Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:41:07 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

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

Don't you people ever do electronic design? One nice thing about
electronics is that you know pretty soon whether you're right or not.
Another is that you can finish one thing and move on to another.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:34:34 -0500, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

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?

He can't.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:44:52 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 26, 10:11 pm, John Larkin
jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

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

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

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

John

 

[John Larkin]

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

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





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

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

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oooo, "climastrology"--even better.

That's a keeper.

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

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

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

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

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

How are you doing in front of paying customers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:11:34 -0800, Joerg wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I was stationed at Beale, we'd sometimes drive to Reno on the
weekends by the "back" route (through the mountain forests - real pretty
country); anyway, on the way back, there's an aqueduct that looks like
the water is running uphill. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg wrote:

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.

When I was at Beale AFB (mid-1970's), I was living in the on-base trailer
park. One day when some friends were over, we had a mild earthquake. At
the time, the conventional wisdom was "Get Outside!". The temblor was over
by the time we all got out to the front yard, when I realized, "Hey! This
is a mobile home! You can haul it down the highway at 55 MPH! What's a
little earthquake going to do to it?" ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:37:00 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote:

On Nov 26, 1:18 pm, John Larkin
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:26 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
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
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
Bill Sloman wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

After applying the appropriate correction factors, I too find that Joerg
lives in Oregon.

So, now we have independent confirmation.

I used to live in northern California, and what Joerg describes isn't
anything like where I was, so, I now have Faith that he lives in Oregon.

;-)
Rich

 

[krw]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:10:09 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:11:34 -0800, Joerg wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
Bill Sloman wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I was stationed at Beale, we'd sometimes drive to Reno on the
weekends by the "back" route (through the mountain forests - real pretty
country); anyway, on the way back, there's an aqueduct that looks like
the water is running uphill. ;-)

I probably runs to the left, from which ever way you look at it too.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:48:49 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"Climategate" - I LOVE it! ;-) ;-) ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[krw]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:23:59 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:48:49 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"Climategate" - I LOVE it! ;-) ;-) ;-)

Short version: "Weathergate"?

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:18:46 -0800, Joerg wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

Wasn't that from the iconoclastic flow? ;-P

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:19:27 +0000, 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.


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.

Hell, cow farts are nothing - they belch more methane than they fart.

The _real_ problem is termite farts. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

On Nov 27, 4:33 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 27, 5:34 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:


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".

I read Friedman's book. My word but he's an illogical, histrionic
fool. Not sure if I finished it--once I saw his rationale assembled,
it grew too tedious to watch him extrapolate ever more fantastical
consequences. I rate Friedman "Nobel Peace Prize worthy" x 1.05.

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.

I thought it was more than good enough of an approximation for a back-
of-the-envelope estimate of a ~20% factor. Engineers do stuff like
that.

And, I got within 1.5%, for an overall error contribution of < 0.3%.

Or did you mean it was a mistake for me to depend on something I
thought I might've heard from you?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:19:07 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:56:11 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!
Rich

 

On Nov 27, 6:44 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.

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?

I understood you perfectly Jan, if it makes you feel any better. A
few others didn't, but I guess that's just a hazard of internet and
text postings.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Rich Grise]

Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

You're obviously speaking from personal experince. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Joerg]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it

Joerg, you should know better than to be this highly selective in what
you consider a good argument. Read this USA Today article from a year
and a half ago more closely:

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

Only problem is that the proof doesn't seem to be in the pudding:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?ca5983

They should know better than to publish something like this without
_showing_ the underlaying statistics

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

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

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

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

On Nov 27, 11:48 am, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman



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

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

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

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

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204...

John

Spot-on.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

After the mainstream media clues up to Obama.