Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Nov 2009 21:48 On Nov 24, 1:02 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:59:10 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <196b7d9d-d84f-4aff-af02-d2220b491...(a)p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>: > > >On Nov 23, 1:49 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:36:28 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl= > >oman > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > >> <66cb3666-675c-447c-949d-eb6e666ff...(a)h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>: > > >> Climate warming ice age: > >> http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm > >> http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf > > >Good. You should now understand what was going on during the Ice Ages > > Climate cycles will happen, I have always stated that we should have the energy sources to cope with that. > If *if* you did read the other link's material, > then you would understand that Europe (and the world for that matter) will look very different > thousands of years from now, as it did thousands of years in the past. You need to read it a little more carefully. For "thousands of years", substitute "millions of years". Continental drift isn't all that fast http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml suugests 2cm to 7cm/per year, 20 to 70 metres per millenium, 20 to 70 kilometeres per million years. Climate change happens rather faster. Ice ages and inter-glacials used to cycle with a period of about 100,00 years, and if we hadn't pushed up the concentrations of greenhouse gases we'd be due for another ice age any millenium now. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum happened rather faster still, and the Younger Dryas even faster. <snipped the rest of your ill-informed maunderings> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Nov 2009 22:26 On Nov 24, 12:35 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: <snip> > And some rats are trying to sacrifice Phil Jones to save AGW > > http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/ > > /quote > > Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the > publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a > report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe > that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the > data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed. > > /end quote You have posted links to some terminally inept work by climate sceptics - some by people who obviously haven't even heard of the Suess Effect. Preventing the publication of that sort of rubbish, or ousting the editors who were incompetent or corrupt enough to publish it, would strike me as the kind of behaviour expected of senior scientists aware of their responsibilities in their area of expertise. And you don't seem to have noticed that George Monbiot went on to satirise your position even more obviously. "Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the worlds glaciers." Once again, your inability to understand what you posting has made you look remarkably dim. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Nov 2009 22:42 On Nov 24, 4:11 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 24, 6:35 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > > wrote: <snip> > As a second measure of global climate models (GCM), we know from > actual life how poorly the models predict El Nino, or hurricanes, or > other near-term phenomena that depend on accurate understanding of > real temperature, deep ocean currents, or other quantities critical to > long-term projections (if those are even possible), but which are not > known well enough to make even short-term predictions. > > As a 3rd measure of GCM, before you graced s.e.d. with your inquiries, > I related that I got that same info (above) from one of the persons > *responsible* for one of the main climate models. That person said > GCM are important and useful tools in understanding climate, and for > making predictions as far as several weeks into the future. Beyond > that, says (s)he, the models quickly diverge uselessly from reality. James Arthur doesn't know the difference between a global climate model, which predicts over a span of year and a global weather model which falls to pieces in about two weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm > None of this proves or disproves the basic contention--that CO2 is > warming the earth. But we're constantly sold AGW as fact based on > arguments of authority from people who do not know--no one understands > the global climate well enough to predict it--and on the authority of > these global climate models that were never meant to be so abused. > > IOW, pseudo-science, politics, and pro-/e- motion. A remarkable example of pretentious ignorance, pontificating as if it knew what it was talking about on the basis of a misunderstood dinner party conversation. I've seen some spectacular pratfalls in my time, but this particular combination of fatuous ignorance and self-satisfied pomposity is going to take some beating. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Nov 2009 22:55 On Nov 25, 1:03 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 24, 3:37 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:30:00 +0000, Raveninghorde > > > <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > > > and this: > > >http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt... > > OMG, that's rich. Try searching the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file > > http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt > > for "cloud." (Clouds' influence on insolation is ~10^2 greater than > the AGW hypothesized from CO2.) > > A few years ago I downloaded and read some of the FORTRAN code for one > of the models. > > What trash. This from a nitwit who doesn't know the difference between a weather model - which is susceptible to the butterfly effect - and a climate modoel - which isn't. There's no point in reminding people that Ravinghorde is in conspiracy theory heaven, reading global significance into students - presumably undergraduates, though I'd have expected modern high school students to be able to do better - being very bad amateur programmers. James Arthur seesm to be equally addled, but he isn't quite as obvious about it. -- Bill Sloman, Nih=jmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Nov 2009 23:03
On Nov 24, 1:25 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <be3e96e1-68fd-4366-b23d-5c7f15549...(a)t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>: > > >The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction > >companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed > >at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to > >prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does > >imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather > >dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest. > > Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, > there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas originating from > your overheated globe. BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more sustainable activities. You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the only way to generate energy. It is - currently - the cheapest source of power, but only because we aren't paying enough to cover the damage that is being caused by the CO2 emitted, and the rather higher charges needed to cover the damage that is going to be caused when we've saturated the oceans with CO2. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |