Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Bill Sloman · Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 28, 1:30 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:41:40 -0800, John Larkin

jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:13:35 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:29 -0800) it happened Rich Grise
richgr...@example.net> wrote in <pan.2009.11.25.16.59.25.64...@example..net>:

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

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

Cheers!
Rich

Gore should be locked up.

He's done an excellent job of turning off Sloman's mind.

John

It was off long before Gore got to it.

Right. I'd got my Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry in 1970, which made me
dangerously vulnerable to scientific evidence. Al Gore has only just
finished his undergraduate studies in 1969, so he really can't be
blamed.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Michael A. Terrell · Nov 29, 2009

JosephKK wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was 34 degrees in Ocala Thursday night. It's supposed to be 35
tonight.

From the short time i spent in Florida that is about 10 to 15 degrees
below normal for this time of year.

I've had to turn the heat on the last two days. That doesn't usually
happen till near the end of December.

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

Bill Sloman · Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 28, 1:45 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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 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.

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&...

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?

Don't ya know, that for a species that has _not_ even been around for
just 1 million years to bandy about causing events on the level of the
KT-boundary event is quite ridiculous.

Only to those who don't have some understanding of the issues
involved.

Ignorance may be bliss, but - like most drugs of addiction - it can
seriously damage your health. In this instance, it can also damage the
health of your off-spring.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 27, 8:53 am, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

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 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.

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&...

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.

Unfortunately, real life is less accomodating.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 26, 10:19 pm, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:18:03 -0800 (PST), 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.)

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.

Positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to instability.

The currently accepted explanation of the regular oscillation between
ice ages and interglacials over the past few million years requires a
limited amount of positive feedback to amplify the Milankovitch
forcing up to a level where they could create the temperature swings
we can deduce from the historical record.

The last time I heard about an electronic engineer making an equally
ridiculous claim was when I was being told about a guy who had taken a
circuit of mine which used a smidgin of positive feedback to linearise
a platinum resistance thermometer, and ripped out the positve feedback
"because it would make the circuit oscillate". Someone at Honeywell
had the same idea at the same time, and it didn't make their circuit
oscillate.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Jim Thompson · Nov 29, 2009

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:27:21 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was 34 degrees in Ocala Thursday night. It's supposed to be 35
tonight.

From the short time i spent in Florida that is about 10 to 15 degrees
below normal for this time of year.

I've had to turn the heat on the last two days. That doesn't usually
happen till near the end of December.

Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 27, 10:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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?)

Check out the ranges of forcings estimated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

" * water vapor, which contributes 3672% [a 2:1 range]
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 926% [3:1]
* methane, which contributes 49%
* ozone, which contributes 37%"

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

They estimate it using models:

"So how is Radiative Forcing calculated? For the most
part, it is estimated using data from what is referred
to as General Circulation Models (GCMs). These
models use numerous methodologies[...]"

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

The same source goes on to give a 4:1 uncertainty range(!) for net
anthropogenic forcing:

"Overall, the total net anthropogenic Radiative Forcing
is equal to an average value of 1.6 W/m˛ [0.6 to 2.4 W/m˛].
This means a warming of the climate."

It's not clear to me whether 1.6 W/m˛ is total forcing due to CO2, or
just the anthropogenic contribution. Your reference gives the
language of the formal IPCC definition, which amounts to "total
forcing due to CO2," but then the writer goes to include 1.6 W / m˛ in
his list of man-made factors.

The IPCC itself is inconsistent, employing the first usage ("total
warming") in one report, and redefining forcing to mean "relative to
1750" (i.e., man-made) in a later report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#IPCC_usage

I took 1.6-to-1.7 W / m˛ as _total_ forcing due to CO2, of which only
~1/4 is man-made. If I'm wrong, I'm off by a factor of 4. So, am I?

The above link gives the following relationship between forcing and
CO2 concentration:
dT = 5.35 x ln( Ct / Co), W / m˛, where

Ct = current concentration of CO2, in ppm.
Co = reference concentration of CO2, in ppm.

using 280ppm as the reference level, and 387ppm as Ct, that gives 5.35
x ln(387/280) = 1.7 W / m˛.

So, my mistake. 1.7 W / m˛ alleged as due to man, not 1/4 that.

(It's a good thing the reference level isn't lower, otherwise for the
same absolute CO2 levels we'd get hotter and hotter and hotter.)

That's still a fraction--perhaps 1/10th--of the uncertainty over
clouds.

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?

E.g., from the first comment in this same reference:

"2) Cloud Feedbacks This is the million dollar question in
climate science, as far as Im concerned. Models vary even
among the sign of the [water vapor] feedback, although as I recall
most have a positive cloud feedback. See the post here
for more information. Im not sure how reliable GCM cloud
feedbacks are, as clouds are not resolved explicitly in the
models. One things for sure.. this is an issue that will be
around for some time to come "

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Bill Sloman · Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 28, 4:25 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 28, 12:54 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 27, 5:46 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
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.

Except that they aren't.

And neither the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were
particularly dramatic temperature excursions. Denialists do claim that
the existence of these small and local excursions proves that the
warming that we are seeing at the moment isn't anthropogenic, but the
logic doesn't really hold up.

To make the argument work you have to claim - and prove - that CO2
isn't a greenhouse gas, or that the measured concentrations in the
atmosphere aren't higher than they have been for 650,000 years (as
recorded in the ice core data) and probably for the last 20 million
years (if you trust the geological data).

Worrying about the exact fate of Viking settlement is a rather foolish
distraction, though your claim that the former settlements are now
under a thick layer of ice - when most of them aren't and never have
been - does sugggest that you aren't too careful with your facts, nor
presumably are you all that careful about where you get them.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 28, 5:50 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:43:49 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

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

<snip>

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.

SOL James, but it doesn't, at least if you use the same model the AGW
group does. Even others that contain any of the canonical
presumptions of AGW fail to reconcile with well documented history.

SOL? I don't understand. The meaning I know doesn't work here.

But, I was referring to a whim I posted wayyy back, that you can curve-
fit a polynomial that mimics history to perfection, yet has zero
predictive value. E.g. the stock market, where that gets tried and is
a temporary fad every few years, until it blows up.

Much of the evolution of the main models fits that description--build
it, then monkey with the constants until it seems stable, as opposed
to a) inputting precise measurements of b) accurately known parameters
into c) models that faithfully duplicate physical processes.

I'm told that pre-twiddling the early models railed, either freezing
atmosphere, or melting lead.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 28, 1:40 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 27, 4:33 pm, John Larkin

jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:25:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 27, 9:44 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
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.

Anything but. The journalist is treating a highly necessary bit of
quality control as "suppresion of dissent". If they'd done theri job
properly, they'd have found this out.

Threatening journal editors is "quality control"?

They weren't threatening him, they were getting him fired
forpublishing what was - at the very least - outrageously poor work.

He'd published a very poor paper, bad enough to provoke three memebers
of the editorial board into resigning.

When the dust settled, one of the board members who had resigned came
back as the new editor.

Ravinghorde and his fellow conspiracy theorists want to see this as
the scandalous ejection of an editor who was brave enough to publish a
dissenting paper, but they can't be bothered to produce the paper and
explain why it provoked such an intense response when the people who
published Lindzen's dissenting papers have got off scot-free.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

This (above) is why many serious scientists dare not voice contrary
opinions--they'd get lynched, and they know it.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Bill Sloman · Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 28, 4:24 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:19:17 -0600, John Fields

jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.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.

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

There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb
to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the
better equipped.

---
As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues
causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your
lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to
silence your critics.

A cowardly practice, at best, and exactly what one would expect of a
"scientist" who pretends to be clad in shining armor.

This says it best, I think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja7cuVh96AI&feature=related

I'm in for a penny and I can afford a pound or two, so let's talk a
little about why you proposed that energy can be extracted from the
magnetic field surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current
by wrapping a solenoid around it.

Can it be done when the axis of the solenoid is congruent with the axis
of the conductor?

The ball's in your court and, unlike you, the better equipped of us know
how to speel and don't write "evidnece"
JF

Most fraudulent scientists are smart enough to slink quietly away when
their fraud is discovered. Slowman has no such IQ.

Jim Thompson and John Fields both think that I'm a fraud. This is - of
course - a devastating blow to my self-esteem, since I've always had
such a high opinion of their judgement, but somehow I guess I'll learn
to live with this public humiliation.

But I guess I'll stick around until they get around to telling us
which of my hypothetical frauds they have discovered.

This may take a while.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 28, 3:58 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@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.

Few people are so lacking in a sense of proportion that they'd bother.

<snipped the rest of the rant>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 27, 10:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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.

You cite authorities. That is, you rely on experts to explain
something that's over your head--you said that about the models, not
me--and take what they say on faith.

I don't claim any authority, nor do I require any credibility. I only
claim I can add, and read, and think. You're free to do the same.

I constantly cite public sources of raw data, but most people don't
have the time to waste checking them. So for alls' sake I prefer to
point out obvious contradictions, sanity checks. Quickies.

To wit, the common man doesn't need to know what makes a car go to
tell whether or not it goes--he can just try driving the car and see.
If it doesn't go, it's bogus. If it doesn't have wheels (i.e., if it
doesn't solve an obvious, important problem), it's probably bogus.

Having some knowledge of cars--even incomplete knowledge--Mr. Everyman
can do even better, even just spot-checking. If he lifts the hood and
sees a hamster-wheel + rodent, coupled to the drive shaft, he can make
some practical inferences w.r.t performance. Yes, even without
calculating turbulent flow in the fuel (feed?) injectors, or factoring
in positive feedback from a dangling carrot, or whatever.

One wrong constant in a simulation might show that as a zippy,
efficient car with a 200 h.p. hamster.

Global Climate Models fail simple tests like that. They don't know
from ocean currents. They don't accurately model clouds. Without
those things you can't model heat flow from the equator to the poles,
which is what drives our entire climate. That *is* our climate. They
assume static ice sheets and static vegetation, i.e., semi-static
albedo. IOW, they run on hamsters. And they're missing some wheels.

They're getting better, but they still aren't predictive 100 years or
even 20 years--or even 10 years, as we've just seen--into the future.

So, pointing to GCMs as proof of apocalyptic prognostications of doom
is, well, bogus. They just aren't nearly that good yet--they don't
handle all the many factors well enough--and even if they did we have
no way to prove they're right, to know they haven't omitted something
important, or just plain made a mistake.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Bill Sloman · Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 28, 2:13 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 27, 10:19 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

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.

No, if I said it, it's still here in the archives. Maybe you've
confused me with someone else.

Since I included the date and time and source of your post in my
response to it,

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

I'm tolerably confident that I wasn't responding to anybody else, and
yet there doesn't seem to be a corrseponding post in the archive that
I can get at.

Granting your capacity to remember different things when addressing
the same problem at different times, it does seem to me to be possible
that you might have requested that your post should not be archived
when you posted it, and are now remembering something different.

My information on GCMs came from reading their summaries (supplied by
each GCM group), reading as much of one global climate model's FORTRAN
spaghetti source-code as I could stand, and, mostly, _directly_ from
one of the world's preeminent experts, who works on them.

So, I've always known the difference.

A charming story, but incompatible with you post of the 22nd November.

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 know the difference. But suppose I didn't--it still doesn't
matter. Cast aside your irrelevant bile and consider: we're in a 10-
year cooling trend. I don't remember any stern warnings from
climastrologists this was imminent, do you? Quite the opposite. But
your memory is better than mine--you remember things that didn't even
happen. Maybe you could cite those warnings for us.

Or is 10 years "just weather," and not climate?

In this context it is a lot closer to weather than climate.

If you were anything like as au fait with the current state of climate
modelling as you claim, you'd be aware that the current explantation
of the relatively slow warming over the past decade involves the
influence of the North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which is
still relatively poorly understood, though we are now starting to get
useful information from the Argo program (which you'd know all about
if you were as well-informed as you like to pretend).

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Origins_of_Argo.html

At the time when a prediction based on this insight might have
qualified as a prediction, rather than an explanation, the Argo
program was just being launched. Back then we did know about the El
Nino/La Nina oscillation, and had started to appreciate that it shows
up in the global temperature measurements

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.

Several weeks becomes several months? Models that broke down that fast
would be useless for the work that they are being asked to do, and I
can't imagine that anybody would waste their time working on them.You
do seem to be talking about a different kind of global climate model
to the ones that the IPCC is interested in - and has to be interested
in, given their charter.

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

James Arthur "improving" what he remembers.

I already stated I don't remember exactly.

That - at least - is credible.

And part of it is that I
can't be too particular without revealing my source, which I am
entrusted not to do. That person is a scientist, not a politician,
and doesn't want to be sacrificed on the altar of AGW political
correctness.

And that is merely plausible. Such a person would also be unhappy if
their reputation were tarred by your imperfect understanding of what
you were told.

The point being that the things fall apart in a few months,

Or at least the ones that you claim to know about.

and
they're being used to forecast 50-500x that timespan and more. It
doesn't matter whether the 20-year forecast fell apart at two months
or three, or even four or five months, does it?

Obviously not, because nobody in their right mind would use such a
model for such a job., and your claim that they do would seem to have
more to do with the imperfection of your memory than anything else.

Obviously they're no good even at predicting in the 1-10 year
timeframe, or they would've predicted the current cooling.

That doesn't follow. It is difficult to predict the consequences of
phenomena one knows very little about, and until we've got a lot more
of the Argo data, we don't know how much heat is being moved towards
the poles by ocean currents, or what routes it is following.

If you knew anything like as much as you claim about climate
modelling, you wouldn't be be silly enough to claim that the late
1990's climate models were useless because they didn't reflect the
influence of ocean currents that we didn't know much about at the
time.

And a failure to predict relatively small, short term excursions isn't
evidence that a model can't predict bigger, longer term excursions.
You are bitching about a failure to predict the effect of a 20ppm rise
in CO2 levels.
It took an 80pmm rise in CO2 levels (from the pre-industrial 280ppm to
the 360ppm in the mid-1990s) to generate enough global warming for it
to show above the short-term noise level, and what has happened since
then has been swamped - unsurprisingly - by more (relatively) short
term noise.

We have every prospect of adding 200ppm more CO2 to the atmosphere
over the next century. A model doesn't have to be too accurate to tell
us that this means quite a lot more warming than we saw over the last
century - quite enough to create worrying problems.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 28, 4:19 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.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.

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

There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb
to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the
better equipped.

---
As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues
causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your
lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to
silence your critics.

John Fields has learned the word 'amicable". It is sad that he shows
no evidence of knowing what it means.

<snipped the usual rubbish>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John Larkin · Nov 29, 2009

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:05:57 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 28, 1:40 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Ravinghorde and his fellow conspiracy theorists want to see this as
the scandalous ejection of an editor who was brave enough to publish a
dissenting paper, but they can't be bothered to produce the paper and
explain why it provoked such an intense response when the people who
published Lindzen's dissenting papers have got off scot-free.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

This (above) is why many serious scientists dare not voice contrary
opinions--they'd get lynched, and they know it.

One of the requisites of a serious scientist is guts. In fact, bravery
is fundamental to a lot of important activities.

Brave people are able to think, because fear doesn't distort their
perceptions or reasoning. And brave people make the best partners in
most any activity, because you can never trust a coward.

John

Bill Sloman · Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 28, 6:05 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 28, 1:40 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 27, 4:33 pm, John Larkin

jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:25:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 27, 9:44 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
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.

Anything but. The journalist is treating a highly necessary bit of
quality control as "suppresion of dissent". If they'd done theri job
properly, they'd have found this out.

Threatening journal editors is "quality control"?

They weren't threatening him, they were getting him fired
forpublishing what was - at the very least - outrageously poor work.

He'd published a very poor paper, bad enough to provoke three memebers
of the editorial board into resigning.

When the dust settled, one of the board members who had resigned came
back as the new editor.

Ravinghorde and his fellow conspiracy theorists want to see this as
the scandalous ejection of an editor who was brave enough to publish a
dissenting paper, but they can't be bothered to produce the paper and
explain why it provoked such an intense response when the people who
published Lindzen's dissenting papers have got off scot-free.

This (above) is why many serious scientists dare not voice contrary
opinions--they'd get lynched, and they know it.

As I said - with an example - sceptical scientists don't get lynched
and they do get published.

If you want to disagree, you need to provide rather better evidence
than your fallible memory of what your anonymous informant told you.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · Nov 29, 2009

On Nov 28, 4:49 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:48 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@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.

John Fields seems think that learning to understand the science that
underpins our understanding of anthropogenic global warming is
equivalent to being indoctrinated in some kind of religious cult.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Michael A. Terrell · Nov 29, 2009

Jim Thompson wrote:

Most fraudulent scientists are smart enough to slink quietly away when
their fraud is discovered. Slowman has no such IQ.

Sloman is a typical 'meat popsicle'.

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

Jim Thompson · Nov 29, 2009

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:52:02 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:05:57 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 28, 1:40 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Ravinghorde and his fellow conspiracy theorists want to see this as
the scandalous ejection of an editor who was brave enough to publish a
dissenting paper, but they can't be bothered to produce the paper and
explain why it provoked such an intense response when the people who
published Lindzen's dissenting papers have got off scot-free.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

This (above) is why many serious scientists dare not voice contrary
opinions--they'd get lynched, and they know it.

One of the requisites of a serious scientist is guts. In fact, bravery
is fundamental to a lot of important activities.

Brave people are able to think, because fear doesn't distort their
perceptions or reasoning. And brave people make the best partners in
most any activity, because you can never trust a coward.

John

Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Bill Sloman

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Guest

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor