Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: Hammy on 8 Jan 2010 15:08 Bill Sloman said >Predicting the virulence of a virus in advance is even trickier than >predicting the speed and severity of anthropogenic global warming; >your failure to grasp the nature of either kind of warning is >depressing. So you admit that extreme climate change based on human behaviour could be wrong? >Which predicted catastrophe are you referring to? Is it one you just >invented, or can you point out a reference to this "prediction"? Did you live in a cave in the late 80's early 90's ? You don't recall being bombarded with massive ad campaigns to stop deforestation in the Amazon. Western governments putting pressure on the rain forest governments to curb land development. There were scientist back then who said this could lead to climate change. >It might drive up the price, but it needs to drive down the turnover. >Exxon-Mobil is lying in the hope of being able to keep on selling huge >quantities of fossil carbon for a few years more. Are you so na�ve to believe we will stop using fossil fuels in a few years? The world economy would collapse. Exxon and others will be selling oil long after both of us are dead and gone. The polar ice caps will still be there as well. It is depressing how you fail to grasp basic economics. I think climate change paranoids are mainly people who feel the need to think they live in times of great significance. Its normal human behaviour we all want to feel important. If it makes you feel good to use so called green energy good; me I would prefer all electricity were generated via nuclear reactors. If you are truly convinced that the world is coming to an end or major disruption based on climate change due to human behaviour, then alter your lifestyle. Some ways in which you could reduce your carbon footprint is to dispose of all your assets and live in a cave eating only natural foods. If you aren't willing to take drastic action how can you expect to be believed. This behaviour kind of reminds me of those evangelical priests who think there flock should live in poverty while he lives in a mansion with a harem and flys all over the world in his jet. I think this is what is called a hypocrite or maybe Al Gore.
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Jan 2010 15:10 On Jan 8, 8:25 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:27:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: < SNIP > > >In a temperate country. > > You are the one who tried to use France, a temperate country, as a > counter to the proposal that cold kills and as I demonstrated you were > an inumerate idiot and wrong. In fact I don't disagree that cold kills. What John Larkin left out was that heat also kills; mortality is at a minimum at temperatures around 20C, and starts climbing as the temperature moves away from this point. http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2002/temperature.html so the correct formulation is that extreme temperatures kill, and John Larkin's proposition - which you seem to have espoused - that global warming, if it were to happen, wouldn't be such a bad thing, is unfortuately ill-informed. > >> As far as the tropics are concerned this seems to be a red herring > >> from an alarmist perspective. I thought the normal claim was that > >> anthropogenic global warming would have much more impact on the non > >> tropics compared to the tropics. But hey AGW explains everything > >> including the common cold. > > >Anthropogenic global warming is expected to have more impact at the > >poles than at the equator, but summer in tropical countries will get > >warmer and generate even more excess deaths than they do at the > >moment, while as you get further from the equator, the winters will > >become milder and the summers warmer, decreasing the excess deaths in > >winter and making excess deaths in summer more likely. > > Do you have any facts? Or is this the normal there is no evidence so > Bill is wright argument you so love? http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2008/11001/Determinants_Characterizing_Vulnerability_for.1029.aspx http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/190 There's plenty of evidence - so much in fact that I'd assumed any educated adult would be aware of it. John Larkin isn't really an educated adult - he seems to have passed through the American University system acquiring only information relevant to electronic design. I would have thought that you'd know better than to bother to ask, but I don't suppose this is the sort of thing that gets posted on the denialist web-sites that you browse. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Hammy on 8 Jan 2010 16:27 On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: > > >Bill Sloman said > Bill Sloman said >Or euros or renminbi, if you want a currency which can still buy >something. Your exhibiting your lack of understanding of basic economics yet again. I'm Canadian and it is in our interest to keep our dollar 10 to 15 cents below the US dollar they are our largest trading partner. Anytime our dollar approaches parity with the US dollar are government is pressured from the business sector to act by saying things like "the rising Canadian dollar is hampering Canada's recovery" or by buying selling or dollar whatever it takes. Can you understand why it's desirable to be below the US dollar? We do minimal trade with the EU so the value of or dollar relative to Euros is irrelevant. For the record our banks didn't collapse and or economy was not severely depressed just a recession not a depression. Also my Grandfather fought through Europe in WW2 including Holland and he never mentioned a thing about the Dutch turning there nose up at his money. I also lived at CFB Baden in Germany for eight years traveled all through Europe nobody turned my money away.
From: dagmargoodboat on 8 Jan 2010 16:56 On Jan 8, 7:02 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Jan 8, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:25:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > > wrote: > > > >On Jan 7, 11:53 am, John Larkin wrote: > > >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex wrote: > > >> >One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data > > >> >points. > > > >> Well, the alarmists weren't shy about blaming every storm, beach > > >> erosion, hot spell, change in butterfly population, or the weigh of a > > >> herd of sheep on Global Warming. > > > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm > > > >> John > > > >Not to worry, we're still doomed: > > > http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9495864 > > > Another Ice Age would be "just a blip in the long-term heating trend." > > I think you are letting your over-fertile imagination run away here. > > > Just keep extending the definition of "weather" and "climate" as suits > > your political needs. > > The way you do? You and James Arthur do seem enthusiastic about > confusing weather models You're confused--you invented that. > (which are susceptible to the butterfly > effect) and climate models (which are deliberately onstructed so that > they aren't). What construction, and how does it guarantee that? Diagrams, please. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Raveninghorde on 8 Jan 2010 17:54
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:10:53 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jan 8, 8:25�pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:27:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >< SNIP > > >> >In a temperate country. >> >> You are the one who tried to use France, a temperate country, as a >> counter to the proposal that cold kills and as I demonstrated you were >> an inumerate idiot and wrong. > >In fact I don't disagree that cold kills. What John Larkin left out >was that heat also kills; >mortality is at a minimum at temperatures around 20C, and starts >climbing as the temperature moves away from this point. > >http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2002/temperature.html > >so the correct formulation is that extreme temperatures kill, and John >Larkin's proposition - which you seem to have espoused - that global >warming, if it were to happen, wouldn't be such a bad thing, is >unfortuately ill-informed. The highest temperatures normally found in inhabited areas is about 45C. A cold of -40C is not uncommon. It has been seen in the last few days in Norway and Sweden for example. So the bias is to extreme cold. You have about 60C below your optimum temeprature and 25C above. > >> >> As far as the tropics are concerned this seems to be a red herring >> >> from an alarmist perspective. I thought the normal claim was that >> >> anthropogenic global warming would have much more impact on the non >> >> tropics compared to the tropics. But hey AGW explains everything >> >> including the common cold. >> >> >Anthropogenic global warming is expected to have more impact at the >> >poles than at the equator, but summer in tropical countries will get >> >warmer and generate even more excess deaths than they do at the >> >moment, while as you get further from the equator, the winters will >> >become milder and the summers warmer, decreasing the excess deaths in >> >winter and making excess deaths in summer more likely. >> >> Do you have any facts? Or is this the normal there is no evidence so >> Bill is wright argument you so love? > >http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2008/11001/Determinants_Characterizing_Vulnerability_for.1029.aspx > >http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/190 > >There's plenty of evidence - so much in fact that I'd assumed any >educated adult would be aware of it. John Larkin isn't really an >educated adult - he seems to have passed through the American >University system acquiring only information relevant to electronic >design. > >I would have thought that you'd know better than to bother to ask, but >I don't suppose this is the sort of thing that gets posted on the >denialist web-sites that you browse. Tilting at windmills again. The point is extreme cold is much more common than extreme heat. The UK is currently in an extended period of temperatures below 0C. We had -18C just 30 miles from here in Southern England. 38C below your 20C optimum. We will never see temperatures 38C above, 58C. 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. 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. |