Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Raveninghorde on 27 Nov 2009 17:16 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:12:43 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: SNIP More rats jumping ship. Alarmist Andrew Revkin of the New York Times: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/#more-11377 A long blog but includes a bit from Mike Hulme of University of East Anglia (home of leaked emails). /quotes The key lesson to be learned is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be publicly owned � the I.P.C.C. does a fairly good job of this according to its own terms � but the very practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned, in the sense of being open and trusted. From outside, and even to the neutral, the attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. To those with bigger axes to grind it is just what they wanted to find. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive. /end quotes
From: Joerg on 27 Nov 2009 17:17 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>> 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 > >> Only problem is that the proof doesn't seem to be in the pudding: >> >> http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?ca5983 > > Did you read through at least half the article I mentioned above? > Yes. Thing is, with all the AGW claims there ought to be a significant average rise since 1948. >> They should know better than to publish something like this without >> _showing_ the underlaying statistics :-) > > Which publisher, Joerg? The link I mentioned or the link you did? > Yours, USA Today. Mine is affiliated with NOAA, which I believe even the warmingists wouldn't dispute. > If you are talking about the USA Today article, my motivation was to > show you that you are being very selective in choosing that isolated > data point. > > Just as I might choose a 6-sigma noise-spiked data point to try and > show you a rise when you know darned well the trend of the data was to > fall. You'd rightly point out my mistake. > > As I did, yours. > I am not so sure it is one. But I also don't want to rule it out. >> Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see >> drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted >> we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen. >> >> Then they look at their heating bills. Amounts of required fuel rising, >> for example we went from 2 cords to 4 cords. So it ain't getting warmer. >> We would never again buy a house with a pool around here. >> >> This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of >> engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head. >> Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes >> in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear >>from the people. Meaning voters :-) > > None of that changes anything about what I said. Climate is averages > and I think you _know_ this. > > If you said, "the average voltage, at 1Hz bandwidth, at this node is 4 > volts" and I responded by using a high bandwidth tool and pointing out > a 5 nanosecond spike at 8V and said, "no, it's 8V", you'd know I was > being disingenuous. And you'd be right. > And that 8V spike could be the root cause why a chip always fails so you'd have made a valid and concerning observation :-) > If you are interested in access to specific details, you might read: > > http://nsidc.org/glims/ > > However, if scarfing through a database is a pain, an informed summary > of the circumstances of mountain glaciers around the world can be had > from: Cogley, J. G., 2009, "Geodetic and direct mass-balance > measurements: comparison and joint analysis," Annals of Glaciology 50, > 96-100. I can get you a copy, if you intend to read it. > I know that most glaciers are receding for a while now. That has happened in the past as well, and then they grew again. What I harbor doubts about is that this is human-caused. These doubt haven't exactly been reduced after the revelations of emails lately. As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them :-) > The average is remarkably different from your attempt at using an > isolated data point. > You did see the smiley after my initial comment "Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it", did you? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 18:49 On Nov 27, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Jon Kirwan wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > > wrote: > > >>Bill Slomanwrote: > >>> 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... > > Only problem is that the proof doesn't seem to be in the pudding: > > http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?ca5983 > > They should know better than to publish something like this without > _showing_ the underlaying statistics :-) The underlying statistics are rather tricky. A glacier represents a weighed average over quite a number of years - they don't flow fast - and water that falls as snow in winter tends to be of more use to the glacier than water that falls as rain in summer. There were some years of very heavy rain from 1992 to 1998, and they presumably haven't got to the end of the glaciers yet. > Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see > drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted > we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen. Isn't happening at the moment. Presumably the Northern Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation is giving you dry phase, > Then they look at their heating bills. Amounts of required fuel rising, > for example we went from 2 cords to 4 cords. So it ain't getting warmer. > We would never again buy a house with a pool around here. At the moment. Presumably the Northern Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation is giving you cooler air from further north than it used to (carrying less water vapour). In due course it will probably give warmer wetter weather, with an added extra-global warming bonus. > This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of > engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head. > Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes > in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear > from the people. Meaning voters :-) Sure. The propaganda funded by Exxon-Mobil and other fossil-carbon extraction industries has been depressingly effective. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf Exxon-Mobil - amongst others - have recycled the techniques and organisations (and some of the people) that the tobacco companies had used to minimise the impact of the scientific evidence about the dangers of tobacco smoke. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 19:04 On Nov 27, 2:17 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Jon Kirwan wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > > wrote: > > >> Jon Kirwan wrote: > >>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >>> wrote: > > >>>>Bill Slomanwrote: > >>>>> On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> [...] > As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther > than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there > has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that > are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient > truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there > in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and > artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them :-) No. The areas that that the Vikings farmsteaded during the Medieval Warm Period have never been coverd with thick ice. You can still see the walls of their church at Hvalsey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland There are suggestions that the Viking settlement wasn't so much frozen out as out-performed by the Inuit when they got there - the Inuit had better boats, better fishing techniques, better hunting techniques and warmer clothing, and the Vikings couldn't live on what the Inuit left over. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: dagmargoodboat on 27 Nov 2009 19:13
On Nov 27, 1:17 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:37:00 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote: > > On Nov 26, 1:18 pm, John Larkin > >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:26 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > >> >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 > >> >> >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >> >> >>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. > > >> >> 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. > > > After applying the appropriate correction factors, I too find that Joerg > > lives in Oregon. > > > So, now we have independent confirmation. > > I used to live in northern California, and what Joerg describes isn't > anything like where I was, so, I now have Faith that he lives in Oregon. > > ;-) > Rich Good groupthink comrade Rich! Now if we could only convince Joerg, but he's hopeless. He's a denier. -- Cheers, James Arthur |