Italian is a romantic language and a complete language in that it has been refined over the last 2 thousand years from its predecessor , Latin, and is not easily prone to change. German and French are the same. English is a developing language and is both changing and complex. So in learning Italian one has to simplify many English expressions into one. English has mixed in Gaelic, Latin and German/Dutch components from various occupations, both military and religious and is still able to accommodate new words from it’s Commonwealth and colonial times.
The theme today is to help understand the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs which is important for the use of verbs in the past tense.
Also to throw a light on how languages are made up and insight into the words used.
This came about as I was trying to describe a trip overseas on an aeroplane.
I went abroad on an aeroplane. I flew in the sky.
Sono andato all éstero su un aero. Ho voluto nel cielo.
The plane took off and landed several times.
L’aero e decollato ed e atterrato più volte?
The plane did a loop the loop and made a bank to the left.
L’aero ha fatto il giro dell’anello e ha fatto una sponda a sinestra.
The interesting words here are take off and landing both of which refer to an action [verbs are action] affecting only the subject itself hence taking essere in the past tense. These verbs are intransitive. An intransitive verb is a verb that does not take a direct object.
Transitive verbs use avere which goes with verbs that have an object. As in I hit the ball, subject Myself, action hitting, object the ball. A transitive verb because the subject is not moving and the object is being affected.
Sometimes the subject is not visible in the sentence but it is implied. An object, the plane, is needed to be able to fly in the sky. hence the past uses avere not essere.
Now a terra is a way of saying “to ground or earth” in Italian . In this case going to ground has changed into a verb “to land” as in to land. Atterrare. Atterro I land
da collo means from the neck or from the hill and was also an old english term for beheading. As a verb in Italian it means both to take off from the ground or to take off a head. Decollere. Decollo I take off.
I hope this small example helps you progress in leaps and bounds. or “a passi da gigante.” In giant steps.
Arctic ice. Melting away at an incredible rate or just a fiction.
Satellite records, used in the past by the IPCC from 1973 but now only shown from 1979 show a rapidly decreasing ice pack with occasional large drops and some smaller large gains.
What should the actual volume be in a world with a an average annual global temperature of say14.8 C. How much different would it have been 168 years ago with an average temp of 14 C How much should have melted in in that time. How much should it be melting per year?
Now the gist of the problem. How much variability per year and per 10 years and per 30 years is involved in the melting? A recent small event documented in the Arctic Sea Ice blogs [Neven] shows the problem acutely.
Those poor souls who like to watch yacht races or grass growing have nothing on ice watchers. This year there was an incredible fuss about whether we would have the lowest satellite extent on record [just failed]
1.1111 9.9999 = 11
o.000 actually moust be 0.0000 pos or neg
Natural variability in the Arctic Sea Ice Extent
This metric is often used as a metaphor for global warming as the Arctic Sea Ice has suffered several large falls in the last 4 decades on top of a general decline.
However analysis of events show an alarming under-assessment of the actual amount of natural variability that can occur. This in turn throws doubt on how reliable the actual data patterns are.
The first domino was a rise of the total global sea ice to the highest level for that metric in December 2014 when it briefly, after 30 years of records and 30 years of global warming attained that record. At that time the Antarctic Ice had made a concerted rise of over 2 1/2 SD and in conjunction with a reasonable Arctic extent passed all satellite recorded levels for that time of year.
The Antarctic then dropped to a 2 1/2 SD low in less than a year leading to a 3 year period of lower than normal extent which in combination with a big drop in extent of Arctic ice in 2016 led to a nearly 8 SD variation in less than 2 years.
That is an amazing amount if the SD are correct. It is something that should happen only once in 500 years and would indicated, if correct, warming on an unexpected scale.
Cue this year with the Arctic ice. Despite gloomy prognostications based on a low winter maximum extent, the ice, aided by an unexpectedly large volume for the extent refused to shrink and ended up the 6th lowest for the summer. It then failed to freeze up as expected, dropping to the 2nd lowest recovery extent for a few days before a massive rise from 2nd to 13th place over 3 weeks of freezing with many days over 100,000 sq K despite above average arctic air temperatures.
No sooner than it had done this it went into hibernation for 2 weeks dropping back to second lowest. A small recovery and then today one of the largest increases I have seen, vis.
(JAXA)] ASI Extent.December 16th, 2018: 11,752,725 km2, an increase of 263,728 km2. 2018 is now the 9th lowest on record.
My observation is this, with movement ranges mid melting or freezing varying between negative to 270,000 sq K in a single day, with ice volumes going from 2 1/2 plus SD to -5 in 2 years we do not have a handle on the year to year let alone decadal Arctic and global sea ice extents. The causes of melt and freeze are much more than simple air temperature or albedo, the currents and the temperatures they run at up to a year after they come from the tropics are very poorly understood.
My suggestion to both sides is that they are best not used to support the global warming theory as the variabilty is too great to make any satisfactory argument either way.
Yo yo ice, probability and natural variation..
While everyone has been focusing on CO2 and MGST a funny thing has been happening [at the forum] with the sea ice extents this last 8 months. Which should cause some scratching of heads and readjustments in the range we currently give to natural variability, in our assessment of the causes of sea ice growth and the reliability of Arctic and Antarctic temperature recording.
2018 had the lowest winter maximum extent of the last 40 years of the satellite record despite a promising early regrowth. As such it was expected that it could set a new low record for the minimum summer extent comparable to that of 2016. Arctic temperatures fluctuated much higher than average though possibly on a par with the last 4 years during the melting season. Robust claims were made but the ice stubbornly refused to play along. Arctic hurricanes and large sea swells were predicted to break it up very quickly but the ice stubbornly sat there melting very slowly on top of an even more unexpected slow volume loss.
Consequently when the minimum arrived despite the heroic high temperatures it had gone from the lowest maximum extent to the 8th lowest minimum in September. Skeptics were crowing and then it refused to refreeze dropping rapidly to the second lowest recovering extent in October.
Then weirdness set in with pockets of quick refreeze in November in areas, Barents and Chukchi, which were sadly lacking the previous year. The East Siberian Sea, stalwart in not melting early but a long slow late melt refroze overnight [well not quite but rapidly]. The Hudson Bay started to freeze and November offered up an impossible freezing sequence of 16 days of way well above average freezing rates despite the high temperatures. From 2nd lowest to 13th or 14th lowest in that time. Unprecedented, alarming freezing. The trend went from below 2010 to equal to the 2010 average and then, almost, to the 2000 average in that 16 days. Why? Silence.
As suddenly as it did the freeze it stopped. 2 weeks of below par freezing brought it back to the 2nd lowest. Then two human comedies. NASA mucked up with a graph on incomplete data that showed an impossible regrowth day that took 3 days to correct. Finally the last week into December. Ice growth recouped again helped by a shuffle at the end of December where growth rates are reset by the algorithms they use which give a jump to reflect an offset that develops each month [Masking].
Currently we sit in 8th place with a steep rise occurring and looking likely to continue.
What is to like? A recovery of sorts from the warm weather and currents stimulated by the 2016 El Nino and the 2017 rewarmth has occurred as expected due to the warming lag in these events finally wearing off. Further melting rate increase might occur in 4 months when the 2018 baby El Nino currents again reach the Arctic. This recovery might be big enough to give all concerned pause for thought as to how we should be assessing Arctic variability.
What is not to like? When 16 days can give a fluctuation that should normally take 10 or more years to develop without due cause [unpredicted, unprecedented] The problem is not with the fluctuations but the concept of how much natural variation is actually capable of occurring. These results strongly suggest that variability in the Arctic is much greater than the trends of the last 40 years predict.
The take home message is good for both sides. The last 10 years of data show a slowdown or pause in melting which might be the bottom of a cycle that is going to turn upwards if we choose to believe in 60 yar cycles. For warmists the fact that such large fluctuations can exist [independent of CO2 and surface temperatures] means there is also an outside chance of further large downward fluctuations.
JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 6,731,603 km2?October 24, 2018?- Extent is lowest in the satellite record- Extent increase at 156 k is about 55 k ABOVE the average (2008-2017) on this day, JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 6,933,069 km2?October 25, 2018?- Extent is 2nd lowest in the satellite record, – Extent increase at 201 k is about 110 k ABOVE the average (2008-2017) on this JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 7,182,053 km2?October 26, 2018?- Extent is 3rd lowest in the satellite record, – Extent increase at 249 k is nearly 160 k ABOVE the average (2008-2017) on this day, JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 8,624,638 km2?November 5, 2018?- Extent is 4th lowest in the satellite record, JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 9,278,237 km2?November 14, 2018?– Extent is 6th lowest in the satellite record, JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 10,272,807 km2?November 22, 2018?– Extent is 13th lowest in the satellite record. JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 11,197,247 km2?December 11, 2018?– Extent is 2nd lowest (JAXA)] ASI Extent. December 16th, 2018: [The error] 11,752,725 km2, an increase of 263,728 km2. 2018 is now the 9th lowest on record. JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 11,752,393 km2?December 22, 2018? – Extent is 4th lowest JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 11,871,945 km2?December 28, 2018? – Extent is 2nd lowest JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 12,590,152 km2?January 4, 2019 – Extent is 8th lowest
There is one dimension of time and three dimensions of space.
Cé un dimensione di tempo e tre dimensioni di spazio.
The use of verbs is fundamental to speaking Italian but there are major differences in meaning and idiom and style which can only be built up slowly.
All language can be thought of as a composition of three units which form a sentence which is either a question [demand] or an answer [statement]. The units are a subject an object and a link or verb.The rest is descriptive verbiage to modify any or all of the three.
Now in English the language differentiates between a question and an answer by adding the words do [must be] or could [should could be should be] or possibly or want or need how much. what amount when, why, where, who, which and how. A second way is to turn the staement inside out putting the verb in front of the person. Not to mention Well… [tag question]! An interrogative word or question word is a function word used to ask a question, such as what, when, where, who, whom, why, and how. They are sometimes called wh-words, because in English most of them start with wh-
A particular type of interrogative word is the interrogative particle, which serves to convert a statement into a yes–no question, without having any other meaning. est-ce que in French, (The English word whether has a similar function but only in indirect questions; and Multicultural London English may use “innit”, [ I ask whether/ if ] Ask itself.
While these words exist and may be used in Italian, most statements as said and written can be either a question or an answer. Which is not the case in English. The Italians differentiate by context and intonation, an unwritten emphasis on the loudness of the syllables. A louder personal prefix is more likely to be a question whereas an emphasis on the verb makes it a statement.
When wishing to form a question the Italians otherwise use the 4 modal verbs to want to to need to to be able to and to know how to.
What Is a Question? This question may seem obvious (clear), but it’s good to review. There are generally three types of sentences: statements, commands and questions. Statements are sentences that state (tell) information:Commands are sentences that give orders (tell people to do actions). This is also sometimes called the “imperative.”Questions are sentences that ask for information. [pinched] Careful: Exception! If the main verb of the sentence is some form of “to be,” it goes in the auxiliary position. Here are a few examples: Are you ready?
My name is Elizabeth Lee. One of my husband’s favourite Aunt’s has asked me to do a small introduction today at the launch of yet another amazing book. So here is a part of her story, mainly an understanding of her, why she has chosen this story to tell is up to her.
Vivienne Worthington, nee Gathercole, was one of 6 children of Harold and May Gathercole, long term Panton Hill residents. Her families connections go back to the early days of Panton Hill , but obviously not as far back as some, or we would be talking about Gathercole Hill instead. Vivienne spent most of her early life up to 20 here and still returned with her family to the farm at Alma road to see her Mum and Dad every Christmas and in between for 40 years.
Her interest was piqued by coming across a member of the Panton family and realising that Panton Hill had a beginning and history that she was not aware of and many a tale to tell. who were the first settlers, who were the Panton’s, how did the village get it’s name, what happened to them and others in those times and since.
Vivienne was helped in her endeavors by work she had previously done locally on her family tree which led to a lot of local genealogical knowledge.Growing up in Panton Hill she knew people to talk to and had also absorbed a lot of local knowledge on places in the area and which sites to look up information on.
Vivienne’s passion for writing and history has developed later in her life after meeting her second husband and having the time to devote to writing which he supported. She is one of those people who has taken to the computer age with gusto developing dormant abilities. She has written a book on the Eureka stockade from a viewpoint of the women involved and one on the Pioneer Bus company, both being related to family members who had involvement. This book fills in an important part of the early pioneering history of this area and community and the people who helped create it .
Serendipity is the term for unexpected fortunate occurrences. I think I will find the book more interesting due to connections with Shepparton where we live to Panton Hill. One of the chemists here for many years was a Panton. And the McPherson family who settled here and ran our newspapers were among the earliest settlers of Panton Hill.
Vivienne has produced another good book to digest. has developed an easy reading style which encompasses a lot of research yet is still enjoyable to read.
With no further ado I present Mrs Vivienne Worthington.
Children.
1. “Although CO2 absorbs thermal radiation from the Earth, it emits more. Carbon dioxide is in thermal deficit in terms of radiative balance.”
No.
CO2 is not the sun. It is not an energy production molecule.
CO2 absorbs energy, from LW or from collisions. It releases same.
It cannot emit more than it absorbs in a re-energising environment [energy from the sun.
Children
gymnosperm says: October 8, 2018 at 3:34 pm “Trouble is, you’re both right.”
We have the problem that Roger believes that all is due to Pressure, gravity height and Brandon that CO2 causes all the fuss.
Impressive scientific arguments for both sides.
Let us call it a draw with some acknowledgement of Brandon’s argument [yuk].
The reality is that pressure, gravity height acting on a body of air of known composition does, must determine the temperature[s] of said body of air.
Indisputably.
However said body of air will differ markedly if its composition included greenhouse gases of any variety, including CO2.
Not exactly noted by Nikolic but not disputed by him either.
In other words the heat retaining capacity of CO2 alters the temperature and the height at which CO2 emits to space.
It does not happen in a vacuum.
The O2 and N do heat up by collision and receive and transmit energy by collision to and with CO2 molecules.
You are both right.
Yeah, as my teenage son would say.
Acknowledgements welcome.
also unga from which we get fingernail part ungal in English
scarper to run off escape in E is scarpare to run in I and ? Shoe
shimmy to shake in a dress move so quick hard to see or climb a tree comes from schimmia a monkey in I
So learning the verb variation after unsurety the subjunctive.
Just when you thought you know the verbs they throw this in.
Why is it called a mood anyway?a variation of mode or style or way, in time?
Common in Italian, rare in English. Guesses, indefinite may could might should would perhapssubjectivity opposed to objectivity or thought as opposed to action Essere not avere.
Pensare to think credere to believe ( interesting that a belief is not in fact a fact!] sperare to hope dubitare to doubt Valerie to want desiderare to desire avere Laura to be afraid and non sapere ie to (not) know.
What others could there be non conoscere and non capiscere.
it is used in secondary joining expressions after an indicative or conditional main clause, joined by che, Perche and the subject of the joint clause is not the subject of the indicative clause
the present covers present and future actions now and will
replace the present tense first person o with i for are, first 3 tenses and iamo iate and ino for the next 3. Now we iamo is the same in present and subjunctive present future forms the only one.
ere goes to a not i, ire goes to a as well with the plural 3rd person going to ano . iscere (ire) goes to isca and iscano
however if the subject in the dependent clause is the same as in the main clause Di and the infinitive is used (wow) instead of che and the subjunctive
spesso di comprare una auto.
care and gare add an h giocchi,
ciare and giare do not
covered has an irregular dobbiate plural you subjunctive instead of doviate
the plural third person has two usable forms in both indicative and subjunctive devono debbono and devano debbano as well as this word coming from dove but full of devo roots devo can be debbo and subjunctive is deva or debba
An idea came to me to populate my mind with all the characters I know as clones of myself. Thus I could put one to learning Italian, one mathematics [or maybe 20] one personal relationships etc so that my mind, in running said clones, could experience all that they learn as well as what I am focused on.
Stock market would be good as well.
Now how much autonomy if any can I give and how far can I divorce myself from myself?
gravity exists for all practical purposes but it is a byproduct of the alteration of time space by mass.
A bit like that quote from the Rocky Horror Show “I’ll remove the cause but not the sensation”
So an object for instance can only move in a straight line in it’s own time space but the space time warps in the presence of other mass space times.
weird concept.
Another is that the force of gravity in a normal orbit at 350 kilometers is 9/10ths that at the surface of the earth even if you are floating weightless in a spacecraft.
“Can we use ocean temperatures in the Arctic to predict temperatures in Europe?”
led to my favorite trope, the length of time to put up blogs on observations when they do not agree with your blog purpose and the increasing number of responses when they so. Possibly a paper in this.
The temperature on skeptical blogs seems to go up when the temperature goes down and vice versa for warmist sites.
Sea ice extent , area and volume is another.
I may try a backwards prediction, 2 weekly, on arctic sea ice growth this year. Hint comment in 2 weeks to focus on that small patch off ice off Alaska [if it still exists].
Otherwise this thread will vanish…
Well this will end up with egg on the face [mine]. Foolish to try to predict Arctic ice anytime. Nonetheless I want to believe in a very good growth year even though it started out well the last 2 years and fizzled.
Differences?
Deeper thicker ice this year and a cooler globe post El Nino should act as catalysts for an amazing early ice rebound. The small patch of Alaska, if it does not melt, will act as a seeding to actively speed up ice regrowth in this area. Then there is the ESS to consider!
angech
Children.
1. “Although CO2 absorbs thermal radiation from the Earth, it emits more. Carbon dioxide is in thermal deficit in terms of radiative balance.”
No.
CO2 is not the sun. It is not an energy production molecule.
CO2 absorbs energy, from LW or from collisions. It releases same.
It cannot emit more than it absorbs in a re-energising environment [energy from the sun.