Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 27 Nov 2009 13:26 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:23:59 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:48:49 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj > >"Climategate" - I LOVE it! ;-) ;-) ;-) Short version: "Weathergate"?
From: Rich Grise on 27 Nov 2009 13:26 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:18:46 -0800, Joerg wrote: > Bill Sloman wrote: > >> It may be going on in an oil field near you, but I'd still pay mre >> attention to the volcanoes. They are much more likely to let loose >> unexpectedly and on a large scale. >> > The nastiest one in a very long time was Mount St.Helens. And the folks > killed there were AFAIR those who dared to climb up fully knowing it could > go off any minute. Wasn't that from the iconoclastic flow? ;-P Cheers! Rich
From: Rich Grise on 27 Nov 2009 13:27 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:19:27 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill > Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <4688b1c8-f155-4b23-bb22-a8e56c28fa1b(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 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. Hell, cow farts are nothing - they belch more methane than they fart. The _real_ problem is termite farts. ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: Rich Grise on 27 Nov 2009 13:34 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:19:07 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > 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. > Just this morning I saw an AGW preach on edjamacaishunal teevee, and I swear I saw them do this: 1. Take some raw data: http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-1.gif 2. Cherry-pick what suits your purposes: http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-2.gif 3. Extrapolate: http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-3.gif Of course, they only showed it from step 2 to step 3. I wonder if(when?) the mainstream media are going to clue up to Climategate? Thanks, Rich
From: Rich Grise on 27 Nov 2009 13:38
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:56:11 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:44:52 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>On Nov 26, 10:11�pm, John Larkin >> >>> 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! > > Well, thanks to you both. There are few things more disappointing than raw > mashed potatoes. Hey, some people like chunky mashed potatoes, with the skins. It's called "homestyle", I think. ;-) Once, we had a potato ricer, and we just served up the riced potatoes, and they were fantastic - there's much more surface area (and holes) to accommodate lots and lots of gravy. Yum! ;-) Cheers! Rich |