Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 23 Nov 2009 19:11 On Nov 23, 6:53 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote: > > > > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has > > > > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by > > > > experiment. > > > > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by > > > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. > > > Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume > > you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that > > the sun really does go around the earth. > > Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by > multiple observers around the world. Some aspects of it are. > Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's > begun, nor can it explain it. In the context of global warming, the climatologists don't have to predict or explain it - it's just low-level short-term noise. And in fact there is a plausible explanation - the North Atlantic and Pacific Multidecadal Oscillations. Unfortunately, the Argo project - which will eventually collect the data to validate or falsify this particular hypothesis - has only been running for a few years, which isn't long enough to yield immediate answers when you are looking at a multidecadal oscillation. > If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong. The climatologists models don't contradict nature, they just don't model it with perfect fidelity. The whole point about modelling is to look at simple approximations to a more complicated reality - something that is simple enough that you can run the simulations faster than they world they are modelling evolves in real time. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 23 Nov 2009 19:16 On Nov 23, 7:10 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > > > >On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote: > > >> > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has > >> > > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by > >> > > experiment. > > >> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by > >> > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. > > >> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume > >> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that > >> the sun really does go around the earth. > > >Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by > >multiple observers around the world. > > >Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's > >begun, nor can it explain it. > > Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to > control everyone. Politicians (are) like that. Nobody wants to "control everybody". As long as you can power your air- conditioner from a sustainable power source, nobody is going to give a damn which power source you choose. Burning more fossil carbon - so that your air-conditioner, as well as everybody elses, is going to have to work harder - isn't going to be a socially acceptable choice. > >If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong. > > Wrong is often useful (see above). Unfortunately for you, and Exxon-Mobil, the model isn't wrong, just not optimised for short term weather prediction. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 23 Nov 2009 19:19 On Nov 23, 7:34 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote: > > > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by > > > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. > > > Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume > > you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that > > the sun really does go around the earth. > > > > They're the ones with infinite government funding, > > > "Infinite"? > > > >They're the > > > official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're > > > not letting other people have it. > > > You must be thinking of Roy Spencer > > No, I was thinking of NASA-Goddard, the Hadley wing of the UK's > meteorological service, and the e-mails we've just seen wherein they > discuss how they've withheld embarrassing raw data. I don't think that you can validate that claim. Raw data is - in any event - uninterpretable without a lot of processing, so your claim is a non sequiteur. Not just libel, but fatuous libel. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 23 Nov 2009 19:31 On Nov 23, 5:43 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 23, 12:06 pm, ChrisQ <m...(a)devnull.com> wrote: > >> John Larkin wrote: > > >> > Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? > > >> At last, a clear voice amongst all the noise :-). > > >> > I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results, > >> > not cherry-picked or outright fudged data. > > >> > Apparently not. > > >> > John > > >> If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any > >> interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?. > >> What are they trying to hide ?. > > >I've answered this question before. Researchers publish their data in > >the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They do a lot of work on the > >raw data to make it accessible and understandable. If a third party > >wants access to the raw data, the researchers have to a do a lot more > >work to provide a user-friendly interface that lets these third > >parties make sense of the raw data, and in the process they make it > >easier for other scientists to take advantage of the pick and shovel > >work that they have done to build up their position in their area. > > >All of this means that researchers aren't trying to hide their raw > >data - they are just trying to avoid having to put in a lot of work > >that won't advance them in their field, and will allow others to > >advance themselves at their expense. > > >> Otoh, just suppose that some western governments wanted to reduce > >> dependence on fossil fuel for strategic / national security reasons. > >> What scam could they come up with to justify the tremendous sacrifices > >> required from the voters? > > >They'd have had to have started early. Anthropogenic global warming > >was first hypothesised around a century ago. > > >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ > > >>It's a win win situation as well. When the > >> earth doesn't turn to toast, they can say they were right, the > >> sacrifices were worth it and everyone will be thankfull and praise > >> various graven images :-)...... > > >Unfortunately the eath is already turning to - rather soggy - toast. > >Where do you think the remarkably heavy rain that has been falling in > >the Lake District came from? How come it can suddenly knock over five > >bridges that had survived a couple of hundred years of British > >weather? > > So now you are using local weather events as proof of climate change. > So what do you make of the recent record-setting cold snaps across the > USA? One of the regular predictions of the effects of global warming is a higher frequency of extreme weather. The logic is that global warming means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and the engine that drives weather is the energy released when water vapour condenses. Extreme weather can be hot or cold, wet or dry, which does put proponents of anthropogenic global warming in the catbird seat when some extreme weather shows up. > Geez, I'm sure glad you don't design electronics. Stick to obsessing > about climate; that will keep you from doing much real harm. And if you concentrated on electronics, which you do know something about, rather than potificating about climate change, where you ignorance makes you a total sucker for the most fatuaous denialist rubbish, you'd be less of a menance. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 23 Nov 2009 19:51
On Nov 23, 6:03 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:43:35 -0800, John Larkin > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > ><bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >>On Nov 23, 12:06 pm, ChrisQ <m...(a)devnull.com> wrote: > >>> John Larkin wrote: > > >>> > Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? > > >>> At last, a clear voice amongst all the noise :-). > > >>> > I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results, > >>> > not cherry-picked or outright fudged data. > > >>> > Apparently not. > > >>> > John > > >>> If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any > >>> interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?. > >>> What are they trying to hide ?. > > >>I've answered this question before. Researchers publish their data in > >>the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They do a lot of work on the > >>raw data to make it accessible and understandable. If a third party > >>wants access to the raw data, the researchers have to a do a lot more > >>work to provide a user-friendly interface that lets these third > >>parties make sense of the raw data, and in the process they make it > >>easier for other scientists to take advantage of the pick and shovel > >>work that they have done to build up their position in their area. > > >>All of this means that researchers aren't trying to hide their raw > >>data - they are just trying to avoid having to put in a lot of work > >>that won't advance them in their field, and will allow others to > >>advance themselves at their expense. > > Heaven forbid you "scientists" actually contributed to society, rather > than selfishly floating only your own boat? Jim seems to think that the semiconductor industry that pays for his journeyman design skills was entirely set up by free market capitalists who never took a cent from the government. > Yet taking research "dole" from the government. Actually, they mostly work at universities, and the best of them get research grants to do scientific research on the side, some of which gets turned into the technology which - amongst other things - created the industry that allowed Jim to get fat and block up arteries to have them cleaned out by technology developed on the back of other scientific advances. If more of them had got a little more "dole" they might have worked out how to stop Jim getting overweight in the first place. > Scumbags! > > >>> Otoh, just suppose that some western governments wanted to reduce > >>> dependence on fossil fuel for strategic / national security reasons. > >>> What scam could they come up with to justify the tremendous sacrifices > >>> required from the voters? > > >>They'd have had to have started early. Anthropogenic global warming > >>was first hypothesised around a century ago. > > >>http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ > > >>>It's a win win situation as well. When the > >>> earth doesn't turn to toast, they can say they were right, the > >>> sacrifices were worth it and everyone will be thankfull and praise > >>> various graven images :-)...... > > >>Unfortunately the eath is already turning to - rather soggy - toast. > >>Where do you think the remarkably heavy rain that has been falling in > >>the Lake District came from? > > The sky ?:-) Jim gets the first step right. He now needs to ask how it got into the sky above the Lake District. > >>How come it can suddenly knock over five > >>bridges that had survived a couple of hundred years of British > >>weather? > > Same as ours in the US... even without rain... poor or no maintenance. > Over there in Brit-stony-land I'd guess they'd never ever been > re-grouted. Quite a few of the bridge that went down were stone bridges that have lasted several hundred years. I don't think the British have forgotten how to do grouting in the last few decades. In fact it looks as the river-bed got scoured out from under the bridges by improbably heavy rain. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8374616.stm The bridges were designed to withstand a once on 200 years flood (plus a safety margin) and the floods were a lot worse than that. <snip> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |