Change-over to enewable energy

On Sep 25, 5:15 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 25, 5:06 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

I particularly enjoyed the rarified scientific objectivity of the
section entitled "Talking Points."

The complete lable is "Conclusions: A Personal Note - Talking Points
(pdf)"

It is a bit odd of you to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" in
something indexed as a "personal note" - less odd for you to pretend
to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" and carefully omit the
"personal note" part of the title. Such little sleighs of hand are
part and parcel of your debating style.


I expect objectivity in conclusions.  Are you saying that you do not
expect objectivity in the conclusions?

That document linked pretty well admits a basic point John, I, and the
esteemed Mr. Horde have made several times: that the models do not
derive from any fundamental understanding of the physical systems, and
so are not "models" in the true sense; but are merely the work of
curve-fitting finaglers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/Weart_APS_News_2-06.pdf
"The modelers can get these
results only by adjusting a lot of
parameters that are poorly known,
such as the numbers in the model
that tell how clouds are formed."

We said that years ago, so Bill called us idiots.

Curve-fitting predicts the past wonderfully, just not the future.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 25/09/2011 11:23 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sep 25, 2:31 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 23/09/2011 12:29 AM,BillSlomanwrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Where is the supply and load modelling?

In so far as it exists

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

Or is it, as I suspect, just a lot of hand waving?

It's fairly high-level hand-waving. Anything more authoratitive would
cost serious money to put together.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The problem is that just adding power capacities together, or in the
case of wind and solar[*], average capacities, doesn't tell you what you
want to know, which is the probability of a supply shortfall that cannot
be addressed by contractually based load shedding.

The modelling needs to look at variability in supply and demand using
real meteorological data, including appropriate failure probabilities
for both generators and transmission equipment, and come up with a
defensible probability. Having established a model of a system that
gives an acceptable probability (no worse than we currently have, I'd
suggest), we'd have a basis for determining the cost.

Without that, it's not a plan, it's just wishful thinking. Yes, the
modelling would be expensive, but no one, other than the converted, will
take any notice if it's not done.

[*] I'm ignoring wave power because it's such a trivial amount anyway,
and almost certainly not worth doing.

Sylvia.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 26, 2:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:15 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:









On Sep 25, 5:06 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

I particularly enjoyed the rarified scientific objectivity of the
section entitled "Talking Points."

The complete lable is "Conclusions: A Personal Note - Talking Points
(pdf)"

It is a bit odd of you to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" in
something indexed as a "personal note" - less odd for you to pretend
to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" and carefully omit the
"personal note" part of the title. Such little sleighs of hand are
part and parcel of your debating style.

I expect objectivity in conclusions.  Are you saying that you do not
expect objectivity in the conclusions?

That document linked pretty well admits a basic point John, I, and the
esteemed Mr. Horde have made several times: that the models do not
derive from any fundamental understanding of the physical systems, and
so are not "models" in the true sense; but are merely the work of
curve-fitting finaglers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/Weart_APS_News_2-06.pdf
  "The modelers can get these
   results only by adjusting a lot of
   parameters that are poorly known,
   such as the numbers in the model
   that tell how clouds are formed."

We said that years ago, so Bill called us idiots.

Curve-fitting predicts the past wonderfully, just not the future.

The idiocy involved is in describing the work of people trying to put
together self-consistent and vaguely plausible models as "curve-
fitting finagling". Curve fitting - as such - can predict the past
wonderfully, if you merely plug in enough parameters. It's well known
to be a pointless exercise - the stuff I was reading on curve-fitting
back when I was a graduate student in the 1960s spelled this out
perectly clearly - and serious academics wouldn't waste their time on
it.

The climatology community does see some point in putting together
models that more or less work, and they do test them against reality.

They can only test them against the past.

I can do a very accurate polynomial curve fit to the data from a
random process. Its predictive value will still be worthless.

Let's have your ideas of what they should be doing. You are about as
good an approximation to a climatologist as you are to an economist,
so I don't expect anything useful, but you may succeed in amusing us.

Economic models don't seem to be especially predictive either.

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 26, 2:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 25, 5:15 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:









On Sep 25, 5:06 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

I particularly enjoyed the rarified scientific objectivity of the
section entitled "Talking Points."

The complete lable is "Conclusions: A Personal Note - Talking Points
(pdf)"

It is a bit odd of you to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" in
something indexed as a "personal note" - less odd for you to pretend
to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" and carefully omit the
"personal note" part of the title. Such little sleighs of hand are
part and parcel of your debating style.

I expect objectivity in conclusions.  Are you saying that you do not
expect objectivity in the conclusions?

That document linked pretty well admits a basic point John, I, and the
esteemed Mr. Horde have made several times: that the models do not
derive from any fundamental understanding of the physical systems, and
so are not "models" in the true sense; but are merely the work of
curve-fitting finaglers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/Weart_APS_News_2-06.pdf
  "The modelers can get these
   results only by adjusting a lot of
   parameters that are poorly known,
   such as the numbers in the model
   that tell how clouds are formed."

We said that years ago, so Bill called us idiots.

Curve-fitting predicts the past wonderfully, just not the future.

The idiocy involved is in describing the work of people trying to put
together self-consistent and vaguely plausible models as "curve-
fitting finagling". Curve fitting - as such - can predict the past
wonderfully, if you merely plug in enough parameters. It's well known
to be a pointless exercise - the stuff I was reading on curve-fitting
back when I was a graduate student in the 1960s spelled this out
perectly clearly - and serious academics wouldn't waste their time on
it.

The climatology community does see some point in putting together
models that more or less work, and they do test them against reality.

Let's have your ideas of what they should be doing. You are about as
good an approximation to a climatologist as you are to an economist,
so I don't expect anything useful, but you may succeed in amusing us.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 26, 1:23 am, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

dcas...@krl.org wrote:
On Sep 24, 6:10 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The argument that anthropogenic global warming is going on isn't
"green", it is scientific. People who disagree with it are either
ignorant or paid-for members of the denialist propaganda machine.

And we  have a true believer.  Anyone that does not agree withBill
can expect to receive the full treatment.

Every time I hear the likes of Sloman chant "Scientific!" I think of
The Scientific People from "The Stars My Destination," by Alfred Bester.

"Quant Suff! Quant Suff!"

Granting how little you know about science, I might as well be
chanting "quant suff". If you knew a little more, my output might make
more sense to you.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 26, 12:59 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 25, 11:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 25, 9:25 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 11:10 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:14 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:57 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 7:38 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 5:12 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 2:05 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 23, 8:50 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 23, 6:40 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

   Theoretically, these sources are useful for local loads in
specialized situations.

That's the current situation with solar panels. Mark Z.Jacobson and
Mark A.Delucchi are envisaging a thousand-fold larger market with the
consequent economies of scale.

Sufficiently large thermal solar plants seem to be close enough to
break-even that if we built enough of them to supplyu 20% of our total
energy needs.simple economy of scale would put them ahead of burning
fossil carbon (and that isn't going to stay cheap as we burn up all
the most easily extracted stuff and have to compete with the chineses
and the Indians for what's left).

   Economically, they are disasters - the government involvement (read:
interference) is proof.

And burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow isn't already a
disaster? Not as big a disaster as we'll have to cope with if we keep
at it until we've raised the global average temperatures by another
degree Celcius or two. We've already raised the temperature of the
Artic by some 3 to 4 degrees Celcius over the past century, and the
Greenland ice sheet is already sliding off into the ocean at an
alarming rate. There's six metres of sea level rise in the Greenland
ice sheet, and rebuilding every port around the world could be rather
expensive.

yes, global warming will cost us all money one way or another. But
what it would take to avoid it, if thats even possible,  would cost us
enormously more. That is the massivest flaw of the whole green agenda

Think about the Younger Dryas, which was a hiccup in the thawing
process that ended the last Ice Age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Basically, the Gulf Stream turned off for 1300 years, probably due to
massive amounts of fresh water being dumped in the North Atlantic when
the Laurentian ice sheet slid off into the ocean. The Greenland ice
sheet isn't as big, and doesn't show any immediate signs of sliding
off into the ocean as a single lump, but it might be able to do as
well. Do you want to find out if it is big enough and unstable enough
by seeing it happen?

We don't know what could happen if we let global temperatures rise by
another degree Celcius or so, and we probably shouldn't indulge our
curiousity by waiting to see what does happen. If the final state of
the planet is incompatible with the advanced industrial civilisation
we've got at the moment, inaction will cost us everything we've got.
That the massive flaw in the denialist argument.

Suggesting that 'the final state of the planet is incompatible with
the advanced industrial civilisation' is a massively flawed claim.

Alright. It is a wrst case argument so,

"If the final state of the planet were incompatible with the advanced
industrial civilisation we've got at the moment, inaction would cost
us everything we've got. That the massive flaw in the denialist
argument."

I don't think you can argue with that.

It's bonkers.

That's not an argument.

No. None was needed.

Then you've got a seriously defective imagination. Just think what a
re-run of the Younger Dryas would involve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

can't predict the detailed effects of anthropogenic global warming
with enough precision to absolutely justify doing anything to stop it,
but the flip side of that argument is that we can't predict the kinds
of things that have happened during warming episode - like runaway
methane release as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - and
should be correspondingly cautious.

it makes more sense to look at both approaches, evalute, and pick the
one with better survival figures.

Evaluate? How in heavens name do we evaluate the sort of non-linear
process that turned off the Gulf-stream during the Younger Dryas? The

Then lets start with what we can model, at least approximately. If you
slot your figures into my other post, we'll see where we stand.

IPCC won't even consider that kind of risk, because they can't model
them, which strikes me as downright irresponsible.

We need to recognise that turning the global thermostat up a few
degrees may have unexpected consequences, and chicken out.

That isn't the green option.

Please specify what you think the "green" option actually is.

A sizeable price hike on energy, due mainly to reduction in use of
fossil fuels, and an assortment of fiddling legislation that only
serves to make most areas of life take longer and cost more.

You've missed the bit about a substantial investment in renewable
energy generation, and the observation that economies of scale will
probably undo most - if not all - of the "sizeable price hike".

No, I havent missed it. It reduces the cost per amount of plant, but
its still a vast investment, and any investment of money has to be
paid for by end users.

Sure. Of course, if we don't make that particular investment, the end
users are eventually going to have other things to worry about, some
of which are more or less predictable, so the IPCC will condescend to
warn us about them, and others which are harder to model - like
turning off the Gulf Stream - which are in the "too hard" basket, even
though they've happened in the geological past in comparable
circumstances.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 25, 11:15 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 25, 5:06 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 25, 6:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 25, 5:17 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 6:10 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The argument that anthropogenic global warming is going on isn't
"green", it is scientific. People who disagree with it are either
ignorant or paid-for members of the denialist propaganda machine.

And we  have a true believer.  Anyone that does not agree withBill
can expect to receive the full treatment.

The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

I particularly enjoyed the rarified scientific objectivity of the
section entitled "Talking Points."

The complete lable is "Conclusions: A Personal Note - Talking Points
(pdf)"

It is a bit odd of you to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" in
something indexed as a "personal note" - less odd for you to pretend
to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" and carefully omit the
"personal note" part of the title. Such little sleighs of hand are
part and parcel of your debating style.

I expect objectivity in conclusions.  Are you saying that you do not
expect objectivity in the conclusions?

The URL is essentially a review of the history of the development of
the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, not a scientific paper on
the subject. The section is labelled "Conclusions: A Personal Note -
Talking Points (pdf)". It doesn't represent itself as any kind of
concluison to the document, but rather as the organisor's conclusions
after he'd put the document together, where any pretension to
objectivity would be inappropriate.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 26, 1:18 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:43:27 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 3:51 pm, Wanderer <wande...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 9:23 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 25, 2:31 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 23/09/2011 12:29 AM,BillSlomanwrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Where is the supply and load modelling?

In so far as it exists

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

Or is it, as I suspect, just a lot of hand waving?

It's fairly high-level hand-waving. Anything more authoratitive would
cost serious money to put together.

--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

It has a great deal of 'appeal to authority'. Pointing to other papers
written by people he agrees with. It does contain data and facts but
none of which support the central argument.

"We recognize that historically, changes to the energy system,
driven at least partly by market forces,have occurred more slowly
than we are envisioning here (e.g., Kramer and Haigh,2009).
However, our plan is for governments to implement policies to
mobilize infrastructure changes more rapidly than would occur if
development were left mainly to the private market."

The authors believe in a centralized planned government solution and
not in private market evolution of the energy infrastructure. They
present little or no arguments to support this assertion.

Private markets evolve to make more money in the short term. Exxon-
Mobil's response to the discovery of anthropogenic global warming was
to spend a lot of money on persuading the public that anthopogenic
global warming wasn't actually happening.

Central government can - under sufficient pressure from the voters -
be persuaded to take a rather longer-term view. If they can, we have a
chance to do something about anthropogenic global warming before the
progressing change in climate starts eating into our capacity to move
over to renewable and sustainable energy sources.

The authors don't need to present any arguments to support this
proposition. It's perfectly obvious that if central government can't
be persuaded to take the initiative, our current industrialised
civilisation is doomed, and very few of our great-grandchildren will
live long enough to reproduce, though rather more may last long enough
to curse their irresponsible great-grandparents.

Are you seriously suggesting that AGW will kill off the great majority
of the population of the planet in 40 years or so?

I was thinking more like sixty years ahead ...

There are some scenarios where it could. They all depend on not-easily-
predicted effects, like the Greenland ice-sheet deciding to slide off
into the sea as a whole, or loads of methane ice deciding to melt
because the local ocean currents are suddenly warmer.

Insane.

Nowhere near as insane as saying that global warming is going to be
good for you, and ignoring the risks that it could be very bad indeed.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Sep 25, 10:10 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 26, 2:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:15 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 25, 5:06 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

I particularly enjoyed the rarified scientific objectivity of the
section entitled "Talking Points."

The complete lable is "Conclusions: A Personal Note - Talking Points
(pdf)"

It is a bit odd of you to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" in
something indexed as a "personal note" - less odd for you to pretend
to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" and carefully omit the
"personal note" part of the title. Such little sleighs of hand are
part and parcel of your debating style.

I expect objectivity in conclusions.  Are you saying that you do not
expect objectivity in the conclusions?

That document linked pretty well admits a basic point John, I, and the
esteemed Mr. Horde have made several times: that the models do not
derive from any fundamental understanding of the physical systems, and
so are not "models" in the true sense; but are merely the work of
curve-fitting finaglers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/Weart_APS_News_2-06.pdf
  "The modelers can get these
   results only by adjusting a lot of
   parameters that are poorly known,
   such as the numbers in the model
   that tell how clouds are formed."

We said that years ago, so Bill called us idiots.

Curve-fitting predicts the past wonderfully, just not the future.

The idiocy involved is in describing the work of people trying to put
together self-consistent and vaguely plausible models as "curve-
fitting finagling". Curve fitting - as such - can predict the past
wonderfully, if you merely plug in enough parameters. It's well known
to be a pointless exercise - the stuff I was reading on curve-fitting
back when I was a graduate student in the 1960s spelled this out
perectly clearly - and serious academics wouldn't waste their time on
it.

The climatology community does see some point in putting together
models that more or less work, and they do test them against reality.

The quote flat out says they're hackers, fiddling the coefficients
until they like the result. If you read past that he describes their
method thusly (it only gets worse):

"...one of my
runs ended up with no clouds, other
people had all the water precipitate
as ice at the poles, etc.). Once you
get a set of parameters that gives a
fair approximation to the known
past climate, you can double the
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
and run it again. The results from
thousands of runs with different
parameter sets are revealing. A few
sets of parameters give no warming.
A larger number of sets produces
shockingly large warming, up to
11oC by the end of the century."

Let's have your ideas of what they should be doing. You are about as
good an approximation to a climatologist as you are to an economist,
so I don't expect anything useful, but you may succeed in amusing us.

They should not be rolling dice, then proclaiming it destiny.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 26, 1:28 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 25, 2:21 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

<snip>

and. More of their solar power - 20% of the capacity needed - is
thermal solar, which can store energy as heat.

What do you think the cost would be Mr.Sloman, and the implications
of spending it?

It's Dr.Sloman, if you want the correct honorific and I'll refer you
to

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

better researched cost figures than I could possibly come up with.

Hmm, I couldn't find a total cost figure anywhere in those pdfs. Do you
have one?

A total cost of what?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[josephkk]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:25:04 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 25, 5:15 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:06 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

I particularly enjoyed the rarified scientific objectivity of the
section entitled "Talking Points."

The complete lable is "Conclusions: A Personal Note - Talking Points
(pdf)"

It is a bit odd of you to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" in
something indexed as a "personal note" - less odd for you to pretend
to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" and carefully omit the
"personal note" part of the title. Such little sleighs of hand are
part and parcel of your debating style.


I expect objectivity in conclusions.  Are you saying that you do not
expect objectivity in the conclusions?

That document linked pretty well admits a basic point John, I, and the
esteemed Mr. Horde have made several times: that the models do not
derive from any fundamental understanding of the physical systems, and
so are not "models" in the true sense; but are merely the work of
curve-fitting finaglers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/Weart_APS_News_2-06.pdf
"The modelers can get these
results only by adjusting a lot of
parameters that are poorly known,
such as the numbers in the model
that tell how clouds are formed."

We said that years ago, so Bill called us idiots.

Curve-fitting predicts the past wonderfully, just not the future.

Alas, their curve fitting does not predict the past correctly either.

?-)

 

[NT]

On Sep 26, 3:40 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 26, 1:28 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 25, 2:21 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

snip



and. More of their solar power - 20% of the capacity needed - is
thermal solar, which can store energy as heat.

What do you think the cost would be Mr.Sloman, and the implications
of spending it?

It's Dr.Sloman, if you want the correct honorific and I'll refer you
to

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

better researched cost figures than I could possibly come up with.

Hmm, I couldn't find a total cost figure anywhere in those pdfs. Do you
have one?

A total cost of what?

implementing what he proposes


NT

 

[NT]

On Sep 26, 3:28 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 26, 12:59 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:



On Sep 25, 11:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 25, 9:25 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 11:10 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:14 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:57 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 7:38 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 5:12 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 2:05 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 23, 8:50 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 23, 6:40 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

   Theoretically, these sources are useful for local loads in
specialized situations.

That's the current situation with solar panels. Mark Z.Jacobson and
Mark A.Delucchi are envisaging a thousand-fold larger market with the
consequent economies of scale.

Sufficiently large thermal solar plants seem to be close enough to
break-even that if we built enough of them to supplyu 20% of our total
energy needs.simple economy of scale would put them ahead of burning
fossil carbon (and that isn't going to stay cheap as we burn up all
the most easily extracted stuff and have to compete with the chineses
and the Indians for what's left).

   Economically, they are disasters - the government involvement (read:
interference) is proof.

And burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow isn't already a
disaster? Not as big a disaster as we'll have to cope with if we keep
at it until we've raised the global average temperatures by another
degree Celcius or two. We've already raised the temperature of the
Artic by some 3 to 4 degrees Celcius over the past century, and the
Greenland ice sheet is already sliding off into the ocean at an
alarming rate. There's six metres of sea level rise in the Greenland
ice sheet, and rebuilding every port around the world could be rather
expensive.

yes, global warming will cost us all money one way or another. But
what it would take to avoid it, if thats even possible,  would cost us
enormously more. That is the massivest flaw of the whole green agenda

Think about the Younger Dryas, which was a hiccup in the thawing
process that ended the last Ice Age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Basically, the Gulf Stream turned off for 1300 years, probably due to
massive amounts of fresh water being dumped in the North Atlantic when
the Laurentian ice sheet slid off into the ocean. The Greenland ice
sheet isn't as big, and doesn't show any immediate signs of sliding
off into the ocean as a single lump, but it might be able to do as
well. Do you want to find out if it is big enough and unstable enough
by seeing it happen?

We don't know what could happen if we let global temperatures rise by
another degree Celcius or so, and we probably shouldn't indulge our
curiousity by waiting to see what does happen. If the final state of
the planet is incompatible with the advanced industrial civilisation
we've got at the moment, inaction will cost us everything we've got.
That the massive flaw in the denialist argument.

Suggesting that 'the final state of the planet is incompatible with
the advanced industrial civilisation' is a massively flawed claim.

Alright. It is a wrst case argument so,

"If the final state of the planet were incompatible with the advanced
industrial civilisation we've got at the moment, inaction would cost
us everything we've got. That the massive flaw in the denialist
argument."

I don't think you can argue with that.

It's bonkers.

That's not an argument.

No. None was needed.

Then you've got a seriously defective imagination. Just think what a
re-run of the Younger Dryas would involve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas



can't predict the detailed effects of anthropogenic global warming
with enough precision to absolutely justify doing anything to stop it,
but the flip side of that argument is that we can't predict the kinds
of things that have happened during warming episode - like runaway
methane release as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - and
should be correspondingly cautious.

it makes more sense to look at both approaches, evalute, and pick the
one with better survival figures.

Evaluate? How in heavens name do we evaluate the sort of non-linear
process that turned off the Gulf-stream during the Younger Dryas? The

Then lets start with what we can model, at least approximately. If you
slot your figures into my other post, we'll see where we stand.

IPCC won't even consider that kind of risk, because they can't model
them, which strikes me as downright irresponsible.

We need to recognise that turning the global thermostat up a few
degrees may have unexpected consequences, and chicken out.

That isn't the green option.

Please specify what you think the "green" option actually is.

A sizeable price hike on energy, due mainly to reduction in use of
fossil fuels, and an assortment of fiddling legislation that only
serves to make most areas of life take longer and cost more.

You've missed the bit about a substantial investment in renewable
energy generation, and the observation that economies of scale will
probably undo most - if not all - of the "sizeable price hike".

No, I havent missed it. It reduces the cost per amount of plant, but
its still a vast investment, and any investment of money has to be
paid for by end users.

Sure. Of course, if we don't make that particular investment, the end
users are eventually going to have other things to worry about, some
of which are more or less predictable, so the IPCC will condescend to
warn us about them, and others which are harder to model - like
turning off the Gulf Stream - which are in the "too hard" basket, even
though they've happened in the geological past in comparable
circumstances.

In both cases you've jumped to other issues isntead of addressing the
one brought up.


NT

 

On Sep 25, 10:47 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:15 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 25, 5:06 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

I particularly enjoyed the rarified scientific objectivity of the
section entitled "Talking Points."

The complete lable is "Conclusions: A Personal Note - Talking Points
(pdf)"

It is a bit odd of you to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" in
something indexed as a "personal note" - less odd for you to pretend
to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" and carefully omit the
"personal note" part of the title. Such little sleighs of hand are
part and parcel of your debating style.

I expect objectivity in conclusions.  Are you saying that you do not
expect objectivity in the conclusions?

That document linked pretty well admits a basic point John, I, and the
esteemed Mr. Horde have made several times: that the models do not
derive from any fundamental understanding of the physical systems, and
so are not "models" in the true sense; but are merely the work of
curve-fitting finaglers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/Weart_APS_News_2-06.pdf
  "The modelers can get these
   results only by adjusting a lot of
   parameters that are poorly known,
   such as the numbers in the model
   that tell how clouds are formed."

We said that years ago, so Bill called us idiots.

Curve-fitting predicts the past wonderfully, just not the future.

The idiocy involved is in describing the work of people trying to put
together self-consistent and vaguely plausible models as "curve-
fitting finagling". Curve fitting - as such - can predict the past
wonderfully, if you merely plug in enough parameters. It's well known
to be a pointless exercise - the stuff I was reading on curve-fitting
back when I was a graduate student in the 1960s spelled this out
perectly clearly - and serious academics wouldn't waste their time on
it.

The climatology community does see some point in putting together
models that more or less work, and they do test them against reality.

They can only test them against the past.

I can do a very accurate polynomial curve fit to the data from a
random process. Its predictive value will still be worthless.

Clouds are huge. They can't predict them.(*) Even a small error
overshadows the entire alleged AGW signal.(**)

*See quote above.
**So to speak.(***)
***Exonn-Mobil paid me to say that.

We've said all this. Bill denies it.

Bill's a denier.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Nico Coesel]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:43:27 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 25, 3:51 pm, Wanderer <wande...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 9:23 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:


--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

It has a great deal of 'appeal to authority'. Pointing to other papers
written by people he agrees with. It does contain data and facts but
none of which support the central argument.

"We recognize that historically, changes to the energy system,
driven at least partly by market forces,have occurred more slowly
than we are envisioning here (e.g., Kramer and Haigh,2009).
However, our plan is for governments to implement policies to
mobilize infrastructure changes more rapidly than would occur if
development were left mainly to the private market."

The authors believe in a centralized planned government solution and
not in private market evolution of the energy infrastructure. They
present little or no arguments to support this assertion.

Private markets evolve to make more money in the short term. Exxon-
Mobil's response to the discovery of anthropogenic global warming was
to spend a lot of money on persuading the public that anthopogenic
global warming wasn't actually happening.

Central government can - under sufficient pressure from the voters -
be persuaded to take a rather longer-term view. If they can, we have a
chance to do something about anthropogenic global warming before the
progressing change in climate starts eating into our capacity to move
over to renewable and sustainable energy sources.

The authors don't need to present any arguments to support this
proposition. It's perfectly obvious that if central government can't
be persuaded to take the initiative, our current industrialised
civilisation is doomed, and very few of our great-grandchildren will
live long enough to reproduce, though rather more may last long enough
to curse their irresponsible great-grandparents.

Are you seriously suggesting that AGW will kill off the great majority
of the population of the planet in 40 years or so?

Insane.

My idea exactly. Most studies assume people and cities will stay where
they are. They couldn't be more wrong. The city I live in didn't exist
30 years ago and currently its one of the 10 largest cities in the
country. IOW: when pieces of land get flooded or get too dry people
will move!

There is a weird sense of protectionism which probably stems for being
afraid of change. For those people: look at how face of the world has
changed in the past couple of hundred years. Our planet doesn't need
to stay the same. In fact it doesn't even 'want' to stay the same.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 26, 5:40 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 26, 3:40 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 26, 1:28 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 25, 2:21 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

snip

and. More of their solar power - 20% of the capacity needed - is
thermal solar, which can store energy as heat.

What do you think the cost would be Mr.Sloman, and the implications
of spending it?

It's Dr.Sloman, if you want the correct honorific and I'll refer you
to

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1..pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2..pdf

better researched cost figures than I could possibly come up with.

Hmm, I couldn't find a total cost figure anywhere in those pdfs. Do you
have one?

A total cost of what?

implementing what he proposes

There are two authors. Are you looking for a total cost of getting
what they both have in mind?

3.8 million wind turbines, 5 megawatts each, supplying 50 percent
of the projected total global power demand

A off-shore 5MW wind turbine might cost $10 million, so that's in the
ball-park of $38 trillion.

49 000 solar thermal power plants, 300 MW each, supplying 20
percent

A 300MW solar thermal station might cost $900 million, so that's a
ball-park of $44 trillion

40 000 solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants supplying 14 percent

Presumably 200 MW., where each one would cost some $900 million for
$36 trillion

1.7 billion rooftop PV systems, 3 kilowatts each, supplying 6
percent
5350 geothermal power plants, 100 MW each, supplying 4 percent
900 hydroelectric power plants, 1300 MW each, of which 70 percent
are already in place, supplying 4 percent
720 000 ocean-wave devices, 0.75 MW each, supplying 1 percent
490 000 tidal turbines, 1 MW each, supplying 1 percent.

It's a lot of money.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 26, 4:38 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 25, 10:10 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 26, 2:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:15 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 25, 5:06 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

I particularly enjoyed the rarified scientific objectivity of the
section entitled "Talking Points."

The complete lable is "Conclusions: A Personal Note - Talking Points
(pdf)"

It is a bit odd of you to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" in
something indexed as a "personal note" - less odd for you to pretend
to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" and carefully omit the
"personal note" part of the title. Such little sleighs of hand are
part and parcel of your debating style.

I expect objectivity in conclusions.  Are you saying that you do not
expect objectivity in the conclusions?

That document linked pretty well admits a basic point John, I, and the
esteemed Mr. Horde have made several times: that the models do not
derive from any fundamental understanding of the physical systems, and
so are not "models" in the true sense; but are merely the work of
curve-fitting finaglers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/Weart_APS_News_2-06.pdf
  "The modelers can get these
   results only by adjusting a lot of
   parameters that are poorly known,
   such as the numbers in the model
   that tell how clouds are formed."

We said that years ago, soBillcalled us idiots.

Curve-fitting predicts the past wonderfully, just not the future.

The idiocy involved is in describing the work of people trying to put
together self-consistent and vaguely plausible models as "curve-
fitting finagling". Curve fitting - as such - can predict the past
wonderfully, if you merely plug in enough parameters. It's well known
to be a pointless exercise - the stuff I was reading on curve-fitting
back when I was a graduate student in the 1960s spelled this out
perectly clearly - and serious academics wouldn't waste their time on
it.

The climatology community does see some point in putting together
models that more or less work, and they do test them against reality.

The quote flat out says they're hackers, fiddling the coefficients
until they like the result. If you read past that he describes their
method thusly (it only gets worse):

  "...one of my
   runs ended up with no clouds, other
   people had all the water precipitate
   as ice at the poles, etc.). Once you
   get a set of parameters that gives a
   fair approximation to the known
   past climate, you can double the
   carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
   and run it again. The results from
   thousands of runs with different
   parameter sets are revealing. A few
   sets of parameters give no warming.
   A larger number of sets produces
   shockingly large warming, up to
   11oC by the end of the century."

Let's have your ideas of what they should be doing. You are about as
good an approximation to a climatologist as you are to an economist,
so I don't expect anything useful, but you may succeed in amusing us.

They should not be rolling dice, then proclaiming it destiny.

What they are doing isn't "rolling dice", it's testing models against
reality. It is a procedure that does produce a fairly wide range of
models, many of which produce similar predictions.

You've got a choice between doing that and doing nothing, and having
no predictive capacity at all.

Granting your political preference for minimalist government, you seem
to think that they shouldn't try and make any predictions at all.
If you used the same logic on defence spending, you wouldn't have a
standing army.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 26, 5:47 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:10:03 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:15 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 25, 5:06 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

I particularly enjoyed the rarified scientific objectivity of the
section entitled "Talking Points."

The complete lable is "Conclusions: A Personal Note - Talking Points
(pdf)"

It is a bit odd of you to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" in
something indexed as a "personal note" - less odd for you to pretend
to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" and carefully omit the
"personal note" part of the title. Such little sleighs of hand are
part and parcel of your debating style.

I expect objectivity in conclusions.  Are you saying that you do not
expect objectivity in the conclusions?

That document linked pretty well admits a basic point John, I, and the
esteemed Mr. Horde have made several times: that the models do not
derive from any fundamental understanding of the physical systems, and
so are not "models" in the true sense; but are merely the work of
curve-fitting finaglers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/Weart_APS_News_2-06.pdf
  "The modelers can get these
   results only by adjusting a lot of
   parameters that are poorly known,
   such as the numbers in the model
   that tell how clouds are formed."

We said that years ago, soBillcalled us idiots.

Curve-fitting predicts the past wonderfully, just not the future.

The idiocy involved is in describing the work of people trying to put
together self-consistent and vaguely plausible models as "curve-
fitting finagling". Curve fitting - as such - can predict the past
wonderfully, if you merely plug in enough parameters. It's well known
to be a pointless exercise - the stuff I was reading on curve-fitting
back when I was a graduate student in the 1960s spelled this out
perectly clearly - and serious academics wouldn't waste their time on
it.

The climatology community does see some point in putting together
models that more or less work, and they do test them against reality.

They can only test them against the past.

I can do a very accurate polynomial curve fit to the data from a
random process. Its predictive value will still be worthless.

Obviously. This point is also obvious to everybody who has ever done
any work on multi-parameter curve-fitting, so we can take it as read
that this isn't what they are doing. These people are experienced
scientists, not first-year undergraduates fooling with a multi-
parameter non-linear curve-fitting program.

Let's have your ideas of what they should be doing. You are about as
good an approximation to a climatologist as you are to an economist,
so I don't expect anything useful, but you may succeed in amusing us.

Economic models don't seem to be especially predictive either.

Certainly not the ones that James Arthur fancies. Your own approach to
the economic models that - correctly - predicted a rapind decline in
GNP and a rapid rise in unemployment immediately after the GFC and -
equally correctly - predicted a stabilisation of GNP and unemployment
after the stimulus package came into action, was simple denial, which
is also the approach favoured by James Arthur when he runs into
evidence that doesn't conform to his flat earth economic theories.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 26, 6:22 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 25, 10:47 pm, John Larkin









jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:10:03 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:25 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:15 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 25, 5:06 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

I particularly enjoyed the rarified scientific objectivity of the
section entitled "Talking Points."

The complete lable is "Conclusions: A Personal Note - Talking Points
(pdf)"

It is a bit odd of you to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" in
something indexed as a "personal note" - less odd for you to pretend
to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" and carefully omit the
"personal note" part of the title. Such little sleighs of hand are
part and parcel of your debating style.

I expect objectivity in conclusions.  Are you saying that you do not
expect objectivity in the conclusions?

That document linked pretty well admits a basic point John, I, and the
esteemed Mr. Horde have made several times: that the models do not
derive from any fundamental understanding of the physical systems, and
so are not "models" in the true sense; but are merely the work of
curve-fitting finaglers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/Weart_APS_News_2-06.pdf
  "The modelers can get these
   results only by adjusting a lot of
   parameters that are poorly known,
   such as the numbers in the model
   that tell how clouds are formed."

We said that years ago, soBillcalled us idiots.

Curve-fitting predicts the past wonderfully, just not the future.

The idiocy involved is in describing the work of people trying to put
together self-consistent and vaguely plausible models as "curve-
fitting finagling". Curve fitting - as such - can predict the past
wonderfully, if you merely plug in enough parameters. It's well known
to be a pointless exercise - the stuff I was reading on curve-fitting
back when I was a graduate student in the 1960s spelled this out
perectly clearly - and serious academics wouldn't waste their time on
it.

The climatology community does see some point in putting together
models that more or less work, and they do test them against reality.

They can only test them against the past.

I can do a very accurate polynomial curve fit to the data from a
random process. Its predictive value will still be worthless.

Clouds are huge.  They can't predict them.(*)

Some of the models thaty tried didn't produce clouds, and were
consequently discarded. This is not "can't predict them".

 Even a small error overshadows the entire alleged AGW signal.(**)

But most of the models predict roughly the right amount of cloud, and
fit the the sort of AGW we've seen so far.

*See quote above.
**So to speak.(***)
***Exxon-Mobil paid me to say that.

Exxon-Mobil expects its propagandist to be a little less enthusiastic
with the obviously fraudulent text-chopping. You aren't as blatantly
incompetent as a propagandist as Rich Grise, but you are nowhere near
subtle enough to be worth paying.

We've said all this.  Bill denies it.

Not so much "denies", as "jeers at".

Bill's a denier.

You'd like to think so. It would elevate your obvious misconceptions
and blatant dishonesties into arguments, rather than the writhings of
deluded fanatic trying to explain away stuff he can't understand and
doesn't want to believe.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 26, 6:51 am, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:25:04 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:15 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:06 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:07 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

I particularly enjoyed the rarified scientific objectivity of the
section entitled "Talking Points."

The complete lable is "Conclusions: A Personal Note - Talking Points
(pdf)"

It is a bit odd of you to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" in
something indexed as a "personal note" - less odd for you to pretend
to expect "rarified scientific objectivity" and carefully omit the
"personal note" part of the title. Such little sleighs of hand are
part and parcel of your debating style.

I expect objectivity in conclusions.  Are you saying that you do not
expect objectivity in the conclusions?

That document linked pretty well admits a basic point John, I, and the
esteemed Mr. Horde have made several times: that the models do not
derive from any fundamental understanding of the physical systems, and
so are not "models" in the true sense; but are merely the work of
curve-fitting finaglers.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/Weart_APS_News_2-06.pdf
 "The modelers can get these
  results only by adjusting a lot of
  parameters that are poorly known,
  such as the numbers in the model
  that tell how clouds are formed."

We said that years ago, so Bill called us idiots.

Curve-fitting predicts the past wonderfully, just not the future.

Alas, their curve fitting does not predict the past correctly either.

If you are deliberately producing a range of models, some of them had
better not work, otherwise you aren't covering the range.

John Larkin and James Arthur want to use the fact that some of the
range of models didn't work as evidence that all of them were useless;
all of them are obviously "wrong" in that a model is never a perfect
representation of the situation being modelled, but quite a few of
them seem to have been close enough to reality to be useful.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen