Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 5:48 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:51:24 -0800, Joerg 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.

What is it that causes people to completely dismiss the elementary fact
that plants absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into food,
building materials, and flower gardens?

What is it that prevent Rich Grise from appreciating that they don't
absorb enough?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 2:44 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:31:12 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
dfeab536-fe22-48ed-a245-0ab80e75c...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:





On Nov 25, 12:00 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl> >oman
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?

Google writes a tracking cookie to your computer whenever you do a
search, so you don't have to bother.

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 cy> >cle> >> >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 co> >mponent is insignificant in the view of the big climate cycles.

Sorry. That is insensible non-thinking, otherwise known as wishful
thinking. I think you'd better think it out again, after you've
learned a bit more about greenhouse gases and how they work.

There is no proof whatsover that CO2 levels have caused warming in the past.

Rather, none that satisifies you. In fact, it is very easy to create a
model earth that doesn't have any water or CO2 in its atmosphere, and
show that its average surface temperature would -18C, some 32C colder
than our current 14C.

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

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.

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 5:59 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:44:14 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:31:12 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill> Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
On Nov 25, 12:00 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill
Sl> >>oman

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
co> >>mponent is insignificant in the view of the big climate cycles.

Sorry. That is insensible non-thinking, otherwise known as wishful
thinking. I think you'd better think it out again, after you've learned a
bit more about greenhouse gases and how they work.

There is no proof whatsover that CO2 levels have caused warming in the
past. And even if you assumed CO2 levels did, where did the CO2 come from?
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.

Not to mention that the warming cycles PRECEDE the elevations in CO2
levels. This is pretty obvious, when you consider that cold water can hold
more CO2 in solution than warm water can.

However if you dig up a lot of coal or oil and burn it - as we have
done - you can get the CO2 level in the atmosphere to rise before the
positive feedbacks kick in to really push up the surface temperature

But Bill has faith, which trumps facts, like this inconvenient one:http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of...

Rich is igorant enough to think that this botched propaganda piece
represents a fact.

The idiot reporter involved is dim enough to think that he can claim
that Al Gore would say the CO2 is only responsible for 40% of the
greenhouse warming, when it is well known that it only contributes
between 9% and 26% of the warming, while water contributes between 36%
and 72%.

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

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 2:50 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:59:41 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
b8cfe9e0-a079-4bdd-8ed8-0cf93cc7d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:







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 ori> >gin> >> >> 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.

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.

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.

Or renounce it all, and go live on one of the last energy free little islands... 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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 4:16 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 25, 8:50 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:59:41 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
b8cfe9e0-a079-4bdd-8ed8-0cf93cc7d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:

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 ori> > >gin> > >> >> 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.

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.
Now wake up from your green dreams.

Green 2009 == Red.

Once green meant people who really were concerned about the
environment.  Now it's just an entree, a pretext, a populist theme to
gain power; a backdoor.  One of Alinsky's Rules.

Typical right-wing paranoia - because right-winger are always
conspiring to maintain their power over the rest of the population,
they can't conceive of any other motive for acquiring politcal power
of any sort.

The depth of James Arthur's insight into the issue can be seen from
his confident assertion that climate models can't predict more than
two weeks ahead, which would be true if he were talking about weather
models, which are susceptible to the butterfly effect.

This is such a comical misapprehension that it miakes it difficult to
take him seriously on any subject.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

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

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.

But the claim was "The French generate most of their electric power
from nuclear
reactors" so the the relevant part of the clown's calculation is

ELECTRICAL

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

1.29 is 80% of 1.61, so Mr. Bill remains authoritative amd Mr. James
remains a clown.

I must say he's wasted quite a lot of time and bandwidth demonstating
that he doesn't bother to engage his brain before applying his fingers
to the keyboard.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <rk2tg59mtlmlbjmrhp1fr7e2gn1dcpfejm@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

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.

If only we could get the total...

However, there are figures of some sort for CO2 and for other GHGs:

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

W/m^2 (presumably out of 492 W/m^2 Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget)
change due to increase of GHGs since the Industrial Revolution:

CO2: 1.46
Methane: .48
CFC-12: .17
N2O: .15
CFC-11: .07
CFC-113: .03
HCFC-22: .03
Carbon Tet: .01

It appears to me that of these, only CO2 and N2O are on the increase.
Methane is stabilized for now, but I am not sure it will remain so. The
carbon-chlorine compounds all look to me to be stabilized to being
slightly reduced now.

It looks to me like the total from increase of GHGs is 2.4 W/m^2, of
which .79 W/m^2 is from GHGs currently no longer increasing,

and of that .79, .31 W/m^2 is from carbon-chlorine compounds whose
increase is known to be fairly permanently turned back.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@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.

JF

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:32:43 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <rk2tg59mtlmlbjmrhp1fr7e2gn1dcpfejm@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
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.

If only we could get the total...

However, there are figures of some sort for CO2 and for other GHGs:

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

W/m^2 (presumably out of 492 W/m^2 Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget)
change due to increase of GHGs since the Industrial Revolution:

CO2: 1.46
Methane: .48
CFC-12: .17
N2O: .15
CFC-11: .07
CFC-113: .03
HCFC-22: .03
Carbon Tet: .01

It appears to me that of these, only CO2 and N2O are on the increase.
Methane is stabilized for now, but I am not sure it will remain so. The
carbon-chlorine compounds all look to me to be stabilized to being
slightly reduced now.

It looks to me like the total from increase of GHGs is 2.4 W/m^2, of
which .79 W/m^2 is from GHGs currently no longer increasing,

and of that .79, .31 W/m^2 is from carbon-chlorine compounds whose
increase is known to be fairly permanently turned back.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

The wikipedia article quotes IPCC numbers. Unfortunately anything from
the IPCC is suspect given that Mann/Jones et al seem to have acted as
bouncers for the consensus.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:26:45 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

I must say he's wasted quite a lot of time and bandwidth demonstating
that he doesn't bother to engage his brain before applying his fingers
to the keyboard.

---
PKB, Mr. "I can extract energy from the variable magnetic field
surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current by wrapping a
solenoid around it."

JF

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:32:43 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <rk2tg59mtlmlbjmrhp1fr7e2gn1dcpfejm@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
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.

If only we could get the total...

However, there are figures of some sort for CO2 and for other GHGs:

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

W/m^2 (presumably out of 492 W/m^2 Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget)
change due to increase of GHGs since the Industrial Revolution:

CO2: 1.46
Methane: .48
CFC-12: .17
N2O: .15
CFC-11: .07
CFC-113: .03
HCFC-22: .03
Carbon Tet: .01

It appears to me that of these, only CO2 and N2O are on the increase.
Methane is stabilized for now, but I am not sure it will remain so.
snip

Methane has begun rising, again.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis:

"The concentration of methane (CH4) in the atmosphere increased
since 2007 to 1800 parts per billion (ppb) after almost a decade
of little change (Figure 2). The causes of the recent increase in
CH4 have not yet been determined. The spatial distribution of
the CH4 increase shows that an increase in Northern Hemisphere
CH4 emissions has played a role and could dominate the signal (Rigby
et al. 2008), but the source of the increase is unknown."

Just a footnote.

Jon

 

[Joerg]

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.
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

Yup, Clear Lake, about 100 miles from here. Last activity 10000 years
ago. Oh, now I won't be able sleep anymore ...

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.

I am not going to comment as you obviously do not know much about that
profession. Rest assured that if you do get into cardiac trouble the
stuff we have designed here is fully validated and safe. The major
hospitals in your country have it.

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

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

Since 2004. Not exactly a long and thorough test. Plus it looks like
it's under the ocean, not cities.

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

Quote: "Initial investigations in the USA indicate that it may be
possible to inject CO2 into gas fields that are approaching the end of
their productive lives and enhance gas production, without contamination
of the residual gas. Further research into CO2 enhanced gas production
is required. If, however, it is established that the process is
technically feasible, then the overall cost of CO2 capture and storage
could be similar to that in oil fields."

I assume you know the meaning of the li'l word "may"

Hint: No, it's not a month.

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."

Like where?

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.

The nastiest one in a very long time was Mount St.Helens. And the folks
killed there were AFAIR those who dared to climb up fully knowing it
could go off any minute.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Jim Thompson]

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.
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


Yup, Clear Lake, about 100 miles from here. Last activity 10000 years
ago. Oh, now I won't be able sleep anymore ...


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.


I am not going to comment as you obviously do not know much about that
profession. Rest assured that if you do get into cardiac trouble the
stuff we have designed here is fully validated and safe. The major
hospitals in your country have it.


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

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


Since 2004. Not exactly a long and thorough test. Plus it looks like
it's under the ocean, not cities.


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


Quote: "Initial investigations in the USA indicate that it may be
possible to inject CO2 into gas fields that are approaching the end of
their productive lives and enhance gas production, without contamination
of the residual gas. Further research into CO2 enhanced gas production
is required. If, however, it is established that the process is
technically feasible, then the overall cost of CO2 capture and storage
could be similar to that in oil fields."

I assume you know the meaning of the li'l word "may"

Hint: No, it's not a month.


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."


Like where?


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.


The nastiest one in a very long time was Mount St.Helens. And the folks
killed there were AFAIR those who dared to climb up fully knowing it
could go off any minute.

One can only hope that Slowman will get a cardiologist who is so
ignorant to have never heard of tPA ;-)

So effective that I went from chest-crushing pain to, "Can I go home
now?", in a few minutes time.

...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 |

How severe can senility be? Just check out Slowman.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 2:19 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 24, 3:08 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:





On Nov 24, 3:43 am, dagmargoodb...@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.

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

Weapons of mass desctruction - which have never been found - fit
Menken's picture rather better than anthropogenic global warming, for
which there is a raft of evidence (though it does take a smidgin of
scientific education^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfraud to make it comprehensible).

Last line, above, corrected.

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.

And he still thinks that he is in a position to tell us that the
evidence for anthropogenic global warming is a fraud?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 3:37 pm, 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.

I wonder which dinner party gave him that mystical insight?

If it was the same one that convinced him that climate models were as
subject to the butterfly effect as weather models, it would seem that
someone was sending him up.

They did rather too good a job of it. The clown still doesn't seem to
have noticed that he was being sent up.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<c32889da-14b3-40f6-8ab0-0a6519317da5@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl=
oman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no ene=
rgy=
,
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?

I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who
post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite
often post total nonsense.

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.

It is a pity you don't seem to be equipped to make sesne of all this
information.

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.

Get up to date. the Danes have been doing it for years.

http://www.dongenergy.com/EN/Media/Press%20releases/Pages/CisionDetails.asp=
x?cisionid=447507

Have you calculated how much percentage those will supply?

Not me, but it has been done by others

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933.full

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 p=
robably be
Nijmegen.
A great place for CO2 storage too ;-)

Not really. Nobody ever found natural gas under Nijmegen.

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 gue=
ss.
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

I don't see any necessity to accept the climate cycles, and I'm
delighted that we have generated enough anthropogenic global warming
to prevent the the next ice age, which would have been due any
millenium now.

However, one can have too much of good thing, and persisting in
injecting CO2 into the atmosphere has the potential to make as big a
mess of our civilisation as would the start of a new ice age.

unless we develop technology like terra forming that _really_ can change =
the climate, > maybe it will happen one day.

If you had learned a bit more science when you were young, you'd be
aware that burning fossil carbon is an all-too-effective form of
terraforming.

But hiding CO2 under your bed won't work.

Not for any extended period, but it would help to bridge the gap while
we are still building the windmills and the solar power plants that we
will need to replace coal, oil and gas-powered energy sources that we
rely on at the moment.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I am so sorry, SO SORRY SOOOOOOOOOO I did not realize that this is your *religion*.
I do not argue religious beliefs with people, it is not possible.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:

One can only hope that Slowman will get a cardiologist who is so
ignorant to have never heard of tPA ;-)

So effective that I went from chest-crushing pain to, "Can I go home
now?", in a few minutes time.

With any luck he'll get a doctor who knows him.


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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 4:06 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:19 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:





On Nov 23, 7:34 pm, 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:
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.

They're the ones with infinite government funding,

"Infinite"?

They're the
official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're
not letting other people have it.

You must be thinking of Roy Spencer

No, I was thinking of NASA-Goddard, the Hadley wing of the UK's
meteorological service, and the e-mails we've just seen wherein they
discuss how they've withheld embarrassing raw data.

I don't think that you can validate that claim. Raw data is - in any
event - uninterpretable without a lot of processing, so your claim is
a non sequiteur.

Not just libel, but fatuous libel.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Don't you ever check anything?  Here are a couple random e-mails off
the top:

==== Exhibit #1 ===> "From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we
can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower
troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that
Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey
sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but
Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series
looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU
station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of
Information Act !"

==== Exhibit #2 ===> ‘”Options appear to be:

1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries
who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also
any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other
countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract
some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M
2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up
in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How
could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with
what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy
them.”‘

==============
Misdirection, shell games with multiple data sets, substituting data
sets, suppressing / not disclosing embarrassing data.

Sure. Any paranoid could draw that conclusion from these e-mails, but
a paranoid could equally draw that conclusion from a laundry list.

Those of us who don't have a visceral need to believe in idiotic
conspiracy theories just see scientists peeved by people who are
wasting their time, and working out how to pay them back in their own
coin.

Lovely, eh?

Not edifying. But these people have been harassed for years by
McIntyre and similar people who seem to be subsidised to spend their
times sabotaging serious scientific research, so they are perfectly
entitled to a a measure of irritation.

And now, a gift: having been penetrated, it'll be a lovely excuse for
them to purge all those inconvenient truths, won't it?

Since denialist propaganda is all about purging, or a least devaluing,
inconvenient truths one can understand why they are so enthusiastic
about it, and so ready to claim that the Hadley Centre scientists are
in fact doing what they have been trying to do for years. It's pure
wish-fulfilment.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 23, 7:34 pm, 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:
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.

They're the ones with infinite government funding,

"Infinite"?

They're the
official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're
not letting other people have it.

You must be thinking of Roy Spencer

No, I was thinking of NASA-Goddard, the Hadley wing of the UK's
meteorological service, and the e-mails we've just seen wherein they
discuss how they've withheld embarrassing raw data.

That Ravinghorde's province. He can see "withholding embarrassing raw
data" in perfectly innocuous e-mails between people who don't want to
have to put in the considerable - and unrewarded - labour involved in
making the data accessible and comprehensible. He feels free to invent
the "embarrassing" aspect because the poor dear doesn't have a clue
about the magnitude of the task.

Face it. The stolen e-mails don't contain any evidence of actual wrong-
doing, because if they did we'd have heard about from somebody who
isn't a member of the lunatic fringe, a group of which you are now a
card-carrying member.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen