Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: who where on 8 Jan 2010 20:20 Hey, wrong target. I'm a climate sceptic. maybe you meant those comments for someone else? If not, you misunderstood my post big time.
From: Hammy on 8 Jan 2010 20:24 On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:27:45 -0500, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: > >> >> Bill Sloman said >Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange >rate is truly irrelevant. I would consider anything less then 10% GDP irrelevant. >Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was >unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality. You seem to be a cherry picker as well as blind I said we had a recession not that we were unaffected the whole world was. In comparison to most developed Countries we got off lightly considering. >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, {snip} In a nut shell we could easily live without the EU the EU couldn't live without us. As a matter of fact the EU wouldn't even exist without us. I notice a few people here seem to hold a grudge against North Americans is it because you know you owe us something you know you could never repay. I can see how someone might harbour resentment under the circumstances.
From: Artist on 8 Jan 2010 20:33 Raveninghorde wrote: > 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. Actually climatologists are predicting the paradoxical cooling of Europe due to global warming. This is because of the effects on the Thermohaline Circulation: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/thermohaline.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation So it appears we do not have to worry about global warming very much. After the Thermohaline Circulation is reduced or shut down entirely a new ice age will appear. Its added ice will reflect more sunlight and cool the earth again. Of course Europe, North America, and Siberia will all be buried in a mile of ice for a while, maybe even as far South as New York, San Francisco, London, or Munich. So if Europe is in the deep freeze don't worry. Its just the early signs the global warming induced new ice age is on its way and the Earth will be cool again. -- To reply directly remove the sj. from my email address. This is a spam jammer.
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Jan 2010 20:34 On Jan 9, 1:05 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > 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.slo...(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/temperat.... > > >>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_Chara.... > > >>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. It seems unlikely. My expectation is that the stocks of salt and grit are close to running out - as they are in the Netherlands - and the authorities are cutting back on the number of roads being gritted to stretch the supplies. Ravinghorde is prone to misunderstanding what he reads - what he quotes from a document does tend to give a rather different impression than the one you get by reading the whole document. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Jan 2010 20:36
On Jan 8, 11:54 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:10:53 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(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/temperat... > > >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 > temperature and 25C above. In places a long way from the equator. There aren't as many of them as the Mercator projection might lead you to believe. > >> >> 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_Chara... > > >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. When you get close to the Arctic circle. There's not a lot of land close to the Antarctic circle. Btween the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn - where rather more people live - the situation is reversed. > 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. Not unless anthropogenic global warming really runs away. The average temperature in England over the whole year is 13.1C. The Paleocene- Eocene Thermal Maximum was good for a 6C temperature rise - about the the same as the IPCC's worst case for the end of this century, which would bring that average up to 19.1C, and give you roughly equal chances of positive and negative excursions into life-threatening regions. > 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. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |