Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 10 Jan 2010 02:47 On Jan 10, 6:56 am, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > In <1a1f3856-e9c5-4a54-a990-28caef7d6...(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Bill Slomanwrote: > >On Jan 9, 11:22 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:36:07 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> SNIP > > >> >> And with extreme cold in Southern England thousands of homes were > >> >> without power. Which of course means no heating. And gas supplies are > >> >> now being cut off to industry to protect domestic users. > > >> >In hot weather, the power demand from air-conditioning systems can > >> >also sky-rocket. > > >> >> The UK government has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker. So now > >> >> the use of salt and grit to make the roads safe is being cut by 25%.. B > >> >> all gas reserves. Hey we don't need to plan for cold the planet is > >> >> getting warmer. Bloody alarmist socialist idiots. This government > >> >> needs to be treated like their idols such as Mussolini or Ceausescu.. > > >> >If the UK is like the Netherlands, the use of salt and grit on the > >> >roads has been cut because the unexpected cold spell used up most of a > >> >stock that had been expected to last the winter. > > >> >Gas reserves will have been calculated on the basis of the same > >> >statistical model. Any time now, some statisticians is going to tell > >> >us that this has been a once in 10,000 year fluke. > > >> >Statistics doesn't tell you which year in the 10,000 is going to win > >> >the national lottery. > > >> >The statistician won't have figured in any anthropogenic global > >> >warming - statisticians don't think like that. And the socialist > >> >government you dislike so much won't have argued with his statistics. > >> >The conservative idiots who hope to replace them won't do any better. > > >> But some weather forecasters predicted this well in advance, Piers > >> Corbyn, for example. > > >And some didn't. The ones that happened to be right get the publicity. > >Has Corbyn made a habit of being right, or is this just a lucky > >coincidence? > > >> What does he know that the Met Office doesn't? It's the sun stupid. > > >An attractive theory. Serious scientific investigation suggests that > >there is less there than meets the eye. > > >> Other forecasters as well such as The Weather Outlook, Accuweather, > >> netweather. > > >Out of how many? > > >> Cold last year, cold this year and a solar minimum. Must be a Hale > >> winter. Funnily enough Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for this. They > >> happen every 2 solar cycles, and 1940, 1963, 1985 were cold winters. > >> 1963 was the coldest in the UK for a 200 year period. > > >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/05/coldest-winters-britain-snow > > >The Independent had the story you want to tell us, back in 2007 > > >http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ray-of-hope-can-the-sun-sav... > > >It's a pity that the Solar cyces are sufficiently irregular that the > >correlation is only obvious after the event. And it is still just a > >correlation - attempts to postulate causation don't seem to do well. > >-- > >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > > Sorry to upset you here, but my experience suggests that the solar > cycles are less "irregular" than most of the terrestrial oceanic or > atmospheric (or combined) phenomena whose "last names" are "oscillation". > > I expect to be alive and "reasonably sane" long enough to see if UK gets > another spectacularly severe winter in the early 2030's. > > Not that I expect a 22-23 year cycle achieves more than a fraction as > much effect on the world or northern hemisphere as Atlantic Multidecadal > Oscillation achieves, but in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere there > may be some bit of truth to this bit of a severe winter or a couple of > severe winters notably having positive correlation with every-other solar > minimum. According to the Wikipedia article, the actual solar cycle is around 22 years - we see a sunspot number cycle of 11 uears in the same way the we see fluorescent tubes flickering at 100Hz (in Europe) and 120Hz (in the USA) even though the exciting current is actually oscillating at 50/60Hz. > If Northern Hemisphere regions having these "Hale winters" have > "persistence-based forecast" failing half the time after now, then that > merely gets those regions getting cold in 11-year-solar-cycle minima but > also having such cold winters more irregularly and randomly. > > If these regions all maintain "frequency division" much-above-50% > (preferably above 70%) through early 2030's or well-above-25% (preferably > above 50%) through mid-2050's (when A.M.O. is likely to be on next > upswing), then 22-23 year cycle for those regions advances via a test > according to "scientific method". > > Not that I give world-class weight in favor of or against existence or > extent of AGW by having this supported or countered by observational > evidence to be gained from after now to mid-2050's - I am expecting this > to show up strongly only in regions of the globe so small as to make this > less significant for periodic components of global temperature than A.M.O.. > is. If the severe winters in the U.K. do show a strong correlation with the Hale cycle, this interesting questions have to be why and how. It is a sufficiently interesting question that the absence of any published research suggests that when you dig into it deeper, the correlation probably goes away - academics do like researching topics that get good newpaper coverage, and this must have been a tempting target for some time now. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Nobody on 10 Jan 2010 12:25 On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex wrote: >> It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are >> forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold >> spells on record with another cold front headed this way. >> >> > > I made 3 three-point shots while playing basketball today out of the 4 I > attempted. With a three point shot percentage of 75% I am therefore the > greatest basketball player who ever lived. > > One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data > points. Or, more glibly: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". The people claiming that isolated weather measurements are evidence for or against climate change (but note: it's only ever the deniers who do this) *know* that the argument is nonsense. It's essentially a "shibboleth", a means by which members of the tribe can identify themselves to each other.
From: Jim Thompson on 10 Jan 2010 12:53 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:25:55 +0000, Nobody <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: [snip] > >Or, more glibly: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". > [snip] Marvelous statement! ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
From: Mark on 10 Jan 2010 18:41 On Jan 10, 2:37 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Jan 10, 7:59 am, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > > > > > In <882c11a0-a68d-4e7e-873b-fd9edf957...(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > Bill Slomanwrote: > > > <SNIP to here, heavily including stuff said so many times that it would > > be a big chore to get it requoted as-best-as-possible> > > > >If you think that the case for anthropogenic global warming primarily > > >depends on weather records from 1850, you don't understand the case, > > > I have noted how you liked to say what happened after 1880. Only one of > > the "Big 5" global temperature indices goes farther back, and that one > > goes back to 1850. > > > Keep in mind what atmospheric concentration was in 1850 or 1880, > > according to youer favored sources - hardly above the "holocene-usual" of > > 280 PPMV, likely 280-290 or so. > > > >and need to plow through something like the American Institute of > > >Physics web-site on the subject > > > >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ > > > >> I don't think anyone with their head screwed on right would disagree > > >> that AGW is real. The question is whether it is any more than man > > >> accelerating the ramp to the next peak. > > > >What "next peak"? If we didn't have anthropogenic global warming we'd > > >be expecting the current slow decline in temperature - over the last > > >8000 years - to accelerate into a decline into the next ice age, as it > > >has for all the preceding inter-glacials for the last 400,000 years > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png > > > I see that as true - we managed to avert the upcoming ice age, and I > > expect that in the next couple centuries we well by a small margin set a > > new global high termperature for Holocene. > > > >> The alarmists have decided > > >> that this means the end of the world as we know it. Anyone to dares > > >> to disagree with them is immediately labelled as in denial or having > > >> been conned by big oil. Ain't so. > > > >Big oil - and big coal - have certainly spent a lot of money on > > >weakening the public inpact of teh scie tific case. They seem to have > > >spent a lot of the moeny with the organisations set up by the tobacco > > >companies to mitigate the impact of the scientific evidence on the > > >dangers of smoking > > > >http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf > > > >Since the "alarmists" don't present anthropogenic global warming as > > >meaning the end of life as we know it, you do seem to have been > > >influenced by denialist propaganda. > > > However, many on the "warmingist side" appear to me to be overblowing > > the warming to an extent requiring economy-denting solutions that "rogue > > nations" will violate to their advantage. > > > I only expect their violations to be large factor of global temperature > > increasing by 2-3 degrees C in the next 2 centuries - and who is more > > prepared for sea level to rise a meter or two? > > > For that matter, who is in better shape for competitive advantage among > > nations should we manage to melt Greenlan's icecap and raise sea level by > > 6-7 meters? (a major upheaval) > > > >For the record, the appropriate response to anthropogenic global > > >warming is a progressive reduction in our use of fossil carbon as an > > >energy source, which will probably double the cost of energy vis-a-vis > > >labour and capital. This won't mean "the end of life as we know it" > > >but rather a more gradual version of the economic adjustment that > > >followed the 1973 oil crisis, when the price of oil went up by a > > >factor of four in a year. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis > > > That part I agree with - but it appears to me that "Hubbert Peak Oil" > > is very few years from now, and natural gas is 1.5 decades behind oil in > > peaking, and energy prices will take only a few years from now on their > > own to force demand to adapt to suplies showing themselves to be limited > > even without any government intervention. > > Unfortunately, there is still loads of coal. It is a cheaper - if less > convenient - energy source than oil or natural gas, and the Fischer- > Tropsch process can be used to turn it into oil. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process > > At least the static plant can run with CO2 sequestration and eventual > burial, if the "rogue nations" can be coerced into spending the extra > money. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen well now finally we get to the point due to "peak oil," the use of oil will reduce no matter AWG or not nat gas will also peak realtivly soon the real question is what we do with coal is the AWG hypothesis firm enough that we should regulate the use of coal creating economic hardship? Nobody is against developing "alternative energy" sources such as wind or solar and having them compete... the question is should we penalize coal for the sake of AWG? should we develop nuclear energy or coal for electricity in the US? this is really the bottom line of AWG.. Mark
From: Raveninghorde on 10 Jan 2010 18:52
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:41:56 -0800 (PST), Mark <makolber(a)yahoo.com> wrote: SNIP >well now finally we get to the point > >due to "peak oil," the use of oil will reduce no matter AWG or not > >nat gas will also peak realtivly soon > >the real question is what we do with coal > >is the AWG hypothesis firm enough that we should regulate the use of >coal creating economic hardship? > >Nobody is against developing "alternative energy" sources such as wind I am against wind because it is worse than useless. During cold spell last winter and again this winter there has been no wind. So at the time of peak demand wind doesn't contribute. And I have seen data that shows this has happened in the US as well as the UK. This failure means that coventional power stations must be up and running and ready to supply the demand. >or solar and having them compete... the question is should we >penalize coal for the sake of AWG? Tidal is another good source. > >should we develop nuclear energy or coal for electricity in the US? > >this is really the bottom line of AWG.. > >Mark > |