Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 8 Jan 2010 19:05 On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:54:49 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >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. Do you think they actually cut back on gas and grit reserves because they expected warmer winters? I'd really not like to think that anyone could be that stupid. John
From: Mark on 8 Jan 2010 19:16 > And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple, > isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required > to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me. > > Thanks for the entertainment. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen Yes, as a matter of fact... my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions. Mark
From: John Larkin on 8 Jan 2010 19:30 On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:16:07 -0800 (PST), Mark <makolber(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple, >> isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required >> to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me. >> >> Thanks for the entertainment. >> >> -- >> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > >Yes, as a matter of fact... > >my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough >knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the >global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that >the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions. > >Mark > Agreed. The planet's climate is a massively complex nonlinear system whose dynamics and forcings are only guessed at [1]. We know that "weather" is chaotic over all time scales that it's been observed over. It's absurd to think that "climate" is predictable. merely because the time horizon exceeds observability. Weather does couple into climate. One can't just wave hands and mumble about lowpass filtering. This ain't a linear system. Que more ponderous Sloman insults: John [1] and mostly guessed at by people with agendas.
From: Raveninghorde on 8 Jan 2010 19:51 On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:05:29 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:54:49 +0000, Raveninghorde ><raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > SNIP >> >>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. > >Do you think they actually cut back on gas and grit reserves because >they expected warmer winters? > >I'd really not like to think that anyone could be that stupid. > >John > If it wasn't a belief in AGW they are even stupider. Last year, in the UK, it was a colder and snowier winter than the rest of the decade. After problems with salt and grit for the roads a comitteee reported in August on supplies. It was 15th December before the government department responded, less than a week before this cold snap started. Keep in mind the Met Office, a major promoter of AGW, forecast a mild winter. /quote Preliminary indications continue to suggest that winter temperatures are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including the UK. Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year for the UK, but there is still a 1 in 7 chance of a cold winter. What do we mean by average temperature? As you would expect, temperatures can vary quite widely over the winter. So we take an average for the whole season and measure against that. The UK average for December to February from 1971-2000 is 3.7 �C. /end quote http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm At the end of December a Met Office spokeman defended the forecast saying that with 2 months to go temperatures could well average above 3.7C. Idiot. This is after forecasting a BBQ summer which didn't stop raining.
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Jan 2010 20:02
On Jan 8, 10:27 pm, Hammy <s...(a)spam.com> wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <s...(a)spam.com> wrote: > > >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? I can understand why your exporters don't want the Candaian dollar to appreciate against the US dollar. The absolute rate of exchange doesn't actually matter, but any change does make a difference. > We do minimal trade with the EU so the value of or dollar relative to > Euros is irrelevant. Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange rate is truly irrelevant. > For the record our banks didn't collapse and or economy was not > severely depressed just a recession not a depression. Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality. > 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. That was then. This is now. The USA - your major trading partner - has been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything, and most of the assets that could be made to look as if they were worth something, and it now takes 1.4441 US dollars to buy a euro, so its worth about two thirds of what it was a few years ago. This is a signficant devaluation, but the US is still running a massive balance of trade deficit, so presumably there's more to come. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |