Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Don Klipstein on 27 Nov 2009 01:33 In article <99mtg5h3a7dcpuiedse8icd12qb0gdumg6(a)4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote: >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. For an alternative, for only one GHG, a lower side figure for CO2 is 1.7-1.8 W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2, which I have found in IPCC material and also supported in drroyspencer.com. Assuming that effect of CO2 is reasonably close to logarhythmic (linear would be worse for an increase), and recent roughly 385 PPMV is 37.5% increase over 280 PPMV "best-determination" of pre-industrial-revolution baseline: 37.5% increase is 46% of a doubling on a log scale, and times 1.75 W/m^2 low-side is .8-.81 W/m^2 as opposed to 1.46. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: dagmargoodboat on 27 Nov 2009 01:42 On Nov 26, 7:32 pm, Malcolm Moore wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:25:05 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... wrote: > >On Nov 25, 11:32 pm, Malcolm Moore wrote: > >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... wrote: <snip> > >Here's Bill, quoting Jan: > > >> >> >> 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, > > >To which Jan replied, reiterating his point that civilization was > >founded and still largely dependent on fossil fuels: > > > "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." > > But completely irrelevant to your "fact check" of the French nuclear > claims. You have to grant me some leeway here because Bill's a fuzzy writer. He works by implication and innuendo, so I had to infer that a) when Bill cited the impressive French nuclear capability as a retort to Jan's statement, that b) he meant it as some sort of rebuttal to Jan's statement. Otherwise it's hard to see why he would've offered that as a response to what Jan said. So, I was not fact-checking French nuclear claims, but the importance of "...the [fossile] energy companies..." to modern civilization, taking France as the example. > >> If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise > >> your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And > >> who appointed you thread controller of sed! > > >Oh I just meant to bring Bill back to Jan's immediate point, of our > >dependence on fossil fuels. As much as I admire France's nuclear > >power and think we should do more of that, it's not a panacea--even > >France is still critically dependent on fossil fuel, and I wanted to > >know how dependent. So I added it up. ~82% from fossil fuel. > > No, you wanted to show Bill was wrong. That's why you wrote > > "let's whip out the calculator and fact-check the authoritative Mr. > Bill" Naturally both are true: I understood Bill to be asserting, in his ambiguous, ill-formed way, that power-generation needn't release carbon, and, further, that France was an example of how civilization could use nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. Jan took it the same way, if you read his follow-ups. > So far we've heard you were fact checking, then it was bringing Bill > back on topic, and now it's "I wanted to know how dependent. So I > added it up." Hmmm. One flows from the other, obviously. To see whether France exemplifies fossil-fuel independence requires adding up their fossil fuel use, and comparing it to non-fossil fuel energy sources. > >But I'm not foolish enough to try keeping Bill on any sort of topic-- > >that's like herding fish. > > Why didn't you attempt to bring Jan back on topic? He was the first in > the thread to move away from the subject line when he mentioned > proposals to store CO2 underground near where he lives. Because Jan and Bill are both free to talk about whatever they want, naturally. And I have no interest in or opinion on CO2 stores. > > >If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise > > >your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And > > >who appointed you thread controller of sed! > >The thread topic was about a bunch of AGW promoters being caught > >lying, manipulating data, conspiring against competitors, and so > >forth. Bill didn't like that topic, so he raised a fuss and a bunch > >of strawmen so we'd all talk about something else. Standard operating > >procedure. > > No, Bill responded to Jan's concerns about living above a CO2 store. > Subsequently the thread diverged into the usual wide ranging stuff. If > you can't handle that you'll need to leave usenet :-) You snipped the comment you made which I was responding to. I've re- inserted it. I stand by my description. As far as being thread controller, that's silly. Obviously anyone in a conversation makes points, and sometimes presses those points when they've not been answered. > There's still the matter of why you claimed to be fact checking Bill's > nuclear claims when you were apparently really trying to bring him > back on topic. I guess you also have trouble comprehending your own > writing. I was fact-checking whether France could exist without fossil fuels, since Jan said civilization depends on them, and Bill brought up France as a counter-example. Alternatively, Bill's just blabbering incoherently about something that's irrelevant, and which has no bearing on what Jan said. So I gave Bill the benefit of the doubt. > >> >> You've used the CIA figures for total fossil fuels, which includes > >> >> that used for transportation, heating, industrial processes etc. > > >> >> The Wikipedia page for Nuclear Power in France states; > > >> >> "In France, as of 2002[update], Électricité de France (EDF) the > >> >> country's main electricity generation and distribution company > >> >> manages the country's 58 nuclear power plants. As of 2008[update], > >> >> these plants produce 90% of both EDF's and France's electrical power > >> >> production (of which much is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader > >> >> in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out > >> >> of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power > >> >> (78.8%)." > > >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France > > >> >> Shame about all those wasted calculations you went through. > >> >> Bill's post was authoritative. <snip> > >Bravo for your heart-felt defense of Bill--he's surrounded, out of > >ammo, and sure could use the help. > > I'm not defending Bill, I'm critiquing you. I think you've just understood and taken Bill's statement-of-fact (on France having nukes) as being a true statement all by itself. Obviously it's true--we all know France has nukes. But Jan and I took it as a wrong answer to Jan's claim, that the very infrastructure we're using was built on fossil fuel. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 27 Nov 2009 02:44 On Nov 26, 10:11 pm, John Larkin <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > ps- the mashed potatoes cooked in *five minutes* at 6400 feet in the > pressure cooker that S sent us. I love pressure cookers. I'm glad you like yours. I thunk it up, and S stole me thunder! -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 03:38 On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > >> <6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...(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? > > >I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who > >post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite > >often post total nonsense. > > --- > Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field > surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? Joel Koltner was making a joke. The smiley should have told you that. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 04:05
On Nov 27, 7:42 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 26, 7:32 pm, Malcolm Moore wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:25:05 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... wrote: > > >On Nov 25, 11:32 pm, Malcolm Moore wrote: > > >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > >Here's Bill, quoting Jan: > > > >> >> >> 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, > > > >To which Jan replied, reiterating his point that civilization was > > >founded and still largely dependent on fossil fuels: > > > > "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." > > > But completely irrelevant to your "fact check" of the French nuclear > > claims. > > You have to grant me some leeway here because Bill's a fuzzy writer. Which is to say that James Arthur doesn't know much and lacks the background knowledge to appreciate rather obvious implications. > He works by implication and innuendo, so I had to infer that Odd, since I regularly direct the reader to specific URL's where explicit information is available, and James Arthur confines himself to referring to tenditious articles in the right-wing press. > a) when Bill cited the impressive French nuclear capability as a > retort to Jan's statement, that > b) he meant it as some sort of rebuttal to Jan's statement. > > Otherwise it's hard to see why he would've offered that as a response > to what Jan said. > > So, I was not fact-checking French nuclear claims, but the importance > of "...the [fossile] energy companies..." to modern civilization, > taking France as the example. Jan was claiming that since fossil carbon extractors are essential to modern civilisation at the moment, we should let them keep on sustaining civilisation. It is certainly true that energy is essential to modern civilisation, but there are other ways of generating energy than burning fossil carbon and venting the consequent CO2 to the atmosphere. The French nuclear generation program is an example of one of the alternatives. > > >> If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise > > >> your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And > > >> who appointed you thread controller of sed! > > > >Oh I just meant to bring Bill back to Jan's immediate point, of our > > >dependence on fossil fuels. As much as I admire France's nuclear > > >power and think we should do more of that, it's not a panacea--even > > >France is still critically dependent on fossil fuel, and I wanted to > > >know how dependent. So I added it up. ~82% from fossil fuel. > > > No, you wanted to show Bill was wrong. That's why you wrote > > > "let's whip out the calculator and fact-check the authoritative Mr. > > Bill" > > Naturally both are true: I understood Bill to be asserting, in his > ambiguous, ill-formed way, that power-generation needn't release > carbon, and, further, that France was an example of how civilization > could use nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. > > Jan took it the same way, if you read his follow-ups. > > > So far we've heard you were fact checking, then it was bringing Bill > > back on topic, and now it's "I wanted to know how dependent. So I > > added it up." Hmmm. > > One flows from the other, obviously. To see whether France > exemplifies fossil-fuel independence requires adding up their fossil > fuel use, and comparing it to non-fossil fuel energy sources. Completely missing the point of the argument, which is not about where we get our today, but where we should get it in the future. One can paraphrase Jan's argument as "because we now get most of our energy by burning fossil carbon, we are obliged to continue to generate the bulk of our energy by burning fossil carbon". > > >But I'm not foolish enough to try keeping Bill on any sort of topic-- > > >that's like herding fish. > > > Why didn't you attempt to bring Jan back on topic? He was the first in > > the thread to move away from the subject line when he mentioned > > proposals to store CO2 underground near where he lives. > > Because Jan and Bill are both free to talk about whatever they want, > naturally. And I have no interest in or opinion on CO2 stores. > > > > >If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise > > > >your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And > > > >who appointed you thread controller of sed! > > >The thread topic was about a bunch of AGW promoters being caught > > >lying, manipulating data, conspiring against competitors, and so > > >forth. Bill didn't like that topic, so he raised a fuss and a bunch > > >of strawmen so we'd all talk about something else. Standard operating > > >procedure. > > > No, Bill responded to Jan's concerns about living above a CO2 store. > > Subsequently the thread diverged into the usual wide ranging stuff. If > > you can't handle that you'll need to leave usenet :-) > > You snipped the comment you made which I was responding to. I've re- > inserted it. > > I stand by my description. > > As far as being thread controller, that's silly. Obviously anyone in > a conversation makes points, and sometimes presses those points when > they've not been answered. > > > There's still the matter of why you claimed to be fact checking Bill's > > nuclear claims when you were apparently really trying to bring him > > back on topic. I guess you also have trouble comprehending your own > > writing. > > I was fact-checking whether France could exist without fossil fuels, > since Jan said civilization depends on them, and Bill brought up > France as a counter-example. There's no doubt that France could eventually exist without fossil fuels. the fact that they couldn't get by without them today isn't relevant. There was a time when they couldn't get by without whale oil for their lamps, but this isn't an argument for allowing the hunting of sperm whales today. > Alternatively, Bill's just blabbering incoherently about something > that's irrelevant, and which has no bearing on what Jan said. So I > gave Bill the benefit of the doubt. Rather less than convincing. > > >> >> You've used the CIA figures for total fossil fuels, which includes > > >> >> that used for transportation, heating, industrial processes etc. > > > >> >> The Wikipedia page for Nuclear Power in France states; > > > >> >> "In France, as of 2002[update], Électricité de France (EDF) the > > >> >> country's main electricity generation and distribution company > > >> >> manages the country's 58 nuclear power plants. As of 2008[update], > > >> >> these plants produce 90% of both EDF's and France's electrical power > > >> >> production (of which much is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader > > >> >> in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out > > >> >> of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power > > >> >> (78.8%)." > > > >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France > > > >> >> Shame about all those wasted calculations you went through. > > >> >> Bill's post was authoritative. > > <snip> > > > >Bravo for your heart-felt defense of Bill--he's surrounded, out of > > >ammo, and sure could use the help. > > > I'm not defending Bill, I'm critiquing you. > > I think you've just understood and taken Bill's statement-of-fact (on > France having nukes) as being a true statement all by itself. > > Obviously it's true--we all know France has nukes. > > But Jan and I took it as a wrong answer to Jan's claim, that the very > infrastructure we're using was built on fossil fuel. I wasn't objecting to Jan claim that the infrastructure that we are now using was built on fossil fuel, I was objecting to the claim that this in any way prevented us from moving on to an infrastructure that wouldn't be dependent on burning fossil carbon. The infrastructure on which the fossil-fuel-based economy was built up depended on muscle and wind-power, but that doesn't make stables holy. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |