Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Don Klipstein on 8 Dec 2009 01:39 In <8rpih51nt20mugqo9617kr9spekrkus13e(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin said: > >It's snowing in Houston: > >http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html Only mildly unusual, something I hear about every few years or so. Roughly 25 years ago, San Antonio had a snowstorm of 11 inches IIRC. Houston has had at least one ice storm before also, including at least a bit of one from a storm giving Austin 3 inches of snow in early 1985 (or maybe I am 1-off for year, and that occurred in early 1986 or late 1985.) - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: John Larkin on 8 Dec 2009 10:07 On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:39:59 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In <8rpih51nt20mugqo9617kr9spekrkus13e(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin said: >> >>It's snowing in Houston: >> >>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html > > Only mildly unusual, something I hear about every few years or so. >Roughly 25 years ago, San Antonio had a snowstorm of 11 inches IIRC. > > Houston has had at least one ice storm before also, including at least >a bit of one from a storm giving Austin 3 inches of snow in early 1985 (or >maybe I am 1-off for year, and that occurred in early 1986 or late 1985.) > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) -11F in Truckee this morning. John
From: Rich Grise on 8 Dec 2009 17:17 On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 06:39:59 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > In <8rpih51nt20mugqo9617kr9spekrkus13e(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin said: >> >>It's snowing in Houston: >> >>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html > > Only mildly unusual, something I hear about every few years or so. > Roughly 25 years ago, San Antonio had a snowstorm of 11 inches IIRC. > > Houston has had at least one ice storm before also, including at least > a bit of one from a storm giving Austin 3 inches of snow in early 1985 (or > maybe I am 1-off for year, and that occurred in early 1986 or late 1985.) > I had USAF basic training (which the army and marines call "boot camp") in San Antonio (Lackland AFB), in May and June, 1968. They'd get us up about 5:30 or 6 AM, and march us to the chow hall (which the A & M call the "mess hall") for breakfast, and we all froze our asses off! Cheers! Rich
From: dagmargoodboat on 9 Dec 2009 12:17 On Dec 1, 8:14 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Dec 2, 12:15 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > I used 166KWHr (9 milliGores) last month. How about you? > > I haven't a clue. Since I'm in no position to do anything about it - > we did what little we could to minimise our gas bills when we moved > into our current house back in 1993 - I'm not going to waste my time > finding out. I just got my new bill: 116 KWHr. It's 9c in my place, and the thermostat's set to 6c. How about yours? -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 9 Dec 2009 13:15
On Dec 2, 6:32 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Dec 1, 10:44 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Nov 28, 11:18 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > On Nov 28, 2:44 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > I've seen the code I critique; you say it's pure, though you've never > > > > looked. That's faith. > > > > I didn't say ot was pure. I said I didn't trust your judgement. > > > Then read it yourself you goof. Don't defend what you haven't seen to > > someone who has. > > To someone who claims he has. Your 22nd November pratfall suggests > that your own evaluation of your expertise isn't all that realistic. > > > <snip posting conspiracy theory> > > The section snipped seems to have been > > " > I argue from knowledge, confirmed and supported by an expert with > > impeccable recommendations from someone I know, trust, and > respect. > > And your 22nd November report of what they had said was fatuous > nonsense. There are several possible explanations for this, and none > of them leave you with any kind of credibility. " > > I don't see any conspiracy theory here, but a reference to a post > where your claimed expertise seems to have deseted you. The snipped conspiracy was: you thought I said something on Nov. 22, the archive didn't support you, so you imagined I somehow altered it, internet-wide, after the fact, on all the world's computers, archives, and servers. That's a conspiracy theory. <snip> > Congratulations. You've established that you then knew that the > current generation of climate models represent a simplified model of > the world. > > What you don't seem to realise is that all computer models are > simplified models, and that some are more simplified than others Huh? I've established that I know models are simplified, yet I don't seem to realize models are simplified? That's dense. I write models for Pete's sake. > Despite your scepticism, one can make broad-brush predictions about > the climate without knowing the exact path that the ocean currents > follow from the equator to the poles. We've got a tolerably good idea > of how much heat has to be moved, and that can be handled as a lumped > approximation. On what basis can you say that you can make broad-brush predictions about climate by representing ocean currents--an absolutely massive heat transport--with a lumped approximation? Here's a lumped approximation: the mean global temperature of the Earth is about 14.5c. Therefore, there's no snow, no ice, and no glaciers. Since those aren't reflecting sunlight anymore, increase your heating assumptions dramatically...Oh dear, we're burning up! Does that work? Climate hangs on not just the global mean temperature, but how the heat's distributed geographically, and the thermodynamic processes that distribute it. You know, poles, ice caps, equator, tropics, winds, clouds, currents, etc. > Obviously, this loses you the bobbles on the on the warming curve that > correspond to the El Nino and La Nina alternation, and the similar - > if slower - alternation in the North Altlantic Multidecadal > Oscillation, but these are oscillations and cycle back to repeat > themselves over the years, while the CO2 level just keeps on going up. > > I'm not saying that a more detailed model capturing more of the > observations wouldn't be better, but computer based simulation always > depends on manipulating a simplified model of reality, and their > usefulness - in this context - doesn't lie in exactly predicting what > the climate will look like next year, but rather roughly what it would > look like in a century. You're thrashing the obvious. The question isn't of minor imperfections, approximations, or limitations of all models, but of gross deficiencies in the global climate models. > Effectively you are asking for a weather prediction program, when you > should know that such programs break down due to the butterfly effect > with a fortnight, and you are ignoring the techniques used to immunise > climate prediction programs agains the butterfly effect, as well as > neglecting the obvious point that the current generation of climate > models are aimed at finding out how difficult we are going to make > life for our children (or nieces and nephews) and their children and > are thus sub-optimal for predicting next years weather. What makes you think a) global climate models are immune to sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and b) initial conditions are sufficiently accurately known to predict future climate? Or that c) Accurate initial conditions aren't needed? -- Cheers, James Arthur |