Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Malcolm Moore wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

snip old material

You have to grant me some leeway here because Bill's a fuzzy writer.
He works by implication and innuendo, so I had to infer that

I don't have to grant you anything.

No, you don't.

This saga shows you're the proven fuzzy writer.

I think I've been extremely clear. Excruciatingly, tediously,
tiringly so, in this post-mortem.

I understood Jan. You didn't. So, if you don't understand me at
least I'm in good company.

Bill stated a fact--a fact unrelated to Jan's point, you contend
below--without explaining what he thought it proved, or how it
related. That's fuzzy writing.

Bill could've said "The fact that France gets 80% of its electrical
power from nuclear plants proves XYZ." That would've been clear
writing.

<snip>

But Jan and I took it as a wrong answer to Jan's claim, that the very
infrastructure we're using was built on fossil fuel.

There was no answer because there was no question. Bill made a correct
claim in response to Jan's correct claim.

And there we have it.

Stating a new, unrelated fact is not a response, that's talking past
someone. If Bill meant his claim as a related response, it was
wrong. If he meant it as a new, interesting fact, it was non-
responsive.

Bill explains later that he meant it as a response, which is how I
treated it.

Either way, it leaves a misleading notion w.r.t. the extent of
France's independence from fossil fuels

I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil
fuels. Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:48:36 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje

pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The global warming hoax revealed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...

Quote from that article
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
end quote

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew....

"In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to
arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in
scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times
appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by
other scientists whose findings they disagreed with."

Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their
papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more
constructive and well-informed of the likely referees.

They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do,
the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the
quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough
that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their
field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are.
Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it.

Some good stuff here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com....

" The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "

Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?

Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?

There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
the scientific method.

I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results,
not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.

They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive
referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in
the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the
conclusions.

For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first
authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least
confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful
choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's
thoughts towards the righ referee.

Apparently not.

Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, and
since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the
experiment, you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it.

But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has
tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by
experiment.

John

Even sociology is subject to real world verification, and AGW fails
with amazing consistency. Experiment, per se, is not always necessary
(or even doable), but real world testing (does this model predict
historical data correctly and has it predicted recent experience and
many other verification tests). The AGW models also have failed this
with amazing regularity.

Yea, yea, i know, preaching to a mixture of the choir and unfaithful.

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:43:49 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:



On Nov 22, 8:44 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote:

But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has
tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by
experiment.

These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
correlation.  Which they're in a unique position to ensure.

Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
the sun really does go around the earth.

Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
multiple observers around the world.

Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
begun, nor can it explain it.

Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to
control everyone.  Politicians (are) like that.

Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting.
Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy),
looks into the future.

SOL James, but it doesn't, at least if you use the same model the AGW
group does. Even others that contain any of the canonical
presumptions of AGW fail to reconcile with well documented history.

Fortunately, there are a few disparaged models that do reconcile with
history.

If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.

Wrong is often useful (see above).

That's Mencken's game--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken

Martin likes that quote too--wonder where he went.

I think i will buy another book of Menken quotes. Some did not age
very well though.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:34:59 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:19:07 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:18:03 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:26 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a
fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but weather
models can't.

If I ever wrote that, it was a mistake. But I don't believe I ever did.
(But since you keep saying it, and Joerg lives in Oregon, it must be
true.)

I'd have to ask the person who writes them exactly how far in the future
GCMs go these days before diverging uselessly into chaos, but IIRC they
gave some useful, broad indications as much as a few months in advance.
Not accurate, but enough.

And it was the same expert GCM worker who said GCMs were completely
useless beyond a few months, because they diverge, and specifically, are
completely inapplicable and unreliable over even a year, much less the
decades-to-centuries they're being used for.

The only way one can predict the desired dire consequences of CO2 is to
conjecture a number of positive feedback mechanisms. Those same positive
feedbacks make the models unstable.


Just this morning I saw an AGW preach on edjamacaishunal teevee, and I
swear I saw them do this:

1. Take some raw data:
http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-1.gif

2. Cherry-pick what suits your purposes:
http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-2.gif

3. Extrapolate:
http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-3.gif

Of course, they only showed it from step 2 to step 3.

I wonder if(when?) the mainstream media are going to clue up to
Climategate?

Thanks,
Rich

Ain't going to happen. It will be a real problem for historians 300
years from now.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:35:46 -0800, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:38:44 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:56:11 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:44:52 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:11 pm, John Larkin

ps- the mashed potatoes cooked in *five minutes* at 6400 feet in the
pressure cooker that S sent us.

I love pressure cookers. I'm glad you like yours. I thunk it up, and S
stole me thunder!

Well, thanks to you both. There are few things more disappointing than raw
mashed potatoes.

Hey, some people like chunky mashed potatoes, with the skins. It's called
"homestyle", I think. ;-)

That's fine, if you like it. But at 6400 feet, after an hour boiling
they are still *raw*.


Once, we had a potato ricer, and we just served up the riced potatoes,
and they were fantastic - there's much more surface area (and holes) to
accommodate lots and lots of gravy. Yum! ;-)

What's a potato ricer?

John

Kind of a scaled up garlic press.

 

On Nov 27, 10:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 26, 5:26 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a
fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but
weather models can't.

If I ever wrote that, it was a mistake. But I don't believe I ever
did. (But since you keep saying it, and Joerg lives in Oregon, it
must be true.)

You said it all right. You seem to have - very wisely - requested that
your post was not to be archived, and have managed to contain your
outrage at being caught making a fool of yourself until the original
evidence had evaporated.

No, if I said it, it's still here in the archives. Maybe you've
confused me with someone else.

My information on GCMs came from reading their summaries (supplied by
each GCM group), reading as much of one global climate model's FORTRAN
spaghetti source-code as I could stand, and, mostly, _directly_ from
one of the world's preeminent experts, who works on them.

So, I've always known the difference.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

snip

As a second measure of global climate models (GCM), we know from
actual life how poorly the models predict El Nino, or hurricanes, or
other near-term phenomena that depend on accurate understanding of
real temperature, deep ocean currents, or other quantities critical to
long-term projections (if those are even possible), but which are not
known well enough to make even short-term predictions.
As a 3rd measure of GCM, before you graced s.e.d. with your inquiries,
I related that I got that same info (above) from one of the persons
*responsible* for one of the main climate models. That person said
GCM are important and useful tools in understanding climate, and for
making predictions as far as several weeks into the future. Beyond
that, says (s)he, the models quickly diverge uselessly from reality.

James Arthur doesn't know the difference between a global climate
model, which predicts over a span of year and a global weather model
which falls to pieces in about two weeks.

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

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm

I know the difference. But suppose I didn't--it still doesn't
matter. Cast aside your irrelevant bile and consider: we're in a 10-
year cooling trend. I don't remember any stern warnings from
climastrologists this was imminent, do you? Quite the opposite. But
your memory is better than mine--you remember things that didn't even
happen. Maybe you could cite those warnings for us.

Or is 10 years "just weather," and not climate?

I'd have to ask the person who writes them exactly how far in the
future GCMs go these days before diverging uselessly into chaos, but
IIRC they gave some useful, broad indications as much as a few months
in advance. Not accurate, but enough.

James Arthur "improving" what he remembers.

I already stated I don't remember exactly. And part of it is that I
can't be too particular without revealing my source, which I am
entrusted not to do. That person is a scientist, not a politician,
and doesn't want to be sacrificed on the altar of AGW political
correctness.

The point being that the things fall apart in a few months, and
they're being used to forecast 50-500x that timespan and more. It
doesn't matter whether the 20-year forecast fell apart at t=two months
or three, or even four or five months, does it?

Obviously they're no good even at predicting in the 1-10 year
timeframe, or they would've predicted the current cooling.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:36:07 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:03:38 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 26, 7:11 pm, John Larkin
jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:58:48 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:00 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:37:56 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 23, 9:43 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure.

Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
the sun really does go around the earth.

Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
multiple observers around the world.

Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
begun, nor can it explain it.

Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to
control everyone. Politicians (are) like that.

Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting.
Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy),
looks into the future.

Oooo, "climastrology"--even better.

That's a keeper.

A genuine James Arthur pratfall. Not a collectible as all that - he
makes a fool of himself a little too often, and the market is getting
saturated.

I've known James for years, well before any encounters on SED. He's
funny, cheerful, an excellent electronics designer, a good cook, and
has a great singing voice. I have never known him to be a fool about
anything. But I ski faster than he does. Lots faster.

You are the group buffoon/churl/pain slut. I can't imagine why you
post here.

You've made it clear that you don't enjoy having your errors
corrected, and you probably think that it would be a nice idea to save
other people from similar discomfort, but you shoudl keep in mind that
looking like an idiot on sci.electronics.design can be a lot cheaper
than making a fool of yourself in front of paying customers.

Oh, you've finally noticed that this is an electronics design group.
Given that, what do you think matters here?

How are you doing in front of paying customers?


When it comes to anthropogenic global warming, you have posted enough
buffoon level-nonsense here that your endorsement of James as a non-
fool isn't entirely definitive.

All I've said about AGW is that there is reason to be skeptical. I'm
pleased that the majority of the population of the world is
increasingly in agreement with me. I'm thinking the joy ride is just
about over.


IIRR it has been some time since we had to remind you that climate
models weren't the same as weather models and were constructed in such
a way that they weren't susceptible to the butterfly effect.

It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful
about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that
a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg.


It would have been nice if you'd passed the message on to James. If
you had, he'd now look less like a buffoon, and I'd have saved some of
the time I put in on educating the barely educatable.

Hilarious. Why is it that useless, incompetant, and unemployed
"progressives" think that they are able to "educate" people who are
none of the above.

Sugar Bowl is open, very early in the season. It's rare that we can
ski over the Thanksgiving holidays. It's clouding up now and they are
predicting 10 to 12" of new snow starting this afternoon. Now *that*
is the sort of climate model I approve of.


It was 34 degrees in Ocala Thursday night. It's supposed to be 35
tonight.

From the short time i spent in Florida that is about 10 to 15 degrees
below normal for this time of year.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:04:43 +1300, Malcolm Moore
<abor1953needle@yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:47:17 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:03:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

SNIP


Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which
provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories
with which Ravinghorde regales us.


Got a link the _proves_ that Exxon tries to fudge science here? Similar
to those embarrassing email?

Here's a link to more AGW, academic global warming:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/#more-13215

/quote

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature
stations has just turned up a very different result:

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there
appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with
the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in
1850.

/end quote

For a bit of balance

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

Well after having read it, adjusting the natural data with data from
an airport (an obvious hot spot) seems to be beyond injudicious.

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:23:18 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In <16f3e1ab-eafe-4837-bb21-3b3ff93ae361@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote in large part:

On Nov 23, 12:06 pm, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:

If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any
interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?.
What are they trying to hide ?.

I've answered this question before. Researchers publish their data in
the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They do a lot of work on the
raw data to make it accessible and understandable. If a third party
wants access to the raw data, the researchers have to a do a lot more
work to provide a user-friendly interface that lets these third
parties make sense of the raw data, and in the process they make it
easier for other scientists to take advantage of the pick and shovel
work that they have done to build up their position in their area.

All of this means that researchers aren't trying to hide their raw
data - they are just trying to avoid having to put in a lot of work
that won't advance them in their field, and will allow others to
advance themselves at their expense.

I thought someone mentioned in a previous thread an answer to this,
often already done:

Publish the raw data with some time delay, such as a year, after what it
was used for was published.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

As reasonable as that is, it is still not done. WHY?

 

On Nov 27, 10:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 26, 5:26 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Of course you can see that easily, independently, if you just look at
the models, see how incomplete they are, how rudimentary our
understanding of critical processes is, how loose the parameters are,
how many arbitrary and unexplained factors they apply, and so forth.

Not having spent years working on the models, I doubt very much that I
could see anything of the sort. I had enough trouble with the much
simpler simulation I wrote in 1968 to model the chemical reaction in
the reaction cell I used in my Ph.D. work.

If James Arthur can produce this model which he claims to know so much
about we could - of course - test this hypothesis, but since neither
of us has spent our professional careers improving climate models our
opinions are unlikely to be even useful, let alone decisive.

So, your argument is that you're a poor judge of source code when you
see it, and that it's all over your head anyhow. And, you can say
this without reading the code, or trying to see if it makes sense.
Therefore, the code is reliable.

You argue from faith: blind faith, sight unseen, in people you don't
know, their measurements, their adjustments, their understanding of
the processes, their integrity, and their code. All these are
necessary.

I've seen the code I critique; you say it's pure, though you've never
looked. That's faith.

I argue from knowledge, confirmed and supported by an expert with
impeccable recommendations from someone I know, trust, and respect.

I've linked to the code zillions of times before. Here's a starting
vector:
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ipcc_model_documentation..php

From there you can get descriptions of each model, FROM its AUTHORS,
see the obvious limitations in summary form, and access source code
where it's available.

Or look at how well the climate models predicted the current cooling
transient--they didn't.  In fact they predicted more and more heat and
hurricanes, didn't they?  And we were supposed to brace ourselves for
those, to spend money and prepare, but they never came.  The models
were wrong.

The models aren't precise, and they aren't designed to to produce
accurate predictions over periods of a few years. They failed to
predict the current slowing in the rate of global warming because
didn't allow for the movement in the ocean circulation that the Argo
project is only now beginning to telling us about.

You'll notice that I pointed that shortcoming out years ago, here?
And you, with no knowledge, denied it.

The excursion away from the smooth and continuous heating strawman
prediction that James Arthur is trying to set up is small, of the

You're leaping to a conclusion. I never said or intended that.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have
prevented this.

James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a
concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who
know what they are talking about.

---
Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus.

Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part.

---
I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for
the fraud you are.

There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb
to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the
better equipped.

---
As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues
causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your
lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to
silence your critics.

A cowardly practice, at best, and exactly what one would expect of a
"scientist" who pretends to be clad in shining armor.

This says it best, I think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja7cuVh96AI&feature=related

I'm in for a penny and I can afford a pound or two, so let's talk a
little about why you proposed that energy can be extracted from the
magnetic field surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current
by wrapping a solenoid around it.

Can it be done when the axis of the solenoid is congruent with the axis
of the conductor?

The ball's in your court and, unlike you, the better equipped of us know
how to speel and don't write "evidnece"
JF

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:19:17 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have
prevented this.

James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a
concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who
know what they are talking about.

---
Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus.

Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part.

---
I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for
the fraud you are.

There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb
to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the
better equipped.

---
As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues
causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your
lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to
silence your critics.

A cowardly practice, at best, and exactly what one would expect of a
"scientist" who pretends to be clad in shining armor.

This says it best, I think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja7cuVh96AI&feature=related

I'm in for a penny and I can afford a pound or two, so let's talk a
little about why you proposed that energy can be extracted from the
magnetic field surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current
by wrapping a solenoid around it.

Can it be done when the axis of the solenoid is congruent with the axis
of the conductor?

The ball's in your court and, unlike you, the better equipped of us know
how to speel and don't write "evidnece"
JF

Most fraudulent scientists are smart enough to slink quietly away when
their fraud is discovered. Slowman has no such IQ.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 28, 12:54 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 27, 5:46 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 27, 2:17 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther
than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient
truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there
in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and
artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them
No. The areas that that the Vikings farmsteaded during the Medieval
Warm Period have never been coverd with thick ice. You can still see
the walls of their church at Hvalsey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
There are suggestions that the Viking settlement wasn't so much frozen
out as out-performed by the Inuit when they got there - the Inuit had
better boats, better fishing techniques, better hunting techniques and
warmer clothing, and the Vikings couldn't live on what the Inuit left
over.
Sure you can pick a church near the coast which was always free of ice
but other areas weren't.
Identify one. The settlement was not lost because it was inundated
with ice, but because the weather got just a little too cold to allow
the Vikings to harvest enough food to keep them going.
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm

Quote "Fjallsjökull, an outlet glacier of Vatnajökull ice cap on the
southeastern coast of Iceland. Advance of this glacier in the 1695-1710
period destroyed a farm that dated from Viking settlement. Photo date
8/94; Š by J.S. Aber."

That's some 300 years after the Vikings abandoned the colony.
Glaciers, like rivers, dig out new channels from time to time. This
isn't a farm that is now buried under the ice sheet, or anything like
it.

As far as I know it was.

AFAIR that settlement dates back to about 900 and was discovered by a
guy named Bardarson (spelling could be off a bit). When the chimney flue
is plugged because the house is covered by a glacier it's time to move
on ;-)

Except that he had moved on some 300 years earlier, so the glacier
didn't contribute materially to his decision (unless he was remarkably
prescient, and somebody who was that prescient wouldn't have moved in
in the first place).

And I like the image of the famer fleeing from the on-coming glacier
with all his possessions loaded onto sledges being dragged away by
his team of snails.

What does that matter? Fact is, temperatures became colder and colder
until the settlers simply could not stick it out anymore because the
land would not sustain them anymore. This is evidenced by numerous
archaeological finds, such as farm dogs that were slaughtered and then
eaten. Then some areas of theirs were taken over by ice. When you see a
tsunami coming would you just wait there and see, in hopes that it might
go away on its own?

Since the remnants of those farms have been found under the ice it is
proven that there was no ice back then. And today there is. Same at
Schnidljoch. Do you have any other explanation how Roman coins got there?

Another Viking farm (Eyrarhorn, probably spelled with Norwegian letters)
became submerged because the growing weight of the ice sheet pushed the
land under.

But the ice sheet wasn't growing directly on top of the farm, was
it ...

No, but obviously the growing ice pack caused it, didn't it? I have the
feeling you will not accept any proof and will try to find all sorts of
excuses and hair in the soup. What's next? Their language wasn't
Norwegian enough anymore so they don't count?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[JosephKK]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:00:43 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ccd55e6a-2676-4460-9bc3-65b5524cd2a8@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com....
"Conserve. That means using more efficient devices (e.g. replacing T12
fluorescents with T8s), and using them more wisely (e.g. turning off
Al Gore's lights when he's not home). That's possible, with zero
technical risk, and perhaps 40-50% payback."

Agreed, people certainly should make an effort to not just waste resources
when not doing so has zero or a very small cost. I'm all for legally required
standards for fuel economy, appliance efficiency, etc. -- but of course
there's always debate on just where the line should be drawn. (E.g., most
recently here the debate on plasma TVs...)

Joel, please reset your quoting to default. It is easier to read.

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:18:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip some, including a conspiricist rant>

Here is some more, grabbed from us.politics today:


From: Eunometic <eunometic@yahoo.com.au
Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,us.politics,soc.culture.irish
Subject: Proff Bob Carter Torpedoes Climate Hoax
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:39:38 -0800 (PST)

Below find some videos for those too busy to read a book.

Professor Bob Carter
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-1326937617167558947&ei=1oAOS8ynNJv-qAO1loDkDQ&hl=en#
Note in minute 31 of the video he mentions some of the work of the
infamous jones who is involved in climate gate emails.

Dr Tim Ball on Climate Gate, how peer review and the IPCC was
corrupted.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/video-dr-tim-ball-on-the-cru-emails/#more-13062

Proffesor Ian Wishart, author of "Air Con"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90otAJORkK8

Why don't the likes of Raveninghorde & yourself ever check the
material you find and post.

Ian Wishart is not a professor. A google or wikipedia search would
have quickly revealed that.
He is a journalist/publisher who inhabits the conspiracy theory end of
the publishing world.

A review of Air Con is at
http://hot-topic.co.nz/somethin%E2%80%99-stupid/

That review led in part to
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/08/air-con-author-preparing-to-sue-herald-and-hot-topic.html

the threatened legal action has not eventuated.

I took a stab in the middle of that youtube video. After referring to
claims of melting icecaps, he's talking about possible sea level rise
and how the landscape behind him used to be at the bottom of the ocean
and is now 100m above, and CO2 has had nothing to do with that. That's
entirely correct, what he doesn't mention is that the landscape is in
New Zealand and it has uplifted due to tectonic plate movement,
nothing to do with sea level change due to changing amounts of water
stored as ice.

Perhaps the conspiracy is coming from your favoured sources, but I've
always preferred the saying about not atributing to conspiracy that
which can more simply be explained by stupidity.

Original Climate Gate E-mails:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled! (Part 1 of 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abd81S-Syzo

Note Hadley are custodians of the worlds climate data, they produce
papers that feed much of the IPCC reports. (Dracula in charge of the
Blood Bank)

--
Regards
Malcolm
Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:35:42 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0caf@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy>>,
as your car does not run on electricity (yet).
Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, the>>re would be no civilisation
and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man>>ufacturers have their own power plants.

And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these
nice things will go away again.

Been there.
Now wake up from your green dreams.

An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know
what he is talking about.

mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists?



Or renounce it all, and go live on one of the last energy free little isl>>ands... atolls...

Not necessary. We can generate all the energy we need without burning
fossil carbon.

And if you had read your newspaper this morning you would have learned
that your electricity and gas bills are going to go up to help pay for
the capital investment that is going to make this happen in the
Netherlands over the next couple of decades.

Well, I read almost no paper newspapers, really, but I have a much faster internet
news feed, of a much broader spectrum from many different countries, and Netherlands too.
That energy prices will go up is no news, it is the way the system works.
That taxes will go up, exactly the same.
All that said, a good thing I did not sign on some years ago for a fixed (high) energy price,
just got some Euros back on my yearly electricity bill, man was I right.
But it also helped that I have the computer control all energy here.
And I wrote the programs myself.
Capital investment, well there are windmills here up the road, and a lot more further on.
Now they want to build some in the sea.
Have you calculated how much percentage those will supply?
They still have not got the strength to build some nuke plants here...
But this morning I was thinking that the best nuke plant location would probably be Nijmegen.
A great place for CO2 storage too ;-)
So they build coal and natural gas plants... Fine with me, next they will
import the coal from China, where >100 miners die each year.
But those death are far away, do not weight on the political agenda I guess.
And I think the same is happening with uranium mining, I have seen movies where all those
guys had was a paper face mask... here is our society,
taxes, profit, and lip service to reality.
We are still a devouring animal type, really.
Nature, we are part of it, and as we are part of it we need to accept the climate cycles
unless we develop technology like terra forming that _really_ can change the climate, maybe it will happen one day.
But hiding CO2 under your bed won't work.

Jan, a government is a real omnivore. It will consume anything,
including that or those who established it to stay alive.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 28, 12:54 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 27, 5:46 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 27, 2:17 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther
than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient
truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there
in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and
artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them
No. The areas that that the Vikings farmsteaded during the Medieval
Warm Period have never been coverd with thick ice. You can still see
the walls of their church at  Hvalsey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
There are suggestions that the Viking settlement wasn't so much frozen
out as out-performed by the Inuit when they got there - the Inuit had
better boats, better fishing techniques, better hunting techniques and
warmer clothing, and the Vikings couldn't live on what the Inuit left
over.
Sure you can pick a church near the coast which was always free of ice
but other areas weren't.

Identify one. The settlement was not lost because it was inundated
with ice, but because the weather got just a little too cold to allow
the Vikings to harvest enough food to keep them going.

http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm

Quote "Fjallsjökull, an outlet glacier of Vatnajökull ice cap on the
southeastern coast of Iceland. Advance of this glacier in the 1695-1710
period destroyed a farm that dated from Viking settlement. Photo date
8/94; Š by J.S. Aber."

That's some 300 years after the Vikings abandoned the colony.
Glaciers, like rivers, dig out new channels from time to time. This
isn't a farm that is now buried under the ice sheet, or anything like
it.

AFAIR that settlement dates back to about 900 and was discovered by a
guy named Bardarson (spelling could be off a bit). When the chimney flue
is plugged because the house is covered by a glacier it's time to move
on ;-)

Except that he had moved on some 300 years earlier, so the glacier
didn't contribute materially to his decision (unless he was remarkably
prescient, and somebody who was that prescient wouldn't have moved in
in the first place).

And I like the image of the famer fleeing from the on-coming glacier
with all his possessions loaded onto sledges being dragged away by
his team of snails.

Another Viking farm (Eyrarhorn, probably spelled with Norwegian letters)
became submerged because the growing weight of the ice sheet pushed the
land under.

But the ice sheet wasn't growing directly on top of the farm, was
it ...

--
Bill Soman, Nijmegen

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:49:13 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:17:20 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

But the glaciers, those will further retreat from Europe, and north of America,
only to come back then later, in thousands of years cycles.
Since we've messed up the positive feedback that drove that cycle and
added more than enough CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, the glacier
aren't going to be coming back any time soon.

The shapes and locations ofof the continents will still be pretty much
the same. I doubt if the world will look that different.

Ahm, the glacier north of us on Mt.Shasta is growing ...

Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it
Joerg, you should know better than to be this highly selective in what
you consider a good argument. Read this USA Today article from a year
and a half ago more closely:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm
Only problem is that the proof doesn't seem to be in the pudding:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?ca5983
Did you read through at least half the article I mentioned above?
Yes. Thing is, with all the AGW claims there ought to be a significant
average rise since 1948.

I'm not sure what you are saying.


I meant a pronounced increase in precipitation.


They should know better than to publish something like this without
_showing_ the underlaying statistics
Which publisher, Joerg? The link I mentioned or the link you did?
Yours, USA Today. Mine is affiliated with NOAA, which I believe even the
warmingists wouldn't dispute.

USA Today is just the news article I had imagined you'd glimpsed
before. I thought maybe it would be good to read it more fully, if
so. Thanks for clarifying your point.


There wasn't that much meat in it. As an engineer I am used to seeing
more graphs and tables from official or at least credible sources.


If you are talking about the USA Today article, my motivation was to
show you that you are being very selective in choosing that isolated
data point.

Just as I might choose a 6-sigma noise-spiked data point to try and
show you a rise when you know darned well the trend of the data was to
fall. You'd rightly point out my mistake.

As I did, yours.
I am not so sure it is one. But I also don't want to rule it out.

Climate is averages, not noise. Not weather. And no one I know of,
least of all climate scientists, are stating that there will be
absolutely no cases where some particular glacier won't increase.
Cripes, if that were exactly true we'd be in a lot worse mess!

There is an increased hydrologic cycle. In some cases, precipitation
(in terms of annual averages) may not even change, but the
distribution over the year may.

For example, in my area (which, by the way, is where Andrew Fountain
is .. or was .. located... who is a primary contact regarding Mt.
Shasta's glaciers), the precipitation is remaining similar on an
annual basis, but is shifting away from summer/fall precipitation
(which used to be a near constant complaint I'd hear from California
transplants) and towards winter/spring. Larger annual amplitude,
similar average value. It does have a real impact, though. We will
have to create more summer-time storage to supply the 1.5 million
people who depend upon the glaciers now for their fresh water supply
during late summer. Glaciers, normally quite decently sized here in
Portland and northward, are receding quite rapidly. We've lost almost
50% of the mass balance at Mt. Hood, for example, and expect to see it
reach zero in the late summertime perhaps in 30 years or so if the
current rate remains unchanged. The reasons why these mountains are
losing them faster than some areas is largely understood -- they are
neither insulated by lots of rock, nor highly reflective by being
completely free of rock; instead, they have the right mix of loose
gravel and dirt on them for higher melt rates. We've had a few unique
_slides_ that took out important roadways in the last few years, as
well. (As you can see, I can cherry-pick data, too.


I am not disputing that. As I wrote in my reply to Bill, there are
glaciers in Europe that are going almost totally bare. What the
warmingists don't seem to grasp or sometimes deny tooth and nail is that
this is quite normal.

I don't buy this, at all. Sorry.

Yes, the world has been warmer. Yes, glaciers have been much less in
abundance. Yes, oceans have been much higher. Etc., etc.

None of this means these are directions we want to head. Nor does it
say there isn't an historically unique rate of change in evidence
today. Nor does it say humans aren't having a pervasive impact that
contributes strongly to both the sign (+ or -) and the magnitude of
recent rates.

You simply are placing yourself against what the current state of
science theory and result says. And that's not a very smart place to
put yourself unless you are in a position to claim a comprehensive
exposure to it. The scientists active in these areas make it their
business.

You've done nothing to convince me that you are in a better position
to be able to say "this is quite normal," Joerg. It may sting a
little to realize that I would take their word over yours. But in
this case, I do. It's as basic as that.

Here's some quotes from last week's report:

"Has global warming recently slowed down or paused?

"No. There is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the
human-caused climatic warming trend. The observed global temperature
changes are entirely consistent with the climatic warming trend of
~0.2 °C per decade predicted by IPCC, plus superimposed short-term
variability (see Figure 4). The latter has always been – and will
always be – present in the climate system. Most of these short-term
variations are due to internal oscillations like El Nińo – Southern
Oscillation, solar variability (predominantly the 11-year Schwabe
cycle) and volcanic eruptions (which, like Pinatubo in 1991, can cause
a cooling lasting a few years).

"If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term
variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming
trend. For example, El Nińo events typically come with global-mean
temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar
cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind
2008). However, neither El Nińo, nor solar activity or volcanic
eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate
trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest
trend line they show in the global temperature records, and over this
time period the observed trend agrees very well with the expected
anthropogenic warming.

"Nevertheless global cooling has not occurred even over the past ten
years, contrary to claims promoted by lobby groups and picked up in
some media. In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year
trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between
0.17 and 0.34 °C warming per decade, close to or above the expected
anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to
0.19 °C per decade. The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller
warming trends (0.11 °C per decade for 1999-2008) primarily due to the
fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves out the Arctic,
which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years.

"It is perhaps noteworthy that despite the extremely low brightness of
the sun over the past three years (see next page); temperature records
have been broken during this time (see NOAA, State of the Climate,
2009). For example, March 2008 saw the warmest global land temperature
of any March ever measured in the instrumental record. June and August
2009 saw the warmest land and ocean temperatures in the Southern
Hemisphere ever recorded for those months. The global ocean surface
temperatures in 2009 broke all previous records for three consecutive
months: June, July and August. The years 2007, 2008 and 2009 had the
lowest summer Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, and in 2008 for the
first time in living memory the Northwest Passage and the Northeast
Passage were simultaneously ice-free. This feat was repeated in 2009.
Every single year of this century (2001-2008) has been among the top
ten warmest years since instrumental records began.

"...

"Can solar activity or other natural processes explain global warming?

"No. The incoming solar radiation has been almost constant over the
past 50 years, apart from the well-known 11-year solar cycle (Figure
5). In fact it has slightly decreased over this period. In addition,
over the past three years the brightness of the sun has reached an
all-time low since the beginning of satellite measurements in the
1970s (Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007, 2008). But this natural cooling
effect was more than a factor of ten smaller than the effect of
increasing greenhouse gases, so it has not noticeably slowed down
global warming. Also, winters are warming more rapidly than summers,
and overnight minimum temperatures have warmed more rapidly than the
daytime maxima – exactly the opposite of what would be the case if the
sun were causing the warming.

"Other natural factors, like volcanic eruptions or El Nińo events,
have only caused short-term temperature variations over time spans of
a few years, but cannot explain any longer-term climatic trends (e.g.,
Lean and Rind 2008)."

"...

"Isn’t climate always changing, even without human interference?

"Of course. But past climate changes are no cause for complacency;
indeed, they tell us that the Earth’s climate is very
sensitive to changes in forcing. Two main conclusions can be drawn
from climate history:

Climate has always responded strongly if the radiation balance of the
Earth was disturbed. That suggests the same will happen again, now
that humans are altering the radiation balance by increasing
greenhouse gas concentrations. In fact, data from climate changes in
the Earth’s history have been used to quantify how strongly a given
change in the radiation balance alters the global temperature (i.e.,
to determine the climate sensitivity). The data confirm that our
climate system is as sensitive as our climate models suggest, perhaps
even more so.

"Impacts of past climate changes have been severe. The last great Ice
Age, when it was globally 4-7 °C colder than now, completely
transformed the Earth’s surface and its ecosystems, and sea level was
120 meters lower. When the Earth last was 2-3 °C warmer than now,
during the Pliocene 3 million years ago, sea level was 25-35 meters
higher due to the smaller ice sheets present in the warmer climate.

"Despite the large natural climate changes, the recent global warming
does stick out already. Climate reconstructions suggest that over the
past two millennia, global temperature has never changed by more than
0.5 °C in a century (e.g. Mann et al. 2008; and references therein)."

A few thousand years ago they wear also iceless or
nearly iceless, as evidence by the findings of ancient weaponry, shoes,
coins, and the typical litter that unfortunately always happens along
major thoroughfares. They must have lacked an "Adopt-a-Highway" program
back then ;-)

Since they found Roman coins there the last warm period without ice on
the glacier cannot have been be that long ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm


That aside, some places, due to the increased cycle will experience
increases and some decreases. The total global precipitation will
slightly increase.

From the Copenhagen Diagnosis, recently released:

"Post IPCC AR4 research has also found that rains become
more intense in already-rainy areas as atmospheric water vapor
content increases (Pall et al. 2007; Wentz et al. 2007; Allan
and Soden 2008). These conclusions strengthen those of earlier
studies and are expected from considerations of atmospheric
thermodynamics. However, recent changes have occurred faster
than predicted by some climate models, raising the possibility
that future changes will be more severe than predicted.

"...

"In addition to the increases in heavy precipitation, there have
also been observed increases in drought since the 1970s
(Sheffield and Wood 2008), consistent with the decreases in
mean precipitation over land in some latitude bands that have
been attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Zhang et al.
2007).

"The intensification of the global hydrological cycle with
anthropogenic climate change is expected to lead to further
increases in precipitation extremes, both increases in very
heavy precipitation in wet areas and increases in drought in dry
areas. While precise figures cannot yet be given, current studies
suggest that heavy precipitation rates may increase by 5% - 10%
per °C of warming, similar to the rate of increase of atmospheric
water vapor."

On a separate topic, I thought you might be interested in the GLIMS
numbers for the glaciers on Mt. Shasta:

(Unnamed, I think) G237813E41427N 1950-07-01 58849
G237815E41410N 1950-07-01 58850
Konwakiton Glacier G237805E41400N 1950-07-01 58851
Watkins Glacier G237821E41403N 1950-07-01 58852
Whitney Glacier G237787E41415N 1950-07-01 58853
G237804E41420N 1950-07-01 58854
Bolam Glacier G237799E41421N 1950-07-01 58855
G237803E41424N 1950-07-01 58856
G237813E41422N 1950-07-01 58857
Hotlum Glacier G237814E41418N 1950-07-01 58858
G237818E41416N 1950-07-01 58859

You can use those to secure data on those from the GLIMS dataset. Not
that it probably matters. But there it is because I wasted my time
looking for them. Oh, well.

Thanks, but right now I have to first find some inductors for an EMI
case

hehe. Well, I wasted my time already. So there.

Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see
drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted
we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen.

Then they look at their heating bills. Amounts of required fuel rising,
for example we went from 2 cords to 4 cords. So it ain't getting warmer.
We would never again buy a house with a pool around here.

This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of
engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head.
Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes
in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear
from the people. Meaning voters

None of that changes anything about what I said. Climate is averages
and I think you _know_ this.

If you said, "the average voltage, at 1Hz bandwidth, at this node is 4
volts" and I responded by using a high bandwidth tool and pointing out
a 5 nanosecond spike at 8V and said, "no, it's 8V", you'd know I was
being disingenuous. And you'd be right.
And that 8V spike could be the root cause why a chip always fails so
you'd have made a valid and concerning observation

Not the point when talking about averages, is it?

If you are interested in access to specific details, you might read:

http://nsidc.org/glims/

However, if scarfing through a database is a pain, an informed summary
of the circumstances of mountain glaciers around the world can be had
from: Cogley, J. G., 2009, "Geodetic and direct mass-balance
measurements: comparison and joint analysis," Annals of Glaciology 50,
96-100. I can get you a copy, if you intend to read it.
I know that most glaciers are receding for a while now.

Accepted.

That has
happened in the past as well, and then they grew again. What I harbor
doubts about is that this is human-caused. These doubt haven't exactly
been reduced after the revelations of emails lately.

Understood. It is the __attribution__ that you are questioning. In
many cases, it's worth keeping that in view. Not __everything__ in
the world is 100% due to humans.

True. But the question is whether it's 90%, 50%, or maybe only 2%. That
where warmingists are often making shaky assumptions.

Of course that's an important question. It's been answered, to a
sufficient degree to be useful.

As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther
than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient
truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there
in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and
artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them

Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few
and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me
to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can
track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested
in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point,
I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious
criticism.

Thing is, there's tons and tons of other cases. I mean, guys like old
Oetzi was for sure not doing a glacier hike just for the fun of it. He
was probably hunting on fertile grounds that were ice-free, and then
from what archaeologists have determined killed if not murdered up there.

[...]

In other words, you don't want to spend the time needed to gain a
comprehensive view. I can accept that. But realize what it means as
far as my taking your opinion on any of this.

My feeling here is that climate science is huge. Really huge. No one
masters all of it. But if you can't even be bothered to take a point
you are making -- not something someone else decides to say or write,
but something you decide on your own is true enough that you are
willing to place yourself in a position of making claims about it --
and follow through with even that single thing long enough to find out
where it takes you when you gain a fuller view of even that tiny
corner of things....

Well, why should I care, then?

Yeah. It takes work. So what? Spend it, or don't. But if you
don't, even in cases where you feel comfortable talking strongly about
it... then it undermines (to me) what you say. You either care about
your opinion or you don't. And if you don't, why should I? (On this
subject, obviously. On many others, I'm all ears.)

Jon

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 3:00 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
1fc4cb23-4899-43a0-b863-117f62eae...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:

Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the
first page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his
fact, not mine, and his responsibility to validate it.

If I say 'cookie', do I need to supply a wikipedia reference it exists?

And, that is not the only case that exists.
There was a more recent one IIRC.

The only urban legend here is that you think you can change climate cycle> >s by posting > less about global warming.
Or was it more?
I think less, because that saves energy, CO2, so get on with it!

I'm not per se interested in changing the climate cycles, I'm
interested in getting people to think, which - if it worked - might
get them to think sensibly about anthropogenic global warming, amongst
other topics.

Sensibly thinking about it leads to the insight that the anthropogenic component is insignificant in the view of the > big climate cycles.

Sorry Jan. Your kind of thinking may tend that way, but only because
it is insensible of the scientific evidence.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:

Someone should convey to Martin Brown to go away and eat shit.

How do you think he ended up that way?


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!