Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jan Panteltje on 26 Nov 2009 13:37 On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:18:38 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in <5hhtg59ebm1521q5sqnrdg2d2cp1d3gs24(a)4ax.com>: >I have just run a simulation that proves that Joerg lives in Oregon. > >There can be no more doubt. > >John > Well, eh, you did not run it in MS windows now did you ?
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2009 14:33 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have >prevented this. > >James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a >concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who >know what they are talking about. --- Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus. JF
From: Raveninghorde on 26 Nov 2009 14:40 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:32:43 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >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) The wikipedia article quotes IPCC numbers. Unfortunately anything from the IPCC is suspect given that Mann/Jones et al seem to have acted as bouncers for the consensus.
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2009 14:48 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:26:45 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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. --- PKB, Mr. "I can extract energy from the variable magnetic field surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current by wrapping a solenoid around it." JF
From: Jon Kirwan on 26 Nov 2009 15:34
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:32:43 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >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. ><snip> Methane has begun rising, again. The Copenhagen Diagnosis: "The concentration of methane (CH4) in the atmosphere increased since 2007 to 1800 parts per billion (ppb) after almost a decade of little change (Figure 2). The causes of the recent increase in CH4 have not yet been determined. The spatial distribution of the CH4 increase shows that an increase in Northern Hemisphere CH4 emissions has played a role and could dominate the signal (Rigby et al. 2008), but the source of the increase is unknown." Just a footnote. Jon |