Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Jan Panteltje wrote:
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.
We already know how much fuel we burn and the residual amount staying in
the atmosphere is around 60% from Keelings original work at Mauna Lau.
Now refined by NOAA with global monitoring. You can even watch the
fossil fuel CO2 emitted by the northern hemisphere industrial nations
move to the southern hemisphere with a suitable time lag.

AND you can tell it isn't coming out of the oceans because the changing
isotopic signature matches the fossil fuel that we burnt.

Be careful what you wish for...today volcanic activity contributes about
1% of the carbon dioxide net increase. The rest is coming from us. A
reasonably detailed article on CO2 from vulcanism is online at:

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/directDownload.cfm?id=432&noexcl=true&t=Volcanic%20Contributions%20to%20the%20Global%20Carbon%20Cycle

Climate change around the time of the Deccan traps vulcanism 65 Million
years ago was one of the worst periods of global extinction the Earth
has seen. Do you really want to go the way of the dinosaurs?

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.
He has a point at least where methane emissions are concerned.

CH4 though short lived is a more potent GHG in the atmosphere than CO2.
And it could be a real menace if we release the huge volumes trapped in
permafrost and oceanic seabed clathrates.

And it would improve the health of the US population to eat a bit less
meat. Japans high life expectancy is in part due to a much better diet.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On Nov 27, 7:42 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:32 pm, Malcolm Moore  wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:25:05 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... wrote:
On Nov 25, 11:32 pm, Malcolm Moore wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... wrote:

snip



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."

But completely irrelevant to your "fact check" of the French nuclear
claims.

You have to grant me some leeway here because Bill's a fuzzy writer.
Which is to say that James Arthur doesn't know much and lacks the
background knowledge to appreciate rather obvious implications.

He works by implication and innuendo, so I had to infer that
Odd, since I regularly direct the reader to specific URL's where
explicit information is available, and James Arthur confines himself
to referring to tenditious articles in the right-wing press.

 a) when Bill cited the impressive French nuclear capability as a
retort to Jan's statement, that
 b) he meant it as some sort of rebuttal to Jan's statement.

Otherwise it's hard to see why he would've offered that as a response
to what Jan said.

So, I was not fact-checking French nuclear claims, but the importance
of "...the [fossile] energy companies..." to modern civilization,
taking France as the example.
Jan was claiming that since fossil carbon extractors are essential to
modern civilisation at the moment, we should let them keep on
sustaining civilisation. It is certainly true that energy is essential
to modern civilisation, but there are other ways of generating energy
than burning fossil carbon and venting the consequent CO2 to the
atmosphere. The French nuclear generation program is an example of one
of the alternatives.

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.

No, you wanted to show Bill was wrong. That's why you wrote

"let's whip out the calculator and fact-check the authoritative Mr.
Bill"

Naturally both are true: I understood Bill to be asserting, in his
ambiguous, ill-formed way, that power-generation needn't release
carbon, and, further, that France was an example of how civilization
could use nuclear power instead of fossil fuels.

Jan took it the same way, if you read his follow-ups.

So far we've heard you were fact checking, then it was bringing Bill
back on topic, and now it's "I wanted to know how dependent.  So I
added it up." Hmmm.

One flows from the other, obviously.  To see whether France
exemplifies fossil-fuel independence requires adding up their fossil
fuel use, and comparing it to non-fossil fuel energy sources.
Completely missing the point of the argument, which is not about where
we get our today, but where we should get it in the future. One can
paraphrase Jan's argument as "because we now get most of our energy by
burning fossil carbon, we are obliged to continue to generate the bulk
of our energy by burning fossil carbon".

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

Why didn't you attempt to bring Jan back on topic? He was the first in
the thread to move away from the subject line when he mentioned
proposals to store CO2 underground near where he lives.

Because Jan and Bill are both free to talk about whatever they want,
naturally.  And I have no interest in or opinion on CO2 stores.

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!
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.

No, Bill responded to Jan's concerns about living above a CO2 store.
Subsequently the thread diverged into the usual wide ranging stuff. If
you can't handle that you'll need to leave usenet   :)

You snipped the comment you made which I was responding to.  I've re-
inserted it.

I stand by my description.

As far as being thread controller, that's silly.  Obviously anyone in
a conversation makes points, and sometimes presses those points when
they've not been answered.

There's still the matter of why you claimed to be fact checking Bill's
nuclear claims when you were apparently really trying to bring him
back on topic. I guess you also have trouble comprehending your own
writing.

I was fact-checking whether France could exist without fossil fuels,
since Jan said civilization depends on them, and Bill brought up
France as a counter-example.
There's no doubt that France could eventually exist without fossil
fuels. the fact that they couldn't get by without them today isn't
relevant. There was a time when they couldn't get by without whale oil
for their lamps, but this isn't an argument for allowing the hunting
of sperm whales today.

Alternatively, Bill's just blabbering incoherently about something
that's irrelevant, and which has no bearing on what Jan said.  So I
gave Bill the benefit of the doubt.
Rather less than convincing.

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.

snip

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

I'm not defending Bill, I'm critiquing you.

I think you've just understood and taken Bill's statement-of-fact (on
France having nukes) as being a true statement all by itself.

Obviously it's true--we all know France has nukes.

But Jan and I took it as a wrong answer to Jan's claim, that the very
infrastructure we're using was built on fossil fuel.
I wasn't objecting to Jan claim that the infrastructure that we are
now using was built on fossil fuel, I was objecting to the claim that
this in any way prevented us from moving on to an infrastructure that
wouldn't be dependent on burning fossil carbon.

The infrastructure on which the fossil-fuel-based economy was built up
depended on muscle and wind-power, but that doesn't make stables holy.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Nov 27, 5:34 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:26 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

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

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

Bill, you make this too easy!
For James Arthur everything is easy - he makes up his mind and then
sees only that part of the argument that supports his point of view.

Jan rightly said modern civilization was founded on fossil fuel.
Which it was, and still is, and which I tallied.
So far so good. Sadly, the implicit claim is that because our
civilisation was founded on fossil fuel, it has to continue to depend
on fossil fuel, and this isn't true.

Here, I'll fetch Jan's quote for your continued amusement--

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.

You responded:

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

Okay, fine, you stated the obvious--we all knew fossil fuels aren't
the only way to make power.  But it doesn't answer Jan's point at all,
does it?
Jan's point - in context - is that Exxon-Mobil should get a free pass
to continue to extract and burn fossil carbon because it's
predecessors helped to set up the infra-structure that currently
sustains us, but will evnetually bring us down if we keep on burning
fossil carbon at the current rate.

So you brought up France's nuclear ability as either diversion or
proof of I-don't-know-what,
As evidence that we don't have to rely on burning fossil carbon as our
sole energy source.

and I just tallied the numbers to show
that France does indeed depend heavily on fossil fuels, and it would
likely be a cold, hungry, internet-free place without them.  Which is
what Jan said to start with
But with the implication that we shouldn't work on reducing our
dependence on fossil fuels. Jan has earlier claimed that people who
took anthropogenic global warming seriously wanted us all to reduce
our energy consumption to zero and live in unheated grass huts, which
is flat-out wrong, as evidenced by George Monbiot's book "Heat" and
Thomas L. Friedman's book "Hot, Flat and Crowded".

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 and Mr. James
remains a clown.

Bill, you're a goof!  1.29 is exactly 80% of 1.61 because that's how I
got 1.29--by guesstimating 80% of the 1.61 as nuke[1], then
multiplying!

[1] I think I even got that 80% figure from you!
The correct figure is 78.8% - I checked it at the time - which is
closed enough to the 80% that I didn't see any point in complicating
the argument by introducing new data.

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

Many thanks for the revelation about the way you put together your
"evidence". I'd be tempted to salt my arguments with the occasional
obviously absurd claim - granting your fatuous ignorance and
unrealistic self-confidence I'd have a very good chance of sucking you
in - but it isn't really necessary, because you can be relied on to
make a fool of yourself.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

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

[...]

But the glaciers, those will further retreat from Europe, and north of America,
only to come back then later, in thousands of years cycles.

Since we've messed up the positive feedback that drove that cycle and
added more than enough CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, the glacier
aren't going to be coming back any time soon.

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


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

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

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm

Jon
 
On Nov 24, 6:03 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[...]
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
" The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "
Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?
Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?
There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
the scientific method.
Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is ! "
If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any
and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least
in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers).
There are "peer-reviewed" journals around whose editors have been
known to publish denialist propaganda of zero academic merit without
sending it out for review.
Ahm, didn't he write "even if _we_ have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is" ? Note the word "we" in there.

As long as there wasn't money to be made out of publishing pseudo-
academic articles, the scientific community could afford to be pretty
relaxed about what constituted a peer-reviewed journal. Exxon-Mobil
and similar organisations with a large financial interest in denying
anthrpogenic global warming have created a situation where tighter
definitions are desirable.
Yeah, the usual conspiracy theory. I think the notion of the whole AGW
scheme being a gravy train has more credibility than that. At least
that's what people around my neighborhood are thinking.

With a lot of help from denialist propaganda. It is a bit odd that the
denialist propaganda machine hasn't got reports of IPCC members
driving around in Lamborginis while living in the lap of luxury. If
they had traded their academic integrity for a mess of pottage you'd
expect other academics in related fields to have noticed some change
in their life-style.

Presumably this kind of evidence is a little too hard to fake.

All one has to do is look at Al Gore, his mansions and all. Living
green. Yeah, right.
He was rich long before he was active against global warming, even
though his book "Earth in the Balance" dates back to 1992.

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?
This is the usual reference

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

which reports the British Royal Society's letter to Exxon-Mobil

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

is more comprehensive, and

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html

points to a very comprehensive report by the Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS).

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:33:39 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<c66059e5-cc29-4007-8344-3abc11935754@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:

Jan's point - in context - is that Exxon-Mobil should get a free pass
to continue to extract and burn fossil carbon because it's
predecessors helped to set up the infra-structure that currently
sustains us, but will evnetually bring us down if we keep on burning
fossil carbon at the current rate.
That is not accurate, for the nth time I stated many times we should move towards nuclear power.
But it will not be anytime soon nuke power can replace all our energy sources, so Exxon & friends
will be with us for a long time with oil.

It would be nice if you did not start every post with "You know nothing I know everything',
although that is your religion, no need to push that on anyone OK?
 
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:22:54 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<abeeafea-31c9-432b-90b8-d5ae30e5ef2f@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>:
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.

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and there is a
lot less of it in the atmosphere, so domesticated animals can make a
significant contribution to methane levels in the atmosphere though
termites and rice paddies are also important. Since you were asking
about CO2 levels, this does not seem to be irrelevant.
Yes typical religious fanatic statement:
'kill all lifeforms that do not comply with the rools in my book'.
Where have I heard that before?
But this works against you too,
You could stop living to improve your dataset :)
Save us all!

(I know it is mean, but you asked for it).
 
On Nov 25, 6:03 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

But the glaciers, those will further retreat from Europe, and north of America,
only to come back then later, in thousands of years cycles.

Since we've messed up the positive feedback that drove that cycle and
added more than enough CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, the glacier
aren't going to be coming back any time soon.

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

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

Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it :)
Global warming means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and more
snow falling on places high enough - and cold enough - that the snow
can settle. Most glaciers are retreating, but with the right
topography, extra snow can overwhelm a rising snow line.

Mount Shastra is a dormat volcano

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Shasta,+Mount

For the last 4500 years it has erupted roughly once every 600 years,
and the last eruption was a bit over 200 years ago.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Nov 27, 4:52 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 12:36 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



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

I am not wrong.
James Arthur never admits that he is wrong, so this statement doesn't
tell us anything we didn't already know.

After applying the appropriate proprietary,
undocumented corrections to Joerg's lat/lon, I have yet another
irrefutable proof--which I just deleted off my hard drive--that Joerg
lives _in_ Oregon, and in the very cone of a volcano.
That's odd. Denialists usually go in for the selective deletion of
calibration data to get the result that they want.

Joerg, be afraid, very afraid.
But of a different volcano.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Nov 26, 7:18 pm, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:26 -0800 (PST), 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.

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

There can be no more doubt.
Granting John's feeble grasp of scientific argument, there is - in
fact - room for more doubt than he likes to think.

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

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

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

---
Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus.
Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Nov 26, 7:19 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
4688b1c8-f155-4b23-bb22-a8e56c28f...@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 Siberian Traps erupted some 250 to 251 millions years ago, and the
Deccan Traps erupted some 60 to 68 million years ago. That they did
inject CO2 into the atmosphere in the past doesn't say anything about
where the current rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from
- we can deduce that from the quantities of oil, natural gas and coal
being burnt around the planet.

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.
Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and there is a
lot less of it in the atmosphere, so domesticated animals can make a
significant contribution to methane levels in the atmosphere though
termites and rice paddies are also important. Since you were asking
about CO2 levels, this does not seem to be irrelevant.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:11 pm, John Larkin
jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:58:48 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:00 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:37:56 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 23, 9:43 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oooo, "climastrology"--even better.

That's a keeper.

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

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

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


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

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

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

It would have been nice if you'd passed the message on to James. If
you had, he'd now look less like a buffoon, and I'd have saved some of
the time I put in on educating the barely educatable.
Enjoying yourself?
 
On Nov 27, 3:44 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:33:39 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
c66059e5-cc29-4007-8344-3abc11935...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:

Jan's point - in context - is that Exxon-Mobil should get a free pass
to continue to extract and burn fossil carbon because it's
predecessors helped to set up the infra-structure that currently
sustains us, but will evnetually bring us down if we keep on burning
fossil carbon at the current rate.

That is not accurate, for the nth time I stated many times we should move towards nuclear power.
But it will not be anytime soon nuke power can replace all our energy sources, so Exxon & friends
will be with us for a long time with oil.
Windmills and solar power installations are currently more popular,
can deliver power a lot sooner, and don't generate nasty radioactive
waste that we still haven't worked out how to deal with after fifty
yeras of running nuclear power stations.

It would be nice if you did not start every post with "You know nothing I know everything',
although that is your religion, no need to push that on anyone OK?
It would be nice if you learned a bit more, so that I didn't have to
start every reply I make to one of your posts by pointing out what you
have got wrong.

This isn't the same as saying that you know nothing - you do get some
things right - nor a claim that I know everything - which is only
slightly less absurd.

You could perhaps be more specific about what you conceive to be my
religion.

Whatever it might be, I don't see myself as pushing it. What I do push
is objectively verifiable knowledge, and I object to postings that
make claims that don't happen to be true, like your claim that people
who accept that anthropogenic global warming is going on want us to
reduce our energy consumption to an absolute minimum and move
ourselves into unheated grass huts.

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





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

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

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oooo, "climastrology"--even better.

That's a keeper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Nov 27, 3:48 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:22:54 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
abeeafea-31c9-432b-90b8-d5ae30e5e...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>:
 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.

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and there is a
lot less of it in the atmosphere, so domesticated animals can make a
significant contribution to methane levels in the atmosphere though
termites and rice paddies are also important. Since you were asking
about CO2 levels, this does not seem to be irrelevant.

Yes typical religious fanatic statement:
 'kill all lifeforms that do not comply with the rules in my book'.
This may be a typical religious fanatic statement, but since I haven't
made such a statement, or anything vaguely like it, I can't see that
this is a useful or relevant observation.

Where have I heard that before?
Beats me. Certainly not from me.

But this works against you too,
How? Since you are raging against a statement that you seem to have
invented for your own perverse satisfaction.

You could stop living to improve your dataset :)
Your own dataset does seem to nedd purging.

Save us all!
The aim is to educate you to the point where you can save yourself -
there still seems to be quite a way to go.

(I know it is mean, but you asked for it).
I asked you to first invent an idiotic statement? and then to carry on
as if it had something to do with me?

This isn't mean, or evil, or vicious, just deluded.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:49:43 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<3f869c70-b173-4649-9b49-dc917104930d@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 27, 3:44 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:33:39 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill S=
loman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
c66059e5-cc29-4007-8344-3abc11935...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:

Jan's point - in context - is that Exxon-Mobil should get a free pass
to continue to extract and burn fossil carbon because it's
predecessors helped to set up the infra-structure that currently
sustains us, but will evnetually bring us down if we keep on burning
fossil carbon at the current rate.

That is not accurate, for the nth time I stated many times we should move=
towards nuclear power.
But it will not be anytime soon nuke power can replace all our energy sou=
rces, so Exxon & friends
will be with us for a long time with oil.

Windmills and solar power installations are currently more popular,
Windmills are an unreliable energy source, no wind for some time and no energy AT ALL.
You need an energy storage system, several experiments are being done, but
an energy storage system that can bridge weeks for example, is not currently possible
in an economic way.
And the same green nut cases that vote for 'clean' energy vote against windmills because of 'horizon pollution',
and because those kill birds, and .. and .. ?

Solar power in the Netherlands is a big joke, as it has now been raining and cloudy for weeks,
so nothing would work.
I tried a solar panel myself, and you are lucky if it can power a transistor radio, at low volume that is.
It would not even charge my nicads (long time ago).
There is a plan for solar power in the Sahara desert, but that is future talk,
political instability makes it sort of difficult to guarantee the electricity will make it all the way here
that is not counting transport losses.
And *STILL* that does not run your cars, your building machines, ships, what not.
So that is bull.



can deliver power a lot sooner, and don't generate nasty radioactive
waste that we still haven't worked out how to deal with after fifty
yeras of running nuclear power stations.
Shoot it into the sun, and store it under Nijmegen of course.
Make nice small RTGs with it, everybody one for in the car and in the house.



It would be nice if you did not start every post with "You know nothing I=
know everything',
although that is your religion, no need to push that on anyone OK?

It would be nice if you learned a bit more, so that I didn't have to
start every reply I make to one of your posts by pointing out what you
have got wrong.
I have a bit wider view then your old university mailing letter, or wherever you
get that crap from, Al Gores radio show, or the local pub.
What you need to learn is see the difference between political manipulation of the masses and real science.
Science, as soon as it finds something, becomes an instrument of politics, and is used to control the masses.
If money is needed, oh, let's look for something to tax, oh, well, lets tax something that everybody uses, *energy*.
Kilometres, now we just wait for a fart tax...
You simply do not see the political manipulation by rats like Al gore and his cohorts,
only for profit, selling useless stuff, factual wrong books, scaremonging children, and older ones with the same weak
defence systems against that crap, like you.



This isn't the same as saying that you know nothing - you do get some
things right - nor a claim that I know everything - which is only
slightly less absurd.

You could perhaps be more specific about what you conceive to be my
religion.
AGW


Whatever it might be, I don't see myself as pushing it. What I do push
is objectively verifiable knowledge,

That data, for a start, was cooked, as the hacked emails show.
Gore changes song every time something he said has been proven wrong.
He is on the defence now.


and I object to postings that
make claims that don't happen to be true, like your claim that people
who accept that anthropogenic global warming is going on want us to
reduce our energy consumption to an absolute minimum and move
ourselves into unheated grass huts.
Well, that is what you are advocating, windmill and solar cell on you grass hut's roof for your tea warmer.
Won't run your washing machine though.
 
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:48 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<57d0a213-6fcd-40e4-a350-c6629e98fca2@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 27, 3:48 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:22:54 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill S=
loman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
abeeafea-31c9-432b-90b8-d5ae30e5e...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>:
 Good, then we can forget all that Gore stuff about farting cows and pi=
gs =

that are bad for the world,
and need to be more taxed.

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and there is a
lot less of it in the atmosphere, so domesticated animals can make a
significant contribution to methane levels in the atmosphere though
termites and rice paddies are also important. Since you were asking
about CO2 levels, this does not seem to be irrelevant.

Yes typical religious fanatic statement:
 'kill all lifeforms that do not comply with the rules in my book'.

This may be a typical religious fanatic statement, but since I haven't
made such a statement, or anything vaguely like it, I can't see that
this is a useful or relevant observation.

Where have I heard that before?

Beats me. Certainly not from me.

But this works against you too,

How? Since you are raging against a statement that you seem to have
invented for your own perverse satisfaction.

You could stop living to improve your dataset :)

Your own dataset does seem to nedd purging.

Save us all!

The aim is to educate you to the point where you can save yourself -
there still seems to be quite a way to go.

(I know it is mean, but you asked for it).

I asked you to first invent an idiotic statement? and then to carry on
as if it had something to do with me?

This isn't mean, or evil, or vicious, just deluded.
Oh really.
When you start going on about methane, and life creates methane.
So how to stop that?
Just accept the climate and weapon yourself against nature by *HAVING ENOUGH ENERGY*.
And that means these days: OIL, NATURAL GAS, NUCLEAR POWER, ......... nothing ...... nothing... windmills, solar.
Your AGW religion, is like many religions, denying reality and objective observation.

You have stated that we will go dinosaur's way if we do not stop AGW,
I am telling you that we will go that way if we listen to crap like that, and not invest in more nuclear power plants,
and perhaps get fusion power working.

I could however imagine a government to order all new houses build to have solar panels [and a windmill] on the roof.
In itself an interesting experiment, but of course solar panels and windmills will be taxed extra then.
I had a car on LPG, it was cheap, very cheap.
But then they increased the road-tax (wegen belasting in Dutch) so it would be just as expensive as a petrol powered car.
See, it is all about the money, nothing else.
And it will always be.
Nature, accept it.
 
On Nov 26, 11:40 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:32:43 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don





Klipstein) wrote:
In article <rk2tg59mtlmlbjmrhp1fr7e2gn1dcpf...@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:55:21 -0600, John Fields
jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:35:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@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 (d...@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.
IPCC just collects numbers from the peer-reviewd literature. Those
numbers are generated by physicists on the basis of models of infra-
red absorbtion and emission through the atmosphere, and the authors
involved wouldn't come into contact with Mann, who works on old
climate data from trees and lake beds, and probably not with Philip D.
Jones, who seems to spend his time crunching current observations.

As usual, you enthusiasm for fatuous conspiracy theories is clouding
your vision.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

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

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

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

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

Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


John
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top