Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 27, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[...]

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.

At the moment. Presumably the Northern Pacific Multidecadal
Oscillation is giving you cooler air from further north than it used
to (carrying less water vapour). In due course it will probably give
warmer wetter weather, with an added extra-global warming bonus.

We are waiting for that bonus since about 8 years. When is "due course"?
Are we there yet? When are we there? I want my share of global warming.

<stomping with feet on floor>

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

Sure. The propaganda funded by Exxon-Mobil and other fossil-carbon
extraction industries has been depressingly effective.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

Exxon-Mobil - amongst others - have recycled the techniques and
organisations (and some of the people) that the tobacco companies had
used to minimise the impact of the scientific evidence about the
dangers of tobacco smoke.

Yeah, your old conspiracy theory.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:38:44 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

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. ;-)

That's fine, if you like it. But at 6400 feet, after an hour boiling
they are still *raw*.

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! ;-)

What's a potato ricer?

John

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:04:14 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:04:43 +1300, Malcolm Moore
abor1953needle@yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:47:17 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:03:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

SNIP


Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which
provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories
with which Ravinghorde regales us.


Got a link the _proves_ that Exxon tries to fudge science here? Similar
to those embarrassing email?

Here's a link to more AGW, academic global warming:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/#more-13215

/quote

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature
stations has just turned up a very different result:

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there
appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with
the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in
1850.

/end quote

For a bit of balance

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

/quote

I’m not too impressed, especially when you see where the weather
station for National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA) is,
right on the rooftop next to the air conditioners:

/end quote

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/#more-13287

Chuckle. Just a slight problem with that claim.

The photo (& link) they show is of the NIWA building in Auckland.
That's 400 miles away from the Kelburn site where the Wellington
measurements (about which they're referring) are taken
Actually, VBG.

The Kelburn (Wellington) site is part of the Metservice system. NIWA
is a fairly new organisation (est 1992) and so use the Metservice
historical data. For consistency and because the network of measuring
sites already existed, the current data is also still provided by
Metservice.

I can assure you the Kelburn instruments are in a grassed area above
the Botanical Gardens, well away from buildings.

Likewise, the Auckland measurements used for the historical record do
not come from the NIWA building shown in that story. From memory the
site is in The Domain, a park like area of 75 hectares.

I hope you might regard your favoured information sources with a bit
more cynicism in future.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 2:17 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther
than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient
truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there
in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and
artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them

No. The areas that that the Vikings farmsteaded during the Medieval
Warm Period have never been coverd with thick ice. You can still see
the walls of their church at Hvalsey

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

There are suggestions that the Viking settlement wasn't so much frozen
out as out-performed by the Inuit when they got there - the Inuit had
better boats, better fishing techniques, better hunting techniques and
warmer clothing, and the Vikings couldn't live on what the Inuit left
over.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Nov 27, 1:17 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

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

Good groupthink comrade Rich! Now if we could only convince Joerg,
but he's hopeless. He's a denier.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 10:23 am, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:48:49 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204...

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

You would. You are just as ignorant as Ravinghorde, and gullible
enough to swallow his fatuous conrspiracy theories.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 11:13 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:17:53 -0800, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net
wrote:





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 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.

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

I have redefined the peer review process, Joerg now lives in
Indonesia.

I've been suspecting for some time that Ravinghorde is even further
out of touch with reality than even Jim Thompson, and this does tend
to confirm it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 27, 2:17 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther
than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient
truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there
in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and
artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them

No. The areas that that the Vikings farmsteaded during the Medieval
Warm Period have never been coverd with thick ice. You can still see
the walls of their church at Hvalsey

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

There are suggestions that the Viking settlement wasn't so much frozen
out as out-performed by the Inuit when they got there - the Inuit had
better boats, better fishing techniques, better hunting techniques and
warmer clothing, and the Vikings couldn't live on what the Inuit left
over.

Sure you can pick a church near the coast which was always free of ice
but other areas weren't. But heck, you can find similar proof much
easier and you can quickly get there from your place by rail and bus, or
by car: The Schnidejoch in the Swiss Alps, just as one example. A few
thousand years ago it was mostly ice free and heavily used as a passage
way. Consequently, a lot of stuff was dropped. Bows, arrows, quivers,
parts of clothing, shoes, Roman coins. Seems like it wasn't much
different from littered road sides today, people lost stuff, threw worn
things aside. Then it all iced over, became a big glacier. Now it's
thawing again and all this ancient stuff shows up.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 8:30 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:48 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
57d0a213-6fcd-40e4-a350-c6629e98f...@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?

Eat kangeroo? They produce much less methane than cows. Genetically
engineer new bacteria to live in cow guts to digest the cellulose for
them without turning some of it into methane?

And why do we need to stop cows emitting methane? Methane is
responsible for from 4% to 9% of the current greenhouse warming, about
half the current contribution of CO2, but it doesn't last that long in
the atmosphere, and it's a lot easier to reduce our CO2 emissions
without messing up our life-style.

Just accept the climate and weapon yourself against nature by *HAVING ENOUGH ENERGY*.

Even better, stop making the climate worse by burning fossil carbon.

And that means these days: OIL, NATURAL GAS, NUCLEAR POWER, ......... nothing ...... nothing... windmills, > solar.

We can get away with burning oil for a decade or so and natural gas
for a little longer, but we need to use that time wean ourselves off
fossil carbon.

Your AGW religion, is like many religions, denying reality and objective observation.

I'm afraid that you are the one who is denying reality and rejecting
objective observation.

You have stated that we will go dinosaur's way if we do not stop AGW,

It is a risk. A rerun of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is a
more likely scenario, and that didn't cause a global extinction,
though it obviously made life difficult for a lot of organisms. It
would certainly lead to a crash in the human population and completely
dismatle our current civilisation.

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.

You have told me a lot of things - that the greens want us to stop
using energy and to rehouse us in unheated grass huts, for example -
and I'm afraid that you don't check your sources all that carefully.

on the
roof.

Roof-top windmills are too small to be cost-effective.

In itself an interesting experiment, but of course solar panels and windmills will be taxed extra then.

Perhaps. They are generally subsidised a the moment

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.

The first car we bought in the Netherlands was modified to run on
natural gas, but we didn't expect to drive anywhere near far enough to
recover the extra road tax, so we had it modified back.

See, it is all about the money, nothing else.

It certainly was back in 1993. One of the ways of reigning in fossil
carbon combustion would be to push up the tax on fossil fuel to a
level that would compensate the next generation for the damage that
our CO2 will be doing to their environment, inmuch the same way we tax
other sources of pollution.

And it will always be.

Nonsense. Money is meaningless in itself - it is the trick we use to
match production to consumption, and taxing fossil fuel to encourage
people to move to investing in windmills and solar power plants is
just another way of using that trick.

Nature, accept it.

Silly idea. If I "accepted nature" I wouldn't be doing what my
cardiologist tells me to do to qualify for a new aortic valve in a
couple of months, but sit back and let the old valve kill me in a
couple of years.

Accepting nature's "plan" for the earth to move another ice age over
the next few thousand years - your "natural cycle" - would be equally
silly to the point of being downright stupid.

The anthropogenic global warming that you choose not to beleive in -
against all the evidence that you can't be bothered to understand -
has probably saved us from that, but we do need to make sure that we
don't jump out of the freezing pan into the fire.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:17:20 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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

Did you read through at least half the article I mentioned above?

Yes. Thing is, with all the AGW claims there ought to be a significant
average rise since 1948.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

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

Which publisher, Joerg? The link I mentioned or the link you did?

Yours, USA Today. Mine is affiliated with NOAA, which I believe even the
warmingists wouldn't dispute.

USA Today is just the news article I had imagined you'd glimpsed
before. I thought maybe it would be good to read it more fully, if
so. Thanks for clarifying your point.

If you are talking about the USA Today article, my motivation was to
show you that you are being very selective in choosing that isolated
data point.

Just as I might choose a 6-sigma noise-spiked data point to try and
show you a rise when you know darned well the trend of the data was to
fall. You'd rightly point out my mistake.

As I did, yours.

I am not so sure it is one. But I also don't want to rule it out.

Climate is averages, not noise. Not weather. And no one I know of,
least of all climate scientists, are stating that there will be
absolutely no cases where some particular glacier won't increase.
Cripes, if that were exactly true we'd be in a lot worse mess!

There is an increased hydrologic cycle. In some cases, precipitation
(in terms of annual averages) may not even change, but the
distribution over the year may.

For example, in my area (which, by the way, is where Andrew Fountain
is .. or was .. located... who is a primary contact regarding Mt.
Shasta's glaciers), the precipitation is remaining similar on an
annual basis, but is shifting away from summer/fall precipitation
(which used to be a near constant complaint I'd hear from California
transplants) and towards winter/spring. Larger annual amplitude,
similar average value. It does have a real impact, though. We will
have to create more summer-time storage to supply the 1.5 million
people who depend upon the glaciers now for their fresh water supply
during late summer. Glaciers, normally quite decently sized here in
Portland and northward, are receding quite rapidly. We've lost almost
50% of the mass balance at Mt. Hood, for example, and expect to see it
reach zero in the late summertime perhaps in 30 years or so if the
current rate remains unchanged. The reasons why these mountains are
losing them faster than some areas is largely understood -- they are
neither insulated by lots of rock, nor highly reflective by being
completely free of rock; instead, they have the right mix of loose
gravel and dirt on them for higher melt rates. We've had a few unique
_slides_ that took out important roadways in the last few years, as
well. (As you can see, I can cherry-pick data, too.

That aside, some places, due to the increased cycle will experience
increases and some decreases. The total global precipitation will
slightly increase.

From the Copenhagen Diagnosis, recently released:

"Post IPCC AR4 research has also found that rains become
more intense in already-rainy areas as atmospheric water vapor
content increases (Pall et al. 2007; Wentz et al. 2007; Allan
and Soden 2008). These conclusions strengthen those of earlier
studies and are expected from considerations of atmospheric
thermodynamics. However, recent changes have occurred faster
than predicted by some climate models, raising the possibility
that future changes will be more severe than predicted.

"...

"In addition to the increases in heavy precipitation, there have
also been observed increases in drought since the 1970s
(Sheffield and Wood 2008), consistent with the decreases in
mean precipitation over land in some latitude bands that have
been attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Zhang et al.
2007).

"The intensification of the global hydrological cycle with
anthropogenic climate change is expected to lead to further
increases in precipitation extremes, both increases in very
heavy precipitation in wet areas and increases in drought in dry
areas. While precise figures cannot yet be given, current studies
suggest that heavy precipitation rates may increase by 5% - 10%
per °C of warming, similar to the rate of increase of atmospheric
water vapor."

On a separate topic, I thought you might be interested in the GLIMS
numbers for the glaciers on Mt. Shasta:

(Unnamed, I think) G237813E41427N 1950-07-01 58849
G237815E41410N 1950-07-01 58850
Konwakiton Glacier G237805E41400N 1950-07-01 58851
Watkins Glacier G237821E41403N 1950-07-01 58852
Whitney Glacier G237787E41415N 1950-07-01 58853
G237804E41420N 1950-07-01 58854
Bolam Glacier G237799E41421N 1950-07-01 58855
G237803E41424N 1950-07-01 58856
G237813E41422N 1950-07-01 58857
Hotlum Glacier G237814E41418N 1950-07-01 58858
G237818E41416N 1950-07-01 58859

You can use those to secure data on those from the GLIMS dataset. Not
that it probably matters. But there it is because I wasted my time
looking for them. Oh, well.

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

None of that changes anything about what I said. Climate is averages
and I think you _know_ this.

If you said, "the average voltage, at 1Hz bandwidth, at this node is 4
volts" and I responded by using a high bandwidth tool and pointing out
a 5 nanosecond spike at 8V and said, "no, it's 8V", you'd know I was
being disingenuous. And you'd be right.

And that 8V spike could be the root cause why a chip always fails so
you'd have made a valid and concerning observation

Not the point when talking about averages, is it?

If you are interested in access to specific details, you might read:

http://nsidc.org/glims/

However, if scarfing through a database is a pain, an informed summary
of the circumstances of mountain glaciers around the world can be had
from: Cogley, J. G., 2009, "Geodetic and direct mass-balance
measurements: comparison and joint analysis," Annals of Glaciology 50,
96-100. I can get you a copy, if you intend to read it.

I know that most glaciers are receding for a while now.

Accepted.

That has
happened in the past as well, and then they grew again. What I harbor
doubts about is that this is human-caused. These doubt haven't exactly
been reduced after the revelations of emails lately.

Understood. It is the __attribution__ that you are questioning. In
many cases, it's worth keeping that in view. Not __everything__ in
the world is 100% due to humans.

As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther
than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient
truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there
in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and
artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them

Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few
and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me
to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can
track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested
in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point,
I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious
criticism.

The average is remarkably different from your attempt at using an
isolated data point.

You did see the smiley after my initial comment "Maybe it hasn't heard
of AGW and someone should tell it", did you?

Of course. But I am not always sure the vein in which it was made. I
may understand better now.

Jon

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...@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.)

You said it all right. You seem to have - very wisely - requested that
your post was not to be archived, and have managed to contain your
outrage at being caught making a fool of yourself until the original
evidence had evaporated.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

<snip>

As a second measure of global climate models (GCM), we know from
actual life how poorly the models predict El Nino, or hurricanes, or
other near-term phenomena that depend on accurate understanding of
real temperature, deep ocean currents, or other quantities critical to
long-term projections (if those are even possible), but which are not
known well enough to make even short-term predictions.

As a 3rd measure of GCM, before you graced s.e.d. with your inquiries,
I related that I got that same info (above) from one of the persons
*responsible* for one of the main climate models. That person said
GCM are important and useful tools in understanding climate, and for
making predictions as far as several weeks into the future. Beyond
that, says (s)he, the models quickly diverge uselessly from reality.

James Arthur doesn't know the difference between a global climate
model, which predicts over a span of year and a global weather model
which falls to pieces in about two weeks.

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


http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm

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.

James Arthur "improving" what he remembers.

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.

It was a few weeks on the 22nd November. Marvellous how getting caught
with your pants down "improves" your memory.

Of course you can see that easily, independently, if you just look at
the models, see how incomplete they are, how rudimentary our
understanding of critical processes is, how loose the parameters are,
how many arbitrary and unexplained factors they apply, and so forth.

Not having spent years working on the models, I doubt very much that I
could see anything of the sort. I had enough trouble with the much
simpler simulation I wrote in 1968 to model the chemical reaction in
the reaction cell I used in my Ph.D. work.

If James Arthur can produce this model which he claims to know so much
about we could - of course - test this hypothesis, but since neither
of us has spent our professional careers improving climate models our
opinions are unlikely to be even useful, let alone decisive.

Or look at how well the climate models predicted the current cooling
transient--they didn't. In fact they predicted more and more heat and
hurricanes, didn't they? And we were supposed to brace ourselves for
those, to spend money and prepare, but they never came. The models
were wrong.

The models aren't precise, and they aren't designed to to produce
accurate predictions over periods of a few years. They failed to
predict the current slowing in the rate of global warming because
didn't allow for the movement in the ocean circulation that the Argo
project is only now beginning to telling us about.

The excursion away from the smooth and continuous heating strawman
prediction that James Arthur is trying to set up is small, of the
order of a tenth of a degree or so, and of the order of the noise on
the global temperature record over the last century.

This degree of deviation from reality doesn't make them wrong, merely
less precise than than the denialist press would like, and it
certainly doesn't invalid the longer term prediction.

Or just do an error-budget analysis. The AGW contribution alleged
from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A range of estimates from ~0.25 to
1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered. (That wide an
uncertainty band is pretty pathetic on its face, isn't it?)

It might be if it had been offered by someone who knew what they were
talking about. These are the sorts of numbers that Christopher
Monckton comes up with

http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html#sec7

More reliable sources seem to be able to come up with a narrower
range.

http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/?p=204

gives a figure of 1.66 W/m˛, with a range between 1.49 and 1.83 W/m˛.

This ties up with

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

They don't give nice simple numbers, but they do derive their numbers
from the measured behaviour of the atmosphere which does constrain the
numbers to within about +/-10%.

And you have to keep in mind that forcing depends on the other gases
in the atmosphere. Some IR absorbtion lines overlap, and pressure
broadening makes individual absorbtion lines wider. It is all
predictable but it means that total forcing is averaged over a lot of
rather different situations.

The uncertainty over the contribution of clouds alone swamps even
the highest figure by nearly two orders of magnitude.

Says who? Another one of these people whose advice you seem to have
trouble remembering with any precision?

And yet you'd tell me you know for a fact that man-made CO2 is beyond
any doubt the one, most important, overriding factor?

Yes, you would.

And I'd be right. Your capacity for creative scepticism verges on
denialism, and you can't - or won't - identify your sources, so your
credibility is totally shot.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 26, 5:35 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:26:03 -0800 (PST),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.

---
Climate's slow, weather's fast.

Tell me what the weather's going to be like a year or 10 from now and,
if you nail it, I'll agree that you're right about climate change.

As usual, you miss the point. Climate may just be the integral of
weather, but trying to predict weather for more than a fortnight
doesn't work, and it seems unlikely that anybody will ever be able to
do it.

Climate is more tightly constrained than weather, and correspondingly
more predictable, if you are careful about what you chose to predict.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm

You still need massive computers to do it right, and a recent IEEE
Specrum had an article on a planned "Cloud Computer" powerful enough
to work with cell sizes of a kilometre or so, small enough to let the
models handle clouds on a cell by cell basis, rather than treating
them as an average parameter smeared across a rather larger cell.

In the meantime, I'll assert that you and your ilk don't know what the
fuck you're talking about.

You can assert anything you like. In this case it make you look like
an idiot, but that is your problem.

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

---
Why not, since you don't have any definitive evidence to prove that it
isn't?

There's been plenty of evidence around for quite some time now

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

I'm not surprised that you don't know about it - you do seem to be a
renaissance man when it comes to ignorance.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <7nb1fqF3l78fsU1@mid.individual.net>, Joerg wrote in part:

As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient
truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there
in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and
artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them

It was a claim of Eeyore that thick ice now covers where the vikings
settled. I have yet to see this actually established, and I have dug up
photos of at least part of the settlement areas being green in the summer
in recent decades. Nearly all of the settlement areas are ice-free in the
summer lately according to maps of snow/ice cover.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <504bec29-d5f2-4faf-814c-9133a1a225b0@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote in part:

On Nov 27, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I snip

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.

Isn't happening at the moment. Presumably the Northern Pacific
Multidecadal Oscillation is giving you dry phase,

There are other processes that will be affected by global warming. For
one thing, the warming has been predicted by much of the models so far to
warm the Arctic more than elsewhere, and so far the Arctic has warmed more
than the world as a whole has.

This will decrease temperature contrast between the Arctic and the
tropics, and that temperature contrast is the main driving force in
extratropical cyclones of the kind shown on weather maps. Rainfall other
than either convective in nature or from tropical weather systems may not
increase much in the Northern Hemisphere, and could become spottier or
shift from an area used to the rain to an area that is not.

However, I see precipitation pattern shifts so far being mostly from
periodic factors, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (roughly
65 year period), a loosely linked Pacific one that I merely suspect
exists, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (period around half that of
the "multidecadal" stuff).

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.

At the moment. Presumably the Northern Pacific Multidecadal
Oscillation is giving you cooler air from further north than it used
to (carrying less water vapour). In due course it will probably give
warmer wetter weather, with an added extra-global warming bonus.

I would rather suspect that someone having fuel consumption double is
either getting out of a rut of a few warm winters or into a rut of a few
cold ones, or got more sensitive to cold due to advancing age or need to
cut calorie intake to avoid clogging of arteries.

Maybe something reminding me of location where home heating fuel needed
such an increase would be useful - I can dig up weather records for the
nearest similar-altitude official weather station similarly situated as
far as major mountain ranges go, or a few stations of wunderground.com.
That would tell us what temperature trend has been - at that specific
little region of Northern California.

(I have a bit of impression that the location in question is east rim of
the Central Valley ENE of Sacramento - any correction/clarification?
How about elevation? - that may matter in local or regional weather and
climate issues.)

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:11 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
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 Sloman
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 energy=
,
as your car does not run on electricity (yet).
Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, the=
re would be no civilisation
and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man=
ufacturers have their own power plants.

And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these
nice things will go away again.

Been there.
Now wake up from your green dreams.

An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know
what he is talking about.

mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists?

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.

---
Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field
surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor?

Joel Koltner was making a joke. The smiley should have told you that.

---
He wasn't making a joke, he was being humorous in his presentation, you
wretch.

But, whether he was making a joke or not is immaterial, since I _proved_
my point by experimentation and presented the data and method for anyone
who cared to replicate the experiment to do so.

You, however, refused to acknowledge the results of the experiment as
supporting my position, even though you hadn't done the experiment
yourself and tried to impugn my work by claiming it as irrelevant
because it responded to a "joke".

So far, you're the only joke I've responded to here and you're certainly
no scientist, Sloman; all you are is a lonely, doddering old man who
can't stand to be wrong and will try all sorts of chicanery to "shoot
the messenger" in order to keep from having to admit to being unhorsed.

You're an utter disgrace and you should be ashamed of yourself.

JF

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:13:26 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<f03dda1a-b305-43ea-9c70-96fea0921d90@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>:

See, it is all about the money, nothing else.
And it will always be.

Nonsense. Money is meaningless in itself - it is the trick we use to
match production to consumption, and taxing fossil fuel to encourage
people to move to investing in windmills and solar power plants is
just another way of using that trick.

Well, you need to understand human nature, psychology.
'Leaders' as chosen by a group, are some individuals who,
even if they have no clue to the subject at hand, will lead the way (to hell if it so happens),
and the greed for power, and money (and money often equals power), is very strong in those.
Anything else will be compromised.
That is not to say there are no good, well informed leaders, but the leaders cook the
data so it suits their purposes.

They control the press, the scientific publications you get to see, the media, they
chose what movies will be played, what the news reader says, who is the bad guy of the day, and who is the good guy of the day,
etc etc, and in that way control you.
And *you* think you are free and have your own opinion.

Nature, accept it.

Silly idea. If I "accepted nature" I wouldn't be doing what my
cardiologist tells me to do to qualify for a new aortic valve in a
couple of months, but sit back and let the old valve kill me in a
couple of years.

Hey, for a moment it thought you wrote 'arctic valve' hehehe.

Accepting nature's "plan" for the earth to move another ice age over
the next few thousand years - your "natural cycle" - would be equally
silly to the point of being downright stupid.

That ice age will come, and not much sooner or later if you store CO2 under your bed.
We need to have the energy sources to be able to cope with climate change else our civilisation will collapse.
Global warming crap diverts money from that to useless things.

The anthropogenic global warming that you choose not to beleive in -
against all the evidence that you can't be bothered to understand -

Well,, some professors and scientists see this very differently.
Did you read that other posting I forwarded quoting that Australian professor, who is a *real* climate expert?
?

has probably saved us from that, but we do need to make sure that we
don't jump out of the freezing pan into the fire.

Rhetoric worth a con man like Gore.

Here is some more, grabbed from us.politics today:


From: Eunometic <eunometic@yahoo.com.au>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,us.politics,soc.culture.irish
Subject: Proff Bob Carter Torpedoes Climate Hoax
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:39:38 -0800 (PST)

Below find some videos for those too busy to read a book.

Professor Bob Carter
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-1326937617167558947&ei=1oAOS8ynNJv-qAO1loDkDQ&hl=en#
Note in minute 31 of the video he mentions some of the work of the
infamous jones who is involved in climate gate emails.

Dr Tim Ball on Climate Gate, how peer review and the IPCC was
corrupted.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/video-dr-tim-ball-on-the-cru-emails/#more-13062

Proffesor Ian Wishart, author of "Air Con"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90otAJORkK8

Original Climate Gate E-mails:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled! (Part 1 of 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abd81S-Syzo

Note Hadley are custodians of the worlds climate data, they produce
papers that feed much of the IPCC reports. (Dracula in charge of the
Blood Bank)

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Your scepticism is nether humble nor yours. You pick up neatly
packaged chunks of scepticism from your frieindly neighbourhood
denialist propaganda machine and regurgitate them here.

Jahred Diamond's
book "Collapse" makes it pretty clear that the leaders of a failing
society will have their attention firmly fixed on maintaining their
status within that society - in your case, your status as a successful
businessman - right up to the point where it starts collapsing around
their ears.

---
Seems to me that your accusation that Larkin here regurgitates
propaganda he's picked up elsewhere is PKB.

JF

 

[John Fields]

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.

---
I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for
the fraud you are.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:48 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

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

---
Oh, please...

The all-merciful guru wants to teach the human race to save themselves;
but only if they do it _his_ way.

Physician, heal thyself.

JF

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:35:46 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:38:44 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

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. ;-)

That's fine, if you like it. But at 6400 feet, after an hour boiling
they are still *raw*.


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! ;-)

What's a potato ricer?

John

An extruder for (cooked) potatoes.. dozens of little holes maybe 0.05"
in diameter for the press to squish the potato through. Like a big
garlic press.

Bigger holes and you've got a spatzle (sp?) dumpling press.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com