Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Rich Grise · Dec 5, 2009

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The global warming hoax revealed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

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!

This is sweet:
http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming/

Cheers!
Rich

Don Klipstein · Dec 8, 2009

In <8rpih51nt20mugqo9617kr9spekrkus13e@4ax.com>, John Larkin said:

It's snowing in Houston:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html

Only mildly unusual, something I hear about every few years or so.
Roughly 25 years ago, San Antonio had a snowstorm of 11 inches IIRC.

Houston has had at least one ice storm before also, including at least
a bit of one from a storm giving Austin 3 inches of snow in early 1985 (or
maybe I am 1-off for year, and that occurred in early 1986 or late 1985.)

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

John Larkin · Dec 8, 2009

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:39:59 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In <8rpih51nt20mugqo9617kr9spekrkus13e@4ax.com>, John Larkin said:

It's snowing in Houston:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html

Only mildly unusual, something I hear about every few years or so.
Roughly 25 years ago, San Antonio had a snowstorm of 11 inches IIRC.

Houston has had at least one ice storm before also, including at least
a bit of one from a storm giving Austin 3 inches of snow in early 1985 (or
maybe I am 1-off for year, and that occurred in early 1986 or late 1985.)

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

-11F in Truckee this morning.

John

Rich Grise · Dec 8, 2009

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 06:39:59 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote:

In <8rpih51nt20mugqo9617kr9spekrkus13e@4ax.com>, John Larkin said:

It's snowing in Houston:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html

Only mildly unusual, something I hear about every few years or so.
Roughly 25 years ago, San Antonio had a snowstorm of 11 inches IIRC.

Houston has had at least one ice storm before also, including at least
a bit of one from a storm giving Austin 3 inches of snow in early 1985 (or
maybe I am 1-off for year, and that occurred in early 1986 or late 1985.)

I had USAF basic training (which the army and marines call "boot camp")
in San Antonio (Lackland AFB), in May and June, 1968. They'd get us
up about 5:30 or 6 AM, and march us to the chow hall (which the A & M call
the "mess hall") for breakfast, and we all froze our asses off!

Cheers!
Rich

Dec 9, 2009

On Dec 1, 8:14 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 2, 12:15 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

I used 166KWHr (9 milliGores) last month. How about you?

I haven't a clue. Since I'm in no position to do anything about it -
we did what little we could to minimise our gas bills when we moved
into our current house back in 1993 - I'm not going to waste my time
finding out.

I just got my new bill: 116 KWHr. It's 9c in my place, and the
thermostat's set to 6c. How about yours?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Dec 9, 2009

On Dec 2, 6:32 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 1, 10:44 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 28, 11:18 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 2:44 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

I didn't say ot was pure. I said I didn't trust your judgement.

Then read it yourself you goof. Don't defend what you haven't seen to
someone who has.

To someone who claims he has. Your 22nd November pratfall suggests
that your own evaluation of your expertise isn't all that realistic.

snip posting conspiracy theory

The section snipped seems to have been

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

And your 22nd November report of what they had said was fatuous
nonsense. There are several possible explanations for this, and none
of them leave you with any kind of credibility. "

I don't see any conspiracy theory here, but a reference to a post
where your claimed expertise seems to have deseted you.

The snipped conspiracy was: you thought I said something on Nov. 22,
the archive didn't support you, so you imagined I somehow altered it,
internet-wide, after the fact, on all the world's computers, archives,
and servers. That's a conspiracy theory.

<snip>

Congratulations. You've established that you then knew that the
current generation of climate models represent a simplified model of
the world.

What you don't seem to realise is that all computer models are
simplified models, and that some are more simplified than others

Huh? I've established that I know models are simplified, yet I don't
seem to realize models are simplified?
That's dense. I write models for Pete's sake.

Despite your scepticism, one can make broad-brush predictions about
the climate without knowing the exact path that the ocean currents
follow from the equator to the poles. We've got a tolerably good idea
of how much heat has to be moved, and that can be handled as a lumped
approximation.

On what basis can you say that you can make broad-brush predictions
about climate by representing ocean currents--an absolutely massive
heat transport--with a lumped approximation?

Here's a lumped approximation: the mean global temperature of the
Earth is about 14.5c. Therefore, there's no snow, no ice, and no
glaciers. Since those aren't reflecting sunlight anymore, increase
your heating assumptions dramatically...Oh dear, we're burning up!

Does that work?

Climate hangs on not just the global mean temperature, but how the
heat's distributed geographically, and the thermodynamic processes
that distribute it. You know, poles, ice caps, equator, tropics,
winds, clouds, currents, etc.

Obviously, this loses you the bobbles on the on the warming curve that
correspond to the El Nino and La Nina alternation, and the similar -
if slower - alternation in the North Altlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation, but these are oscillations and cycle back to repeat
themselves over the years, while the CO2 level just keeps on going up.

I'm not saying that a more detailed model capturing more of the
observations wouldn't be better, but computer based simulation always
depends on manipulating a simplified model of reality, and their
usefulness - in this context - doesn't lie in exactly predicting what
the climate will look like next year, but rather roughly what it would
look like in a century.

You're thrashing the obvious. The question isn't of minor
imperfections, approximations, or limitations of all models, but of
gross deficiencies in the global climate models.

Effectively you are asking for a weather prediction program, when you
should know that such programs break down due to the butterfly effect
with a fortnight, and you are ignoring the techniques used to immunise
climate prediction programs agains the butterfly effect, as well as
neglecting the obvious point that the current generation of climate
models are aimed at finding out how difficult we are going to make
life for our children (or nieces and nephews) and their children and
are thus sub-optimal for predicting next years weather.

What makes you think
a) global climate models are immune to sensitive dependence on
initial conditions, and
b) initial conditions are sufficiently accurately known to predict
future climate? Or that
c) Accurate initial conditions aren't needed?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Dec 9, 2009

On Dec 2, 9:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Your claim was

"The AGW contribution alleged from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A
range of estimates from ~0.25 to
1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered."

You can't substantiate this claim, or tell us where you got it, and in
fact it seems to be flat out wrong.

Do tell us again how much you know about climate modelling, and about
the excellent advice you can get from someone directly involved in the
subject - we need a good laugh.

I made a decent estimate of a critical, but ill-defined AGW factor.
On your prompting, I adopted a clearly ridiculous calculation 4x in
your favor, and showed this still leaves the total influence of man-
made CO2 on AGW in the dust when compared to the uncertainty over
clouds.

Here, here's a cartoon. (Maybe that will help.) It's from that
famous denialist Jim Hansen's outfit (NASA). Note the significance of
clouds:

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/components2.gif

And on models, since you won't read them for yourself, and you want
someone to tell you what to think, here on that well-known paid Exonn-
Mobil shill-site Nature.com is the head of the US National Center for
Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis, on the limitations of global
climate models:

(http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/
predictions_of_climate.html)
=== quote ==None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state
and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely
to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the
oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed
state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither
an El Nińo sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that
replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of
variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline
circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to
match todays state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic
hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade
from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several
of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to
model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible
to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.

The current projection method works to the extent it does because it
utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias
and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes
linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it can not work
for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water
cycle. For instance, if the current state is one of drought then it is
unlikely to get drier, but unrealistic model states and model biases
can easily violate such constraints and project drier conditions. Of
course one can initialize a climate model, but a biased model will
immediately drift back to the model climate and the predicted trends
will then be wrong. Therefore the problem of overcoming this
shortcoming, and facing up to initializing climate models means not
only obtaining sufficient reliable observations of all aspects of the
climate system, but also overcoming model biases. So this is a major
challenge.

Kevin E. Trenberth
Head of the Climate Analysis
US National Center for Atmospheric Research
=== end quote ==
IOW, exactly what I (or any decent programmer would) gleaned from
scanning the code. And he too denies that the models are predictive
(ibid.), that they're being used to make predictions, or that any one
scenario they produce is more credible than another.

Yet they are being used as forecasts. They aren't.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Michael A. Terrell · Dec 11, 2009

JosephKK wrote:

And believe it or not i like and respect John Fields, Jim Thompson,
Michael Terrell, Vladimir Vassilevsk, Jeorg, Jan P., Don K., James
Arthur, Spehro, Martin Brown, Nico Cosel, Phil Hobbs, Frank Buss,
Dimiter Popov, and many more.

I must have slipped up, somewhere. ;-)

--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

Jim Thompson · Dec 31, 2009

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:59:27 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:18:46 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:59 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 25, 1:51 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:
Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could
wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians
invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.
Well, you could have googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau
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.
[snip]

krw · Dec 31, 2009

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:27:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:59:27 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:18:46 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:59 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 25, 1:51 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:
Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could
wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians
invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.
Well, you could have googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau
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.
[snip]

Wiki is so-o-o-o-o reliable....

http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31022&Itemid=70

As long as your twitting the master twit. How about the new evidence
of AGW?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

Opps, there never was any.

Raveninghorde · Dec 31, 2009

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:18:54 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:27:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:59:27 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:18:46 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:59 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 25, 1:51 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:
Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could
wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians
invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.
Well, you could have googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau
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.
[snip]

Wiki is so-o-o-o-o reliable....

http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31022&Itemid=70

As long as your twitting the master twit. How about the new evidence
of AGW?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

Opps, there never was any.

I think that article is badly written.

Even I admit CO2 is rising in the atmosphere. If I've understood it
correctly thay are saying that of the x tons put into the atmosphere
y% dissapears into the oceans etc.

All they are saying is y has remained constant.

Muzaffer Kal · Dec 31, 2009

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:18:54 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

As long as your twitting the master twit. How about the new evidence
of AGW?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

Opps, there never was any.

The only thing the article is saying that the percentage of CO2 which
stays in the atmosphere is not increasing. If you put X tons 0.4*X
tons stay in the atmosphere. Apparently there are some predictions
where the constant would be increasing but this is not being observed.
Of course here we're ignoring the issue acidification of the oceans
(0.6*X tons of CO2 going there).
As the author says "rather than relying on Nature to provide a free
service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the
proportion being absorbed has not changed."
I am curious whether a knee pattern is possible with the absorption
where the CO2 stops dissolving in the oceans almost completely and
pretty suddenly.
--
Muzaffer Kal

DSPIA INC.
ASIC/FPGA Design Services

http://www.dspia.com

krw · Dec 31, 2009

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:07:37 -0800, Muzaffer Kal <kal@dspia.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:18:54 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
As long as your twitting the master twit. How about the new evidence
of AGW?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

Opps, there never was any.

The only thing the article is saying that the percentage of CO2 which
stays in the atmosphere is not increasing. If you put X tons 0.4*X
tons stay in the atmosphere. Apparently there are some predictions
where the constant would be increasing but this is not being observed.
Of course here we're ignoring the issue acidification of the oceans
(0.6*X tons of CO2 going there).
As the author says "rather than relying on Nature to provide a free
service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the
proportion being absorbed has not changed."
I am curious whether a knee pattern is possible with the absorption
where the CO2 stops dissolving in the oceans almost completely and
pretty suddenly.

You assume there is a knee pattern. You assume positive feedback from
some unknown, invisible, hand that will cause the world to end. IOW,
you're a religious nutter, like Slowman.

Michael A. Terrell · Jan 12, 2010

Jim Thompson wrote:

Wiki is so-o-o-o-o reliable....

http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31022&Itemid=70

Ch. 35 in Orlando, just did a news story on Global Cooling. Even the
MSM is starting to admit their mistakes.

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

Jim Thompson · Jan 12, 2010

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:29:43 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Wiki is so-o-o-o-o reliable....

http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31022&Itemid=70

Ch. 35 in Orlando, just did a news story on Global Cooling. Even the
MSM is starting to admit their mistakes.

Michael A. Terrell · Jan 12, 2010

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:29:43 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Wiki is so-o-o-o-o reliable....

http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31022&Itemid=70

Ch. 35 in Orlando, just did a news story on Global Cooling. Even the
MSM is starting to admit their mistakes.

What in the world is that link? Something got cobbled.

I have no clue. It was your link.

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Rich Grise

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

krw

Guest

Raveninghorde

Guest

Muzaffer Kal

Guest

krw

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Rich Grise

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

krw

Guest

Raveninghorde

Guest

Muzaffer Kal

Guest

krw

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor