Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 26 Nov 2009 22:52 On Nov 26, 12:36 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 26, 5:41 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Nov 26, 6:26 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John Larkin > > > <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in > > > <0cnrg5h8si41lusotsgkcr6uv5s1dtu...(a)4ax.com>: > > > > >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > > > >wrote: > > > > >>Bill Slomanwrote: > > > > >>> You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of > > > >>> potentially active volcanoes in your state. > > > > >>>http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html > > > > >>> I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger > > > >>> under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht > > > >>> immediately. > > > > >>>http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in... > > > > >>I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I > > > >>am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some > > > >>"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis. > > > > >Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in > > > >Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact. > > > > >John > > > > Yes, exactly, that is real science. > > > I also strongly insist that Joerg lives in Oregon, therefore, not only > > is it a peer-reviewed fact, but there's also a consensus. > > 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. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen I am not wrong. After applying the appropriate proprietary, undocumented corrections to Joerg's lat/lon, I have yet another irrefutable proof--which I just deleted off my hard drive--that Joerg lives _in_ Oregon, and in the very cone of a volcano. Joerg, be afraid, very afraid. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 26 Nov 2009 23:34 On Nov 26, 1:26 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 25, 8:25 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > (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 Bill, you make this too easy! Jan rightly said modern civilization was founded on fossil fuel. Which it was, and still is, and which I tallied. Here, I'll fetch Jan's quote for your continued amusement-- > > > > >> 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. You responded: > > > > >You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the > > > > >only way to generate energy. Okay, fine, you stated the obvious--we all knew fossil fuels aren't the only way to make power. But it doesn't answer Jan's point at all, does it? So you brought up France's nuclear ability as either diversion or proof of I-don't-know-what, and I just tallied the numbers to show that France does indeed depend heavily on fossil fuels, and it would likely be a cold, hungry, internet-free place without them. Which is what Jan said to start with. (Oh, and of course we could always point to the "and the other energy companies" clause of Jan's statement, but that starts getting as silly, doesn't it?) > 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. Bill, you're a goof! 1.29 is exactly 80% of 1.61 because that's how I got 1.29--by guesstimating 80% of the 1.61 as nuke[1], then multiplying! [1] I think I even got that 80% figure from you! -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 26 Nov 2009 23:37 On Nov 26, 1:18 pm, John Larkin <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:26 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >On Nov 26, 6:26 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John Larkin > >> <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in > >> <0cnrg5h8si41lusotsgkcr6uv5s1dtu...(a)4ax.com>: > > >> >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >> >wrote: > > >> >>Bill Sloman wrote: > > >> >>> You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of > >> >>> potentially active volcanoes in your state. > > >> >>>http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html > > >> >>> I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger > >> >>> under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht > >> >>> immediately. > > >> >>>http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in... > > >> >>I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I > >> >>am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some > >> >>"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis. > > >> >Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in > >> >Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact. > > >> >John > > >> Yes, exactly, that is real science. > > >I also strongly insist that Joerg lives in Oregon, therefore, not only > >is it a peer-reviewed fact, but there's also a consensus. > > I have just run a simulation that proves that Joerg lives in Oregon. > > There can be no more doubt. > > John After applying the appropriate correction factors, I too find that Joerg lives in Oregon. So, now we have independent confirmation. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 27 Nov 2009 00:18 On Nov 26, 5:26 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a > fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but > weather models can't. If I ever wrote that, it was a mistake. But I don't believe I ever did. (But since you keep saying it, and Joerg lives in Oregon, it must be true.) I'd have to ask the person who writes them exactly how far in the future GCMs go these days before diverging uselessly into chaos, but IIRC they gave some useful, broad indications as much as a few months in advance. Not accurate, but enough. And it was the same expert GCM worker who said GCMs were completely useless beyond a few months, because they diverge, and specifically, are completely inapplicable and unreliable over even a year, much less the decades-to-centuries they're being used for. Of course you can see that easily, independently, if you just look at the models, see how incomplete they are, how rudimentary our understanding of critical processes is, how loose the parameters are, how many arbitrary and unexplained factors they apply, and so forth. Or look at how well the climate models predicted the current cooling transient--they didn't. In fact they predicted more and more heat and hurricanes, didn't they? And we were supposed to brace ourselves for those, to spend money and prepare, but they never came. The models were wrong. Or just do an error-budget analysis. The AGW contribution alleged from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A range of estimates from ~0.25 to 1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered. (That wide an uncertainty band is pretty pathetic on its face, isn't it?) The uncertainty over the contribution of clouds alone swamps even the highest figure by nearly two orders of magnitude. And yet you'd tell me you know for a fact that man-made CO2 is beyond any doubt the one, most important, overriding factor? Yes, you would. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: John Larkin on 27 Nov 2009 01:19
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:18:03 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 26, 5:26 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a >> fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but >> weather models can't. > >If I ever wrote that, it was a mistake. But I don't believe I ever >did. (But since you keep saying it, and Joerg lives in Oregon, it >must be true.) > >I'd have to ask the person who writes them exactly how far in the >future GCMs go these days before diverging uselessly into chaos, but >IIRC they gave some useful, broad indications as much as a few months >in advance. Not accurate, but enough. > >And it was the same expert GCM worker who said GCMs were completely >useless beyond a few months, because they diverge, and specifically, >are completely inapplicable and unreliable over even a year, much less >the decades-to-centuries they're being used for. The only way one can predict the desired dire consequences of CO2 is to conjecture a number of positive feedback mechanisms. Those same positive feedbacks make the models unstable. John |