prevent fatalities from air pollution.

http://www.who.int/indoorair/en/

It's a complex world.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #779 on: February 23, 2016, 01:00:19 am »
This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.

Some people hide behind fake calls for civility and cry foul when they are not able support their arguments with facts. If you can't take the heat....

Our posts in this and other threads speak for themselves.

Anyone can see that in almost every case I've supported any substantial claims I make with links to reputable sources.

As I stated above to Timb - I readily admit to arguing passionately about this and other topics. If calling you out for posting pseudoscience and failing to support your arguments with any reputable sources upsets you to the point of accusing me of being uncivil then so be it.  Maybe try not to take it so personally?

I do my best to avoid personal attacks but I occasionally get caught up in the heat of the moment and fail - almost exclusively in response to such an attack on me. But still I should do better.  In the case of MT - well - just look over his posts - they speak for themselves - as do yours.

As I've also stated - no anger whatsoever on my end -I actually enjoy a passionate debate. Thanks again.  :)

 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #780 on: February 23, 2016, 01:06:03 am »
Regarding cows being a big contributor to global warming, I heard on the news today that scientists are discovering that fish fart too, especially when they go up / down in the ocean to  hunt for food. So with gazillions of fish floating around, maybe cows aren't that bad and eating stake is really OK?

:)
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1290
  • Country: cn
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #781 on: February 23, 2016, 01:10:29 am »
This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.
We have here a large and diverse user population and some are not that compatible with civilized discussions. As Bernard Shaw said, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
Yeah im aware of that, not only FTDI gate 2.0 had pigs but other threads in history as well i have learned, Sigilent etc. I was a bit surprised you remained patient as long as you where with *mtdoc* while he was lashing out at you now calling it *passionate debate* and claiming people attacked him when the truth is he (initially) was attacking you in post 626-628 , just because he was bored!! Pretty clear he has more problems then this:

« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 01:27:47 am by MT »
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #782 on: February 23, 2016, 01:13:26 am »
Regarding cows being a big contributor to global warming, I heard on the news today that scientists are discovering that fish fart too, especially when they go up / down in the ocean to  hunt for food. So with gazillions of fish floating around, maybe cows aren't that bad and eating stake is really OK?

:)

Ha! I have to admit it danny - sometimes you crack me up!  Yes, I do loves me steaks!  :D
 

Offline Synthetase

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Country: au
    • Synthetase's World of Nerd
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #783 on: February 23, 2016, 01:28:00 am »
This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.
We have here a large and diverse user population and some are not that compatible with civilized discussions. As Bernard Shaw said, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
Yeah im aware of that, not only FTDI gate 2.0 had pigs but other threads in history as well i have learned, Sigilent etc. I was a bit surprised you remained patient as long as you where with *mtdoc* while he was lashing out at you now calling it *passionate debate* and claiming people attacked him when the truth is he (initially) was attacking you in post 628 , because he was bored! Pretty clear he has more problems then this:


Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #784 on: February 23, 2016, 01:53:56 am »
attacking you in post 626-628
I hate to break it to you MT, but calling someone out for trolling and then responding with referenced facts is not a personal attack.

On the other hand calling someone an illiterate lunatic (#654) or a pig (as you just did) is. 

Yes, irony.

We all can get carried away sometimes.  It's the ratio of posts presenting new information, reasoned argument,  links or helpful advice to trolling or personal attacks that matters to me. I certainly strive to do better in that regard - even if I sometime fail. If my response to your post #654 was too harsh, I apologize.  I wish you well. :)

Can we get back to farting fish and farting cows now?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 01:57:23 am by mtdoc »
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1290
  • Country: cn
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #785 on: February 23, 2016, 02:13:35 am »
I hate to break it to you MT, but calling someone out for trolling and then responding with referenced facts is not a personal attack.
Oh please, you do understand there are other world wievs then yours.

Quote
On the other hand calling someone an illiterate lunatic (#654) or a pig (as you just did) is. 
Where does it say i call you a pig? Im not, i just replied to zapta who refered to Bernad Shaw, perhaps zepta meant you was a pig?

Quote
We all can get carried away sometimes.  It's the ratio of posts presenting new information, links or helpful advice to trolling or personal attacks that matters to me. I certainly strive to do better in that regard - even if I sometime fail. If my response to your post #654 was too harsh, I apologize.  I wish you well. :)

Oh please, pretty please, you have sequence *character assassinations* etc to apology for, probably to loads of people! Why not start out with zepta then 654 and on and on and on.

Quote
Can we get back to farting fish and farting cows now?
Sure!
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 02:24:34 am by MT »
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14395
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #786 on: February 23, 2016, 08:20:41 pm »
I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.
I find it odd that many people here seem to be fine with the scientific consensus on evolution but have a problem with anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps it's propaganda from the fossil fuel companies?
How appropriate that this thread has made a home for all types of anti-science types trolls.

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
Which is perfectly acceptable around here, providing the person who you're having the debate with is arguing for free energy and against the scientific consensus on thermodynamics. But oh no, if they're arguing against anthropogenic climate change it's a cardinal sin.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #787 on: February 23, 2016, 09:11:30 pm »
I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.
I find it odd that many people here seem to be fine with the scientific consensus on evolution but have a problem with anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps it's propaganda from the fossil fuel companies?


Because the later is a fake consensus. See Spencer's talk on how he, a catastrophic-man mad-global-warning skeptic would be counted in  97% and so are many if the skeptics.

Man-contribute-to-measurable-temperature-increase is very different from man-is-the-main-contributor-to-catastrophic-global-warming.

Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #788 on: February 23, 2016, 09:12:40 pm »

How appropriate that this thread has made a home for all types of anti-science types trolls.

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

Which is perfectly acceptable around here, providing the person who you're having the debate with is arguing for free energy and against the scientific consensus on thermodynamics. But oh no, if they're arguing against anthropogenic climate change it's a cardinal sin.


Well if calling someone "anti-science" or a "troll" for posting anti-science stuff or for trolling is an ad hominem then I admit guilt - but of course by that definition then Dave and many others here use ad hominems frequently and that is acceptable - as you say.  Using descriptive labels to describe someones oft repeated position or postings is just normal shorthand and used by almost everyone (including Zapta) when they hold opinions they disagree with.

That is fine in my book as long as they are then willing to back up the label with an argument as to why the label is appropriate.

I also feel it is perfectly acceptable to point out when someone is using an ad hominem (please spare us the latin defintions though ::)) - just don't cry foul when the reason for the label is laid out and backed up with logical argument. Once they do that they've negated the ad hominem.

I enjoy a good debate about any topic but crying "ad hominem" or for "civility" in lieu of actually refuting the other sides argument with logic and/or credible evidence just doesn't do much for me - and is usually hypocritical and just a passive aggressive attack itself.   Attacking ones argument, no matter how voraciously, is not a personal attack and IME when it is cried out in the middle of a debate it's meant to distract from the debate and just means you have no reasoned response to the other sides position.



 
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #789 on: February 23, 2016, 09:38:47 pm »
I find it odd that many people here seem to be fine with the scientific consensus on evolution but have a problem with anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps it's propaganda from the fossil fuel companies?


Because the later is a fake consensus. See Spencer's talk on how he, a catastrophic-man mad-global-warning skeptic would be counted in  97% and so are many if the skeptics.

The problem is Spencer's opinion is not justified by the actual  facts.   There are several studies not that have all confirmed the consensus. I have posted these before but here they are one more time:

See here,here,and here.

Within those links are both  original research articles and summaries with links to the underlying research.

There are now several studies - some looking at the published research and some surveying the opinion of climate scientists. They all confirm that there is a consensus on the matter - that AGW is real.

Here's an example of the question they asked climate scientists in one of the studies on which there was a consensus "yes"
Quote
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?


Quote from: zapta
Man-contribute-to-measurable-temperature-increase is very different from man-is-the-main-contributor-to-catastrophic-global-warming.

The term "catastrophic" is a term you use over and over but it is not part of the science of AGW.   But I am glad to see you now agree at least that there is scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming. Even if only a partial truth -that's progress!   :-+
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #790 on: February 23, 2016, 10:49:54 pm »
The problem is Spencer's opinion is not justified by the actual  facts.   There are several studies not that have all confirmed the consensus. I have posted these before but here they are one more time: ...

Yes, several studies that 'confirm', but also studies and data that indicate that the models exaggerate the warming and the human casual.  Check for example the interview with Christy. In science there are no proofs, just refutations, and one is sufficient.

Quote from: zapta
Man-contribute-to-measurable-temperature-increase is very different from man-is-the-main-contributor-to-catastrophic-global-warming.

The term "catastrophic" is a term you use over and over but it is not part of the science of AGW.

Well, the all the alarms are based on the catastrophic aspects, not just on a measurable man-caused temperature increase.

But I am glad to see you now agree at least that there is scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming. Even if only a partial truth -that's progress!   :-+

I am glad that you are glad but you could be just as glad at the beginning of this conversation. I didn't said man induced CO2 forcing don't cause a measurable temperature increase.  I said that the claims of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming are grossly exaggerated. A good lie is based on a kernel of truth.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #791 on: February 23, 2016, 11:23:57 pm »
The problem is Spencer's opinion is not justified by the actual  facts.   There are several studies not that have all confirmed the consensus. I have posted these before but here they are one more time: ...

Yes, several studies that 'confirm', but also studies and data that indicate that the models exaggerate the warming and the human casual.  Check for example the interview with Christy. In science there are no proofs, just refutations, and one is sufficient.

Christy is again giving an opinion - not backed by any facts. That is not a refutation. (Never mind that Christy, along with Spencer have been caught publishing erroneous data several times),

Quote
I am glad that you are glad but you could be just as glad at the beginning of this conversation. I didn't said man induced CO2 forcing don't cause a measurable temperature increase.
  Then why make several statements and post several purposely misleading graphs meant to distort the truth and imply that the earth is not warming?

Quote
I said that the claims of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming are grossly exaggerated. A good lie is based on a kernel of truth.

Catastrophic is not a scientific term and I've seen no one use it on this forum other than you.  Or are you again accusing the climate science community of lying. If so, please offer some evidence.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #792 on: February 24, 2016, 01:48:02 am »
Catastrophic is not a scientific term and I've seen no one use it on this forum other than you.

Good. The predictions of the catastrophic outcomes of man made CO2 emissions are not part of the scientific consensus. I am glad to see this progress.

https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-facts-dangers-and-what-you-can-do
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #793 on: February 24, 2016, 03:35:17 am »
Catastrophic is not a scientific term and I've seen no one use it on this forum other than you.

Good. The predictions of the catastrophic outcomes of man made CO2 emissions are not part of the scientific consensus. I am glad to see this progress.

https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-facts-dangers-and-what-you-can-do

Yep. Catastrophe is not a scientific term and is used by those who wish to sensationalize the issue. It is not used by climate scientists when discussing the science. It never was.

There is a new study published in PNAS that showed that the sea level rise in the 20th century was faster than in any of the previous 27 centuries. As quoted in a nice summary of the study by the NY Times, one of the primary authors of another study that looked at the implications of the this research says:

Quote
“I think we need a new way to think about most coastal flooding,” said Benjamin H. Strauss, the primary author of one of two related studies released on Monday. “It’s not the tide. It’s not the wind. It’s us. That’s true for most of the coastal floods we now experience.”

It's up to the public to make a judgement as to whether the outcome of that, if the trend continues, will be "catastrophic" or not. That is not the job of the scientist.

Also in that article is a nice link to a well done summary of the issues surrounding climate change.  It's worth a look:

Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #794 on: February 24, 2016, 04:29:40 am »
There is a new study published in PNAS that showed that the sea level rise in the 20th century was faster than in any of the previous 27 centuries.

Why stop there? Here is a wider perspective:



The current data I saw suggest a rate of ~20"/century.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2016, 04:33:13 am by zapta »
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #795 on: February 24, 2016, 04:33:32 am »
There is a new study published in PNAS that showed that the sea level rise in the 20th century was faster than in any of the previous 27 centuries.

Why stop there? Here is a wider perspective:


.

The current data I saw suggest a rate of ~20"/century rise.


I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. Please explain
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #796 on: February 24, 2016, 05:10:02 am »
Since you haven't responded, let me guess: You're trying to imply that because there was a very large sea level rise between 20k and 8k years ago, that somehow makes the unprecedented in the common era rise over the last century unimportant?

If so then you are either being purposely misleading or you don't understand that the very large sea level rise between 20k and 8k years ago was due to the end of the last ice age. See where is says "last glacial maximum"? That is the peak glaciation of the last ice age. As the ice age ended and all that ice melted sea levels rose quite a bit - duh. But why stop there - why not plot the previous interglacial periods where sea levels drop and rose again?

Where did you get your 20" /century rise number - from averaging in the post ice age melt rise?  ::)
You wouldn't be purposely trying to misrepresent the history of sea level change would you? I hope not.
This is an engineering forum - that kind of thing will not fly.

The history of sea level rise immediately following the last ice age is irrelevant to the question of how the rate of sea level change over the last century relates to the rate of sea level change over the previous 27 centuries. If you read the study I linked to you'll see that the whole point is that the rate of change has acclerated dramatically and the only explanation is the global warming that has occured during that period.

Below you'll find a few plots from that that study:

The first one shows global sea-level change and associated global temperature anomaly.

The second one shows counterfactual hindcasts of global mean sea-level rise in the absence of AGW.

As the authors conclude:

Quote
Counterfactual hindcasts with this model indicate that it is extremely likely (P=0.95P=0.95) that less than about half of the observed 20th century GSL rise would have occurred in the absence of global warming, and that it is very likely (P=0.90P=0.90) that, without global warming, 20th century GSL rise would have been between ?3 cm and +7 cm, rather than the observed 14 cm. Forward projections indicate a very likely 21st century GSL rise of 52–131 cm under RCP 8.5 and 24–61 cm under RCP 2.6, values that provide greater consistency with process model-based projections preferred by AR5 than previous semiempirical projections.


 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #797 on: February 24, 2016, 05:53:00 am »
Since you haven't responded, let me guess: You're trying to imply that because there was a very large sea level rise between 20k and 8k years ago, that somehow makes the unprecedented in the common era rise over the last century unimportant?

This puts things in perspective.

As for the predictions in your post, that's nice, now let's see if they will materialize (don't confuse models with data).

So far sea level rises at a fix rate of 40cm/Century despite an increase in CO2 level.



http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2015rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
« Last Edit: February 24, 2016, 05:55:48 am by zapta »
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #798 on: February 24, 2016, 06:35:04 am »

So far sea level rises at a fix rate of 40cm/Century despite an increase in CO2 level.




I'm not sure how much can be concluded from only 20 years of data from one dataset,  but nevertheless what the plot actually shows it a linear rate of increase in sea level which of course correlates very well with the rate of temperature rise and rate of CO2 level rise over the same period.

Oh yeah - and 3.3mm/year = 33 cm/century not 40 - a rate that has been slowly increasing over the last century as the study I referenced shows. Keep in mind that with any curve - a small enough slice will appear linear.

Don't take this personally but you might want to look into a course in data analysis - (just sayin').   BTW - I've noticed you have excellent coding skills - something I am weak on (in fact I'm currently struggling through homework for an online embedded programming course) - we all have our strengths and weaknesses.

In any case, thanks for posting real data and especially a link to its primary source.  :-+
« Last Edit: February 24, 2016, 06:50:01 am by mtdoc »
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #799 on: February 24, 2016, 06:46:32 am »
Don't take this personally but you might want to look into a course in data analysis - (just sayin').

Well, well, well, we are getting cocky now.
Drain the swamp.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf