Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 13:18 On Nov 25, 4:16 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 25, 8:50 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:59:41 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > > <b8cfe9e0-a079-4bdd-8ed8-0cf93cc7d...(a)s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>: > > > >> >> 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 ori= > > >gin= > > >> >> 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. > > > Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy, > > as your car does not run on electricity (yet). > > Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, there would be no civilisation > > and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper manufacturers have their own power plants. > > Been there. > > Now wake up from your green dreams. > > Green 2009 == Red. > > Once green meant people who really were concerned about the > environment. Now it's just an entree, a pretext, a populist theme to > gain power; a backdoor. One of Alinsky's Rules. Typical right-wing paranoia - because right-winger are always conspiring to maintain their power over the rest of the population, they can't conceive of any other motive for acquiring politcal power of any sort. The depth of James Arthur's insight into the issue can be seen from his confident assertion that climate models can't predict more than two weeks ahead, which would be true if he were talking about weather models, which are susceptible to the butterfly effect. This is such a comical misapprehension that it miakes it difficult to take him seriously on any subject. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jan Panteltje on 26 Nov 2009 13:19 On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <4688b1c8-f155-4b23-bb22-a8e56c28fa1b(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>: >> And even if you assumed CO2 levels did, where did the CO2 come from? > >CO2 is being subducted - as carbonate rock - all the time. The >carbonate is unstable once it gets into the outer mantle and comes out >again in volcanic eruptions. The spectacular volcanic eruptions that >created the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps released a lot of CO2 >in a relatively short time - geologically speaking. Good, so it does not come from us burning stuff. >The fact that some of the laval flow came up through coal fields meant >that they burnt a fair bit of fossil carbon in the process. > >> It is much more simple (Occam's) to think CO2 levels went up because the = >warmer climate >> had more animals populate the earth.... >> But even that may not be so. > >It isn't. there aren't enough animals around to to have much direct >effect on the CO2 level in the atmosphere - if they don't go in for >digging up and burning fossil carbon on an industrial scale. Good, then we can forget all that Gore stuff about farting cows and pigs that are bad for the world, and need to be more taxed.
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 13:26 On Nov 25, 8:25 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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. But the claim was "The French generate most of their electric power from nuclear reactors" so the the relevant part of the clown's calculation is ELECTRICAL > Total > electricity: 1.61 x 10^18 J > (nuclear): 1.29 x 10^18 J 1.29 is 80% of 1.61, so Mr. Bill remains authoritative amd Mr. James remains a clown. I must say he's wasted quite a lot of time and bandwidth demonstating that he doesn't bother to engage his brain before applying his fingers to the keyboard. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Don Klipstein on 26 Nov 2009 13:32 In article <rk2tg59mtlmlbjmrhp1fr7e2gn1dcpfejm(a)4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote: >On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:55:21 -0600, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:35:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> > >SNIP >> >>--- >>The question isn't whether warmer sea surface temperatures result in >>more, and more violent hurricanes, the question is whether AGW is >>playing a significant role in the warming. >> >>People like you tend to gloss over that distinction and, unless you're >>taken to task for it, pretend that it's all due to AGW. >> >>JF > >And another question is how much of the AGW is down to CO2, rather >than deforestation, changes in land use, growing urban areas, other >gases, etc. If only we could get the total... However, there are figures of some sort for CO2 and for other GHGs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas W/m^2 (presumably out of 492 W/m^2 Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget) change due to increase of GHGs since the Industrial Revolution: CO2: 1.46 Methane: .48 CFC-12: .17 N2O: .15 CFC-11: .07 CFC-113: .03 HCFC-22: .03 Carbon Tet: .01 It appears to me that of these, only CO2 and N2O are on the increase. Methane is stabilized for now, but I am not sure it will remain so. The carbon-chlorine compounds all look to me to be stabilized to being slightly reduced now. It looks to me like the total from increase of GHGs is 2.4 W/m^2, of which .79 W/m^2 is from GHGs currently no longer increasing, and of that .79, .31 W/m^2 is from carbon-chlorine compounds whose increase is known to be fairly permanently turned back. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Jan Panteltje on 26 Nov 2009 13:35
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0caf(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: >> Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy= >, >> as your car does not run on electricity (yet). >> Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, the= >re would be no civilisation >> and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man= >ufacturers have their own power plants. > >And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these >nice things will go away again. > >> Been there. >> Now wake up from your green dreams. > >An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know >what he is talking about. mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists? >> Or renounce it all, and go live on one of the last energy free little isl= >ands... atolls... > >Not necessary. We can generate all the energy we need without burning >fossil carbon. > >And if you had read your newspaper this morning you would have learned >that your electricity and gas bills are going to go up to help pay for >the capital investment that is going to make this happen in the >Netherlands over the next couple of decades. Well, I read almost no paper newspapers, really, but I have a much faster internet news feed, of a much broader spectrum from many different countries, and Netherlands too. That energy prices will go up is no news, it is the way the system works. That taxes will go up, exactly the same. All that said, a good thing I did not sign on some years ago for a fixed (high) energy price, just got some Euros back on my yearly electricity bill, man was I right. But it also helped that I have the computer control all energy here. And I wrote the programs myself. Capital investment, well there are windmills here up the road, and a lot more further on. Now they want to build some in the sea. Have you calculated how much percentage those will supply? They still have not got the strength to build some nuke plants here... But this morning I was thinking that the best nuke plant location would probably be Nijmegen. A great place for CO2 storage too ;-) So they build coal and natural gas plants... Fine with me, next they will import the coal from China, where >100 miners die each year. But those death are far away, do not weight on the political agenda I guess. And I think the same is happening with uranium mining, I have seen movies where all those guys had was a paper face mask... here is our society, taxes, profit, and lip service to reality. We are still a devouring animal type, really. Nature, we are part of it, and as we are part of it we need to accept the climate cycles unless we develop technology like terra forming that _really_ can change the climate, maybe it will happen one day. But hiding CO2 under your bed won't work. |