Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jan Panteltje on 27 Nov 2009 06:48 On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:22:54 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <abeeafea-31c9-432b-90b8-d5ae30e5ef2f(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>: 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. Yes typical religious fanatic statement: 'kill all lifeforms that do not comply with the rools in my book'. Where have I heard that before? But this works against you too, You could stop living to improve your dataset :-) Save us all! (I know it is mean, but you asked for it).
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 09:49 On Nov 27, 3:44 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:33:39 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <c66059e5-cc29-4007-8344-3abc11935...(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. Windmills and solar power installations are currently more popular, can deliver power a lot sooner, and don't generate nasty radioactive waste that we still haven't worked out how to deal with after fifty yeras of running nuclear power stations. > 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? It would be nice if you learned a bit more, so that I didn't have to start every reply I make to one of your posts by pointing out what you have got wrong. This isn't the same as saying that you know nothing - you do get some things right - nor a claim that I know everything - which is only slightly less absurd. You could perhaps be more specific about what you conceive to be my religion. Whatever it might be, I don't see myself as pushing it. What I do push is objectively verifiable knowledge, and I object to postings that make claims that don't happen to be true, like your claim that people who accept that anthropogenic global warming is going on want us to reduce our energy consumption to an absolute minimum and move ourselves into unheated grass huts. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 10:12 On Nov 27, 3:48 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:22:54 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <abeeafea-31c9-432b-90b8-d5ae30e5e...(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>: > 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. > > Yes typical religious fanatic statement: > 'kill all lifeforms that do not comply with the rules in my book'. This may be a typical religious fanatic statement, but since I haven't made such a statement, or anything vaguely like it, I can't see that this is a useful or relevant observation. > Where have I heard that before? Beats me. Certainly not from me. > But this works against you too, How? Since you are raging against a statement that you seem to have invented for your own perverse satisfaction. > You could stop living to improve your dataset :-) Your own dataset does seem to nedd purging. > Save us all! The aim is to educate you to the point where you can save yourself - there still seems to be quite a way to go. > (I know it is mean, but you asked for it). I asked you to first invent an idiotic statement? and then to carry on as if it had something to do with me? This isn't mean, or evil, or vicious, just deluded. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 10:37 On Nov 26, 11:40 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:32:43 +0000 (UTC), d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don > > > > > > Klipstein) wrote: > >In article <rk2tg59mtlmlbjmrhp1fr7e2gn1dcpf...(a)4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote: > >>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:55:21 -0600, John Fields > >><jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:35:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > >>><bill.slo...(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 (d...(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. IPCC just collects numbers from the peer-reviewd literature. Those numbers are generated by physicists on the basis of models of infra- red absorbtion and emission through the atmosphere, and the authors involved wouldn't come into contact with Mann, who works on old climate data from trees and lake beds, and probably not with Philip D. Jones, who seems to spend his time crunching current observations. As usual, you enthusiasm for fatuous conspiracy theories is clouding your vision. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 27 Nov 2009 11:48
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj John |