Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 25 Nov 2009 12:03 Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [...] >> But the glaciers, those will further retreat from Europe, and north of America, >> only to come back then later, in thousands of years cycles. > > Since we've messed up the positive feedback that drove that cycle and > added more than enough CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, the glacier > aren't going to be coming back any time soon. > > The shapes and locations ofof the continents will still be pretty much > the same. I doubt if the world will look that different. > Ahm, the glacier north of us on Mt.Shasta is growing ... Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Larkin on 25 Nov 2009 12:09 On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:56:10 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 24, 4:04�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 24, 2:42�am, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:31:49 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >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: >> >> ><snip> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> Like, for instance, when it rains for 40 days and 40 nights? >> >> >That doesn't seem to have happened recently. >> >> Exactly. Bad weather has been happening for thousands of years. >> >> The records are funny. When they say "coldest November in 80 years" I >> think "then it was even colder 80 years ago." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> I do concentrate on electronics... a lot. I have about 11 or so >> >> interesting projects at various stages of development, and a bunch >> >> more we're thinking about. >> >> >> But why does being skeptical of some nonlinear/chaotic computer models >> >> constitute "menace"? The science must be very, very fragile if it >> >> can't bear my humble skepticism in an obscure newsgroup. >> >> >Your scepticism is nether humble nor yours. You pick up neatly >> >packaged chunks of scepticism from your frieindly neighbourhood >> >denialist propaganda machine and regurgitate them here. >> >> >> I suppose that's another reason they hide their raw data and cook the peer >> >> reviews. >> >> >Since they "hide" their raw data because it is incomprehensible and >> >"cook" their peer reviews - to the limited extent that they can >> >influence editors - by preferentially citing the work of people known >> >to produce constructive reviews, this is just another piece of >> >evidence that you know very little about the way science works. You >> >may sell remarkable scientific measuring instruments to scientific >> >research laboratories, but you clearly don't often get to drink coffee >> >with the people who use your gear. >> >> >> Well, the AGW fad has peaked. What anti-civilization paranoia will be >> >> next, do you think? >> >> >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. >> >> >One might hope that they might grow out of it, but Jahred Diamond's >> >book "Collapse" makes it pretty clear that the leaders of a failing >> >society will have their attention firmly fixed on maintaining their >> >status within that society - in your case, your status as a successful >> >businessman - right up to the point where it starts collapsing around >> >their ears. >> >> I am not a businessman; I'm a circuit designer. > >Whenever you get on th defensive you boast about running a successful >business. > I'm never seriously on the defensive here, because it doesn't matter. And what I do 98% of the time is design electronics. Other people run the business, which I have little talent for and less interest. The combination is fairly successful. We had a great month in October, multiples of the average monthly sales in mid-year, which was frankly terrifying. November looks almost as good, when in past years November was generally bad. I think the earlier spending fear is mostly over, and there's pent-up demand emerging now. Too bad we have the Thanksgiving holiday over here. Nothing happens this week. >Time is never going to have a Circuit Designer of the Year on its >front cover - the "successful businessman" aspect of your work is what >gives you get your social status. I hate social status. Ceremonies embarass me. I want to be rich, but I don't want to be famous. I do like it when I design something really good and serious people say it's good, and buy some to emphasize the point. And Time Magazine has become a brainless parody of itself, like much of print journalism. They haven't the sense to realize that their target audience is people who *read*. > >> Are you into the 2012 cult? > >Just far enough to know that nitwits like Rice Grise take it >seriously, that it depends on some imagined feature of the Inca >calender, and there are suggestions that 2012 isn't the magic year >that it is claimed to be. It's just another form of astrology and >appeals to the same kinds of fruitcakes. Like most disaster scenarios; AGW comes to mind. The serious disaster scenario is an asteroid or comet hit. The ISS could be used as a detection/tracking platform and a staging area for deflector missiles. We'd have serious international cooperation and the ISS would finally have a use. > >You should know me well enough to have been able to predict that >answer, or something very like it. I have no useful mental model for sour, grim, useless, and hostile people like you. Earth is too wonderful a planet, and our visit here too short, to waste it. That said, I'm off for a hike on the Pacific Crest Trail. Next trip up, it will probably be snowed in. That's OK, that means we can ski. John
From: Jan Panteltje on 25 Nov 2009 12:13 On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:29 -0800) it happened Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote in <pan.2009.11.25.16.59.25.64076(a)example.net>: >Not to mention that the warming cycles PRECEDE the elevations in CO2 >levels. This is pretty obvious, when you consider that cold water can hold >more CO2 in solution than warm water can. > >But Bill has faith, which trumps facts, like this inconvenient one: >http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming/ > >Cheers! >Rich Gore should be locked up.
From: John Larkin on 25 Nov 2009 12:41 On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:13:35 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:29 -0800) it happened Rich Grise ><richgrise(a)example.net> wrote in <pan.2009.11.25.16.59.25.64076(a)example.net>: > >>Not to mention that the warming cycles PRECEDE the elevations in CO2 >>levels. This is pretty obvious, when you consider that cold water can hold >>more CO2 in solution than warm water can. >> >>But Bill has faith, which trumps facts, like this inconvenient one: >>http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming/ >> >>Cheers! >>Rich > >Gore should be locked up. He's done an excellent job of turning off Sloman's mind. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 25 Nov 2009 14:25
On Nov 25, 7:59 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 25, 12:12 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:03:18 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > > <e8d9dfe9-9805-4503-bd9a-662f0098c...(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>: > > > >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 Sl= > > >oman > > >> <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 origin= > > >> ating 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. > > > You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case. > > After all the case I made here for nuclear power. > > The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear > reactors and yet you claimed > > > >> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, > > >> there would be no media, no energy, > > Just admit you have no clue and are wrong. Okay boys and girls, FWIW let's whip out the calculator and fact-check the authoritative Mr. Bill: France produces 447e12 watt-hours of electricity annually, and consumes 1.99 x 10e6 bbl of petroleum (37MJ/L) per day, plus 49.27e9 m^3 of natural gas (36.4 MJ/m^3) (CIA factbook) How much energy is in that oil? 1.99e6 bbl/day * 365 days = 726e6 bbl/year, x 159L/bbl = 115e9 L/year x 37MJ / L = 4.27e18 J/year. Doing the same for natural gas, we get: (view table in fixed font) FOSSIL FUELS natural gas: 1.79 x 10^18 J petroleum: 4.27 x 10^18 J -------------- Subtotal: 6.06 x 10^18 J ELECTRICAL Total electricity: 1.61 x 10^18 J (nuclear): 1.29 x 10^18 J TOTAL FOSSIL+NUCLEAR 7.35 x 10^18 J So, France gets 18% of its energy from nukes, 82% from FOSSIL fuels. -- Cheers, James Arthur |