Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 06:06 On Nov 26, 7:18 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 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. > > I have just run a simulation that proves that Joerg lives in Oregon. > > There can be no more doubt. Granting John's feeble grasp of scientific argument, there is - in fact - room for more doubt than he likes to think. -- Bill Sloman. Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 06:07 On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(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. Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jon Kirwan on 27 Nov 2009 06:12 On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >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 :-) Joerg, you should know better than to be this highly selective in what you consider a good argument. Read this USA Today article from a year and a half ago more closely: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm Jon
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 06:22 On Nov 26, 7:19 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <4688b1c8-f155-4b23-bb22-a8e56c28f...(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 Siberian Traps erupted some 250 to 251 millions years ago, and the Deccan Traps erupted some 60 to 68 million years ago. That they did inject CO2 into the atmosphere in the past doesn't say anything about where the current rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from - we can deduce that from the quantities of oil, natural gas and coal being burnt around the planet. > >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. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and there is a lot less of it in the atmosphere, so domesticated animals can make a significant contribution to methane levels in the atmosphere though termites and rice paddies are also important. Since you were asking about CO2 levels, this does not seem to be irrelevant. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jan Panteltje on 27 Nov 2009 06:44
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:33:39 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <c66059e5-cc29-4007-8344-3abc11935754(a)d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>: >Jan's point - in context - is that Exxon-Mobil should get a free pass >to continue to extract and burn fossil carbon because it's >predecessors helped to set up the infra-structure that currently >sustains us, but will evnetually bring us down if we keep on burning >fossil carbon at the current rate. That is not accurate, for the nth time I stated many times we should move towards nuclear power. But it will not be anytime soon nuke power can replace all our energy sources, so Exxon & friends will be with us for a long time with oil. It would be nice if you did not start every post with "You know nothing I know everything', although that is your religion, no need to push that on anyone OK? |