Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of
potentially active volcanoes in your state.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger
under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht
immediately.

http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in-history/

I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I
am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some
"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.



Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in
Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact.

What I was told before I married my sweetheart: If the father-in-law
says that the water runs up the drain then it does run up the drain.

But he turned out to be a fun guy. Wish he was still around.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Jamie]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:


Bill Sloman wrote:


You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of
potentially active volcanoes in your state.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger
under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht
immediately.

http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in-history/


I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I
am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some
"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.




Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in
Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact.

John

Nice to see that Slowman has decreed a format that every one can

understand.

Although, I doubt that all will fuzzy warm feelings about!

 

On Nov 25, 7:59 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 25, 12:12 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:



On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:03:18 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
e8d9dfe9-9805-4503-bd9a-662f0098c...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 24, 1:25 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl=
oman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
be3e96e1-68fd-4366-b23d-5c7f15549...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>:

The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction
companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed
at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to
prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does
imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather
dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest.

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas origin=
ating from your overheated globe.

BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic
global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more
sustainable activities.

You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the
only way to generate energy.

You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case.
After all the case I made here for nuclear power.

The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy,

Just admit you have no clue and are wrong.

Okay boys and girls, FWIW let's whip out the calculator and fact-check
the authoritative Mr. Bill:

France produces
447e12 watt-hours of electricity annually, and consumes
1.99 x 10e6 bbl of petroleum (37MJ/L) per day, plus
49.27e9 m^3 of natural gas (36.4 MJ/m^3)
(CIA factbook)

How much energy is in that oil?

1.99e6 bbl/day * 365 days = 726e6 bbl/year,
x 159L/bbl = 115e9 L/year
x 37MJ / L = 4.27e18 J/year.

Doing the same for natural gas, we get:

(view table in fixed font)
FOSSIL FUELS
natural gas: 1.79 x 10^18 J
petroleum: 4.27 x 10^18 J
--------------
Subtotal: 6.06 x 10^18 J

ELECTRICAL
Total
electricity: 1.61 x 10^18 J
(nuclear): 1.29 x 10^18 J

TOTAL FOSSIL+NUCLEAR
7.35 x 10^18 J


So, France gets 18% of its energy from nukes, 82% from FOSSIL fuels.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Nov 25, 7:23 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...@yahoodagger.co.nz>
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:25:27 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:



On Nov 25, 7:59 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy,

Just admit you have no clue and are wrong.

Okay boys and girls, FWIW let's whip out the calculator and fact-check
the authoritative Mr. Bill:

France produces
 447e12 watt-hours of electricity annually, and consumes
 1.99 x 10e6 bbl of petroleum (37MJ/L) per day, plus
 49.27e9 m^3 of natural gas (36.4 MJ/m^3)
(CIA factbook)

How much energy is in that oil?

1.99e6 bbl/day * 365 days = 726e6 bbl/year,
 x 159L/bbl = 115e9 L/year
 x 37MJ / L = 4.27e18 J/year.

Doing the same for natural gas, we get:

(view table in fixed font)
FOSSIL FUELS
 natural gas: 1.79 x 10^18 J
 petroleum:   4.27 x 10^18 J
              --------------
   Subtotal:  6.06 x 10^18 J

ELECTRICAL
 Total
 electricity: 1.61 x 10^18 J
  (nuclear):  1.29 x 10^18 J

TOTAL FOSSIL+NUCLEAR
              7.35 x 10^18 J

So, France gets 18% of its energy from nukes, 82% from FOSSIL fuels.

Comprehension has obviously never been your best skill!

Bill clearly stated;

"The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed"

Note the words ELECTRIC power.

Right. Bill wrongly threw out a red herring. Jan noted that fossil
fuels made all this (civilization) possible, and Bill blabbered an
irrelevant statistic about one of France's minor power sources, as if
that meant France were fossil-fuel independent.

That was all bogus, so I brought the thing back on point.

You've used the CIA figures for total fossil fuels, which includes
that used for transportation, heating, industrial processes etc.

The Wikipedia page for Nuclear Power in France states;

"In France, as of 2002[update], Électricité de France (EDF) — the
country's main electricity generation and distribution company —
manages the country's 58 nuclear power plants. As of 2008[update],
these plants produce 90% of both EDF's and France's electrical power
production (of which much is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader
in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out
of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power
(78.8%)."

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

Shame about all those wasted calculations you went through.
Bill's post was authoritative.

Bill's post was specious, but thanks for checking. Hope you enjoyed
the herring!

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 25, 7:23 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...@yahoodagger.co.nz
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:25:27 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:



On Nov 25, 7:59 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy,

Just admit you have no clue and are wrong.

Okay boys and girls, FWIW let's whip out the calculator and fact-check
the authoritative Mr. Bill:

France produces
 447e12 watt-hours of electricity annually, and consumes
 1.99 x 10e6 bbl of petroleum (37MJ/L) per day, plus
 49.27e9 m^3 of natural gas (36.4 MJ/m^3)
(CIA factbook)

How much energy is in that oil?

1.99e6 bbl/day * 365 days = 726e6 bbl/year,
 x 159L/bbl = 115e9 L/year
 x 37MJ / L = 4.27e18 J/year.

Doing the same for natural gas, we get:

(view table in fixed font)
FOSSIL FUELS
 natural gas: 1.79 x 10^18 J
 petroleum:   4.27 x 10^18 J
              --------------
   Subtotal:  6.06 x 10^18 J

ELECTRICAL
 Total
 electricity: 1.61 x 10^18 J
  (nuclear):  1.29 x 10^18 J

TOTAL FOSSIL+NUCLEAR
              7.35 x 10^18 J

So, France gets 18% of its energy from nukes, 82% from FOSSIL fuels.

Comprehension has obviously never been your best skill!

Bill clearly stated;

"The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed"

Note the words ELECTRIC power.

Right. Bill wrongly threw out a red herring. Jan noted that fossil
fuels made all this (civilization) possible, and Bill blabbered an
irrelevant statistic about one of France's minor power sources, as if
that meant France were fossil-fuel independent.

That was all bogus, so I brought the thing back on point.

Nice try, but as I commented before, comprehension is not your best
skill.

Jan introduced nuclear energy when he stated

You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case.
After all the case I made here for nuclear power.

To which Bill replied

The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed....

and then you lost the plot.

If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise
your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And
who appointed you thread controller of sed!

You've used the CIA figures for total fossil fuels, which includes
that used for transportation, heating, industrial processes etc.

The Wikipedia page for Nuclear Power in France states;

"In France, as of 2002[update], Électricité de France (EDF) — the
country's main electricity generation and distribution company —
manages the country's 58 nuclear power plants. As of 2008[update],
these plants produce 90% of both EDF's and France's electrical power
production (of which much is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader
in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out
of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power
(78.8%)."

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

Shame about all those wasted calculations you went through.
Bill's post was authoritative.

Bill's post was specious, but thanks for checking. Hope you enjoyed
the herring!

The fishy smell is all emanating from your direction.

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

 

[Raveninghorde]

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

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:23:12 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore
<abor1953needle@yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote in
<cphrg5d3en3gdci010svovfv5l83p6hc3d@4ax.com>:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:25:27 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 25, 7:59 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy,

Just admit you have no clue and are wrong.


Okay boys and girls, FWIW let's whip out the calculator and fact-check
the authoritative Mr. Bill:

France produces
447e12 watt-hours of electricity annually, and consumes
1.99 x 10e6 bbl of petroleum (37MJ/L) per day, plus
49.27e9 m^3 of natural gas (36.4 MJ/m^3)
(CIA factbook)

How much energy is in that oil?

1.99e6 bbl/day * 365 days = 726e6 bbl/year,
x 159L/bbl = 115e9 L/year
x 37MJ / L = 4.27e18 J/year.

Doing the same for natural gas, we get:

(view table in fixed font)
FOSSIL FUELS
natural gas: 1.79 x 10^18 J
petroleum: 4.27 x 10^18 J
--------------
Subtotal: 6.06 x 10^18 J

ELECTRICAL
Total
electricity: 1.61 x 10^18 J
(nuclear): 1.29 x 10^18 J

TOTAL FOSSIL+NUCLEAR
7.35 x 10^18 J


So, France gets 18% of its energy from nukes, 82% from FOSSIL fuels.

Comprehension has obviously never been your best skill!

Bill clearly stated;

"The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed"

Note the words ELECTRIC power.

You've used the CIA figures for total fossil fuels, which includes
that used for transportation, heating, industrial processes etc.

The Wikipedia page for Nuclear Power in France states;

"In France, as of 2002[update], Électricité de France (EDF) — the
country's main electricity generation and distribution company —
manages the country's 58 nuclear power plants. As of 2008[update],
these plants produce 90% of both EDF's and France's electrical power
production (of which much is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader
in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out
of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power
(78.8%)."

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

Shame about all those wasted calculations you went through.
Bill's post was authoritative.

Billie's post was a reply to mine, and was total bull.
Billy seems to think storing CO2 under your bed will stop natural climate cycles.
Billy is a very confused, misleaded by Al Gore, human being.
Quoting out of context from one of his text may mentally hurt you.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in
<0cnrg5h8si41lusotsgkcr6uv5s1dtukmv@4ax.com>:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of
potentially active volcanoes in your state.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger
under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht
immediately.

http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in-history/


I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I
am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some
"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.



Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in
Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact.

John

Yes, exactly, that is real science.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:32:44 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore
<abor1953needle@yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote in
<1strg5da6c1m0aq0dmpdiefet7u9vngch5@4ax.com>:

That was all bogus, so I brought the thing back on point.

Nice try, but as I commented before, comprehension is not your best
skill.

Jan introduced nuclear energy when he stated

You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case.
After all the case I made here for nuclear power.

To which Bill replied

The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed....

and then you lost the plot.

You, like Billy the Slowman, seem to be manipulting reality.
This is how the *real* conversation went:

Me:
*>> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
*>> there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas origin=
*>ating from
*>> your overheated globe.

Slowman:
*>BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic
*>global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more
*>sustainable activities.
*>
*>You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*>only way to generate energy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Me again now:
To that I replied that I made the case for nuclear power several times here, nothing to do with climate.
Was just rectifying an other one of Billy Slowman's dreamstates, inaccuracies.

Regards
Malcolm

Enjoy your windmails.

Bye

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:35:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 24, 2:00 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

The sky is falling around the doom and gloom boys, and especially around
that insufferable fatass Al Gore leech, and you're still kissing their
asses because you don't want to admit that you were blinded by their
bullshit "science".

If you had had the benefit of a scientific education you might be
aware that the science involved isn't bullshit.

---
If you had had the benefit of English being your first language, you
probably would have been aware that I was criticizing the practitioners,
not the practice.
---

You can criticise the practitioners to your heart's content. I'm
interested in the science, and it doesn't happen to be bullshit.

---
I'll do what I want, you fatuous ass, and you're one of the
practitioners I'm talking about.

But then again, thinking about it, actually you're not.

What you do is look at edited data which others have gathered and have
woven into tapestries which makes their hypotheses look plausible to
you, and then you try to proselytize their "findings" as gospel without
ever having done any of the actual physical work required to determine
whether the conclusions drawn by the weavers of the tapestries are
valid.
---

If you'd ever worked
with academics, you'd be aware that they waste a lot of time on office
politics.

---
I consider you to be an academic, and your demeanor here certainly lends
credence to your comment.
---

That you can't tell the difference between me and a full-time academic
gives a pretty accurate measure of your - nonexistent - perspicacity
in the area.

---
That you can't tell that I was likening your propensity to waste time
with office politics, here, to your assessment of the same practice
being followed by "real" academics, as negative, reveals a lot about
your problems with the English language as well as with your inability
to deal with subtlety.
---

The e-mails are going to give Ravinghorde a lot of pleasure
- I won't say innocent because he is going to use them to indulge his
passion for idiotic conspiracy theories - but they aren't going to make
a blind bit of difference to the science.

---
To the science, of course not.

To the practitioners and their slimy tricks, it should make a great deal
of difference in the future to those who believe that: "Once burned,
your fault; twice burned, my fault.
---

Dream on.

---
Hmmm...

Another one of your scathing retorts?
---

But it's not really your fault, poor baby, and because you don't know
enough about it to allow you to make objective decisions about the
conclusions come to by your suicidols, you then tie in with them since
they're a bunch of crooks who talk the same language you do.
You are welcome to review the literature and come to your own
conclusions.

---
Of course, but with the data being cooked and my discipline being other
than climatology, I'd be hard pressed to detect the chicanery  
---

Your discipline? You clearly specialise in rural ignorance, but this
isn't usually elevanted to the dignity of a discipline.

---
You may cry, "rural ignorance", but when you put yourself in the
position of stating, categorically, that energy can be extracted from a
conductor carrying an alternating current by winding a coil around it,
then _you_ become the village idiot.

And, by not admitting to your error, all the sleazeballs who came before
you stand on _your_ shoulders.
---

And your conviction that the data has been cooked is based on a
credulous belief that Ravinghorde and favourite nitwit conspiracy
theorists have got it right.

---
Can you deny it by supplying real data which refutes it?
---

If Exxon-Mobile were suddenly to see some
profit in beleiving in anthropogenic global warming you'd presumably
be just as ready to believe the output of their propaganda mill
telling you that the data hadn't been cooked after all.

---
If, if, if...
You make up straw men, but even if it were true why would I fall for
their bullshit when I don't fall for yours?
---

You haven't ever displayed any kind of physical insight,

---
How would _you_ know?

On account of having had to acquire some physical insight in order to
get a Ph.D. in physical chemistry

---
Interesting that that "insight" doesn't transfer over to magnetics as
attested to by the fact that you don't even know how transformers work.
---

You float on the surface and display a convex negative meniscus about
99% of the time, and when someone _does_ throw you a little pearl of
surfactant you dog-paddle as hard as you can to keep from going under.

A rather artificial literary conceit. It doesn't mean anything, in
this context, except that you must have plagiarised it from somebody
with literary ambitions.

---
That you can't glean meaning from it doesn't mean meaning isn't there,
and your accusation smacks of trying to but the blame for your ignorance
on someone other than yourself. "Killing the messenger", so to speak.
---

so it is unlikely that your insight will be worth much, but this is a
democratic society, so Exxon-Mobil and similar firms are free to spend
millions of dollars concocting plausible lies good enough to persuade
the unsophisticated voter to let them keep on making money by digging
up and selling fossil carbon for use as fuel.

---
Seems that the doom and gloom boys have been caught with their hands in
the cookie jar as far as plausible lies goes,

And one of these "plausible lies" is?

---
Al Gore's latest bookcover?
---

Ravinghorde really does want to believe the haul of private e-mails
does contain something genuinely scandalous, but he's out of luck.

---
If you think that cooking data and willful suppression of contradictory
viewpoints isn't scandalous, then it's clear to see why you don't
consider your own dishonesty to be anything but trivial.
---

and your criticism of what
you call Raveninghhorde's: "passion for idiotic conspiracy theories"
seems hypocritical when laid next to your: "Exxon-Mobil and similar
firms are free to spend millions of dollars concocting plausible lies
good enough to persuade the unsophisticated voter to let them keep on
making money by digging up and selling fossil carbon for use as fuel."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Exxon-Funded_Skeptics

---
19 million dollars in 20 years???

Chump change compared to what the alarmists have spent trying to make a
fortune by shoving mythical AGW down everyone's throat.
---

Exxon-Mobil has to publish the accounts that show where they spend
their money, and they have - and apparently still are - spending
millions on funding denialist groups.

The British Royal Society isn't in the habit of endorsing idiotic
conspiracy theories, but Exxon-Mobil managed to irritate them enough
to earn a public rebuke

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business

---
As if it mattered.

If they want to fight, then they should take it to the courts.
---

New Orleans didn't tell you anything, but it is outside the borders of
Texas.

---
What New Orleans told me was that we have a lot to learn about
controlling the aftermath of a disaster, and your crack about it being
outside the borders of Texas is just an intimation that we're provincial
hicks who can't see past the ends of our noses; a typical trick a lying
cheat like you would try to pull when you have no evidence that AGW
caused Katrina but you want it to seem like you do.
---

It's highly unlikely that AWG "caused" Katrina. The anthropogenic
global warming that we have had so far has made Katrina-sized
hurricanes somewhat more likely than than they were before 1750, but
there aren't enough hurricanes per year for the increased risk to be
statistically significant - the standard deviation on discrete events
can't be less than the square root of the number of events, so you
need a lot of events to let you see a small increase.

We've had 0.74 ą 0.18 °C (1.33 ą 0.32 °F) of global warming since
1900. Nobody has much hope that it will be less than 2°C by the end of
this century. We probably won't have to wait anything likw as long to
have a statistically significant difference by then.

---
Caught with your hand in the cookie jar, eh?
---

You will probably have to lose Galveston again before the penny
drops.

---
You have no _facts_, of course, and if you believe AGW had anything to
do with that hurricane, I suggest this makes sense to you:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

In reality, I do have a couple of facts. One is that sea surface
temperatures above 26.5°C favour hurricane growth, and that higher sea
surface temperatures correlate with more intense hurricanes. Global
warming implies both larger areas of tropical ocean above 26.5C for a
greater proportion of the summer - whence more hurricanes - and more
xtensive areas where the surface temperature is even warmer, whence
more intense hurricanes.

---
Global warming.

AGW???

Well, the jury's still out on that one even though you and the rest of
the lynch mob are out looking for rope.
---

Granting your lack of physical insight, this probably means no more to
you than would telling you that the Great Spaghetti Monster responds
to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by winding up more
hurricanes and winding them up tighter, but the arguement couched in
terms of sea surface temperature has the advantage of being persuasive
to people who know something about the subject.

---
The question isn't whether warmer sea surface temperatures result in
more, and more violent hurricanes, the question is whether AGW is
playing a significant role in the warming.

People like you tend to gloss over that distinction and, unless you're
taken to task for it, pretend that it's all due to AGW.

JF

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:55:21 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:35:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

---
The question isn't whether warmer sea surface temperatures result in
more, and more violent hurricanes, the question is whether AGW is
playing a significant role in the warming.

People like you tend to gloss over that distinction and, unless you're
taken to task for it, pretend that it's all due to AGW.

JF

And another question is how much of the AGW is down to CO2, rather
than deforestation, changes in land use, growing urban areas, other
gases, etc.

 

On Nov 25, 11:32 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...@yahoodagger.co.nz>
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:



On Nov 25, 7:23 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...@yahoodagger.co.nz
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:25:27 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 25, 7:59 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy,

Just admit you have no clue and are wrong.

Okay boys and girls, FWIW let's whip out the calculator and fact-check
the authoritative Mr. Bill:

France produces
447e12 watt-hours of electricity annually, and consumes
1.99 x 10e6 bbl of petroleum (37MJ/L) per day, plus
49.27e9 m^3 of natural gas (36.4 MJ/m^3)
(CIA factbook)

How much energy is in that oil?

1.99e6 bbl/day * 365 days = 726e6 bbl/year,
x 159L/bbl = 115e9 L/year
x 37MJ / L = 4.27e18 J/year.

Doing the same for natural gas, we get:

(view table in fixed font)
FOSSIL FUELS
natural gas: 1.79 x 10^18 J
petroleum: 4.27 x 10^18 J
--------------
Subtotal: 6.06 x 10^18 J

ELECTRICAL
Total
electricity: 1.61 x 10^18 J
(nuclear): 1.29 x 10^18 J

TOTAL FOSSIL+NUCLEAR
7.35 x 10^18 J

So, France gets 18% of its energy from nukes, 82% from FOSSIL fuels.

Comprehension has obviously never been your best skill!

Bill clearly stated;

"The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed"

Note the words ELECTRIC power.

Right. Bill wrongly threw out a red herring. Jan noted that fossil
fuels made all this (civilization) possible, and Bill blabbered an
irrelevant statistic about one of France's minor power sources, as if
that meant France were fossil-fuel independent.

That was all bogus, so I brought the thing back on point.

Nice try, but as I commented before, comprehension is not your best
skill.

Jan introduced nuclear energy when he stated

You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case.
After all the case I made here for nuclear power.

To which Bill replied

The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed....

and then you lost the plot.

Let's dig through and re-create that conversation, shall we?

Here's Bill, quoting Jan:

The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy,

To which Jan replied, reiterating his point that civilization was
founded and still largely dependent on fossil fuels:

"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, there would be no civilisation and not even internet, and
no printing material, no paper, some paper manufacturers have
their own power plants. Been there."

If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise
your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And
who appointed you thread controller of sed!

Oh I just meant to bring Bill back to Jan's immediate point, of our
dependence on fossil fuels. As much as I admire France's nuclear
power and think we should do more of that, it's not a panacea--even
France is still critically dependent on fossil fuel, and I wanted to
know how dependent. So I added it up. ~82% from fossil fuel.

But I'm not foolish enough to try keeping Bill on any sort of topic--
that's like herding fish.

The thread topic was about a bunch of AGW promoters being caught
lying, manipulating data, conspiring against competitors, and so
forth. Bill didn't like that topic, so he raised a fuss and a bunch
of strawmen so we'd all talk about something else. Standard operating
procedure.

You've used the CIA figures for total fossil fuels, which includes
that used for transportation, heating, industrial processes etc.

The Wikipedia page for Nuclear Power in France states;

"In France, as of 2002[update], Électricité de France (EDF) — the
country's main electricity generation and distribution company —
manages the country's 58 nuclear power plants. As of 2008[update],
these plants produce 90% of both EDF's and France's electrical power
production (of which much is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader
in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out
of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power
(78.8%)."

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

Shame about all those wasted calculations you went through.
Bill's post was authoritative.

Bill's post was specious, but thanks for checking. Hope you enjoyed
the herring!

The fishy smell is all emanating from your direction.

Probably true--I _wish_ I had some herring, but had to settle for
roasted sardines mixed in with steamed brown rice last night, and I
enjoyed it very much!

(Alas, the can's labeled "Product of Canada," and I fear it might've
been caught in non-nuclear powered boats, then transported thousands
of miles using more of the same fossil-fuel technology. The rice too,
for that matter.)

Bravo for your heart-felt defense of Bill--he's surrounded, out of
ammo, and sure could use the help.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Nov 26, 6:26 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in
0cnrg5h8si41lusotsgkcr6uv5s1dtu...@4ax.com>:



On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of
potentially active volcanoes in your state.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger
under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht
immediately.

http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in....

I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I
am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some
"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.

Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in
Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact.

John

Yes, exactly, that is real science.

I also strongly insist that Joerg lives in Oregon, therefore, not only
is it a peer-reviewed fact, but there's also a consensus.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:26 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 26, 6:26 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in
0cnrg5h8si41lusotsgkcr6uv5s1dtu...@4ax.com>:



On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of
potentially active volcanoes in your state.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger
under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht
immediately.

http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in...

I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I
am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some
"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.

Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in
Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact.

John

Yes, exactly, that is real science.

I also strongly insist that Joerg lives in Oregon, therefore, not only
is it a peer-reviewed fact, but there's also a consensus.

I have just run a simulation that proves that Joerg lives in Oregon.

There can be no more doubt.

John

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<4688b1c8-f155-4b23-bb22-a8e56c28fa1b@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:

And even if you assumed CO2 levels did, where did the CO2 come from?

CO2 is being subducted - as carbonate rock - all the time. The
carbonate is unstable once it gets into the outer mantle and comes out
again in volcanic eruptions. The spectacular volcanic eruptions that
created the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps released a lot of CO2
in a relatively short time - geologically speaking.

Good, so it does not come from us burning stuff.

The fact that some of the laval flow came up through coal fields meant
that they burnt a fair bit of fossil carbon in the process.

It is much more simple (Occam's) to think CO2 levels went up because the =
warmer climate
had more animals populate the earth....
But even that may not be so.

It isn't. there aren't enough animals around to to have much direct
effect on the CO2 level in the atmosphere - if they don't go in for
digging up and burning fossil carbon on an industrial scale.

Good, then we can forget all that Gore stuff about farting cows and pigs that are bad for the world,
and need to be more taxed.

 

[Bill Sloman]

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.
Well, I did. But anyhow, all I wanted to show was how easy it is for
homo sapiens to do something really, really stupid in order to "solve"
some environmental concern quickly. So I fully understand Jan when he
says he doesn't want to live on top of a gigantic CO2 bubble. I most
certainly would not want to either.

You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of
potentially active volcanoes in your state.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger
under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht
immediately.

http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in...

I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I
am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some
"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.

Perhaps you should try to develop slightly more realistic perceptions
of risk. There are potentially active volcanoes in Northern California
too.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-ca.html

In the same way that I support the rigorous clinical testing and
validation of stuff in my field of medical electronics.

Joke. When I was involved, most of the "potential risks" were based on
"research" carried out by medicos who had never heard of double blind
experiments and didn't know how to test the statistical significance
of their results. Your approach to evaluating potential risks doesn't
suggest that the situation has improved in recent years.

Where's the
_thorough_ testing and validation of CO2 storage in old gas fields
documented? Got any links?

http://www.k12-b.nl/

http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/7.pdf

are the first two google hits. The second mentions that CO2 injection
is a well-established technique for sweeping the last natural gas or
oil out of a nearly depleted field.

"CO2-EOR is commercially proven. It is used extensively in the USA,
where 74 projects
are now operating, injecting some 33 million tonnes of CO2 annually."

It may be going on in an oil field near you, but I'd still pay mre
attention to the volcanoes. They are much more likely to let loose
unexpectedly and on a large scale.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 26, 2:46 am, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:





Bill Slomanwrote:
You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of
potentially active volcanoes in your state.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger
under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht
immediately.

http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in....

I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I
am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some
"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.

Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in
Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact.

On the contrary, it just failed peer-review. If this were a peer-
reviewed journal, it wouldn't have been published.

In fact, Jeorg lives close enough to Oregon to still have a
potentially active volcanoe or two in the vicinity

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-ca.html

so the point I was making remains valid.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jan Panteltje]

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>:

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.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 26, 5:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 26, 6:26 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in
0cnrg5h8si41lusotsgkcr6uv5s1dtu...@4ax.com>:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:

You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of
potentially active volcanoes in your state.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger
under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht
immediately.

http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in...

I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I
am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some
"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.

Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in
Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact.

John

Yes, exactly, that is real science.

I also strongly insist that Joerg lives in Oregon, therefore, not only
is it a peer-reviewed fact, but there's also a consensus.

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:18:38 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in
<5hhtg59ebm1521q5sqnrdg2d2cp1d3gs24@4ax.com>:

I have just run a simulation that proves that Joerg lives in Oregon.

There can be no more doubt.

John

Well, eh, you did not run it in MS windows now did you ?