Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Malcolm Moore on 27 Nov 2009 20:11 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:42:57 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(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> > <snip old material> > >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 I don't have to grant you anything. This saga shows you're the proven fuzzy writer. > 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. > > <snip old material> >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 you both have comprehension problems. I understand Jan is not a native english speaker so he deserves some leeway. I say that with admiration because I am sadly monolingual. >> 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. I'm glad you now agree they can talk freely. >> > >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. > <snip old material> ><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. There was no answer because there was no question. Bill made a correct claim in response to Jan's correct claim. -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 20:26 On Nov 27, 11:12 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:37:17 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 26, 11:40 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > >> 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. > > Peer review? You are joking! Please keep up with the topic. > > Peer review in climate science is less valid than using a ouja board. > > /quotes > > In one email, under the subject line HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Phil Jones > of East Anglia writes to Mann: I cant see either of these papers > being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out > somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature > is! > > This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not > publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a > solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I > think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate > peer-reviewed journal. > > We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more > reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board... and > they show in the temperature record, AMO and PDO > /end quotes The unfortunate thing for your happy delusion was that Jones and Mann were getting upset over a real failure of peer-review, sufficiently flagrant to prompt three members of the editorial board of the journal to resign. The scandal cost the editor his job, and he was replaced by one of the board members who had resigned. Granting your enthusiasm for comicla conspiracy theories, you will probably see this as the scientific mafia suppressing dissent, but the reality was that it was the scientific community imposing a spot of quality control. > By the way, MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD and LITTLE ICE AGE, which you deny, > are back. Your pope has changed his mind and they show in the > temperature record, AMO and PDO. They have always showed up on some temperature records, as I have pointed out to your before on a number of occasions. They just don't show up at the same time all over the world, so they aren't excursions in global temperature, just redistributions of the heat flux flowing from the equator to the poles. <snipped the usual denialist ravings> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 20:42 On Nov 27, 2:16 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > 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-c... > > 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 This is fairly sensible stuff, if a little unrealistic. The denialism industry - which is distinct from climate sceptiicism - does quite a lot to foster the "tribalism" that Mike Hulme complains about. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf Unfortuately, if you look at the way top-level science is organised you get to realise that the top of any speciality is a tribe-sized group - around 150 people who know one another and trust one another. This isn't somethig that is dictated by the organisations involved, it is a consequence of the fact that human beings have spent most of their evolutionary history in tribe-sized groups, and collaborate most effectively when organised into groups of this size. When a specialty gets too big or too successful, it splits into sub- specialities that can be run by tribe-szed groups. The behaviour within such groups is tribal because they - for all practical purposes - tribes and that is the way that tribes work best. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Joerg on 27 Nov 2009 20:46 Bill Sloman wrote: > 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. > Sure you can pick a church near the coast which was always free of ice but other areas weren't. But heck, you can find similar proof much easier and you can quickly get there from your place by rail and bus, or by car: The Schnidejoch in the Swiss Alps, just as one example. A few thousand years ago it was mostly ice free and heavily used as a passage way. Consequently, a lot of stuff was dropped. Bows, arrows, quivers, parts of clothing, shoes, Roman coins. Seems like it wasn't much different from littered road sides today, people lost stuff, threw worn things aside. Then it all iced over, became a big glacier. Now it's thawing again and all this ancient stuff shows up. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Jon Kirwan on 27 Nov 2009 21:34
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:17:20 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >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. I'm not sure what you are saying. >>> 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. USA Today is just the news article I had imagined you'd glimpsed before. I thought maybe it would be good to read it more fully, if so. Thanks for clarifying your point. >> 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. Climate is averages, not noise. Not weather. And no one I know of, least of all climate scientists, are stating that there will be absolutely no cases where some particular glacier won't increase. Cripes, if that were exactly true we'd be in a lot worse mess! There is an increased hydrologic cycle. In some cases, precipitation (in terms of annual averages) may not even change, but the distribution over the year may. For example, in my area (which, by the way, is where Andrew Fountain is .. or was .. located... who is a primary contact regarding Mt. Shasta's glaciers), the precipitation is remaining similar on an annual basis, but is shifting away from summer/fall precipitation (which used to be a near constant complaint I'd hear from California transplants) and towards winter/spring. Larger annual amplitude, similar average value. It does have a real impact, though. We will have to create more summer-time storage to supply the 1.5 million people who depend upon the glaciers now for their fresh water supply during late summer. Glaciers, normally quite decently sized here in Portland and northward, are receding quite rapidly. We've lost almost 50% of the mass balance at Mt. Hood, for example, and expect to see it reach zero in the late summertime perhaps in 30 years or so if the current rate remains unchanged. The reasons why these mountains are losing them faster than some areas is largely understood -- they are neither insulated by lots of rock, nor highly reflective by being completely free of rock; instead, they have the right mix of loose gravel and dirt on them for higher melt rates. We've had a few unique _slides_ that took out important roadways in the last few years, as well. (As you can see, I can cherry-pick data, too. ;) That aside, some places, due to the increased cycle will experience increases and some decreases. The total global precipitation will slightly increase. From the Copenhagen Diagnosis, recently released: "Post IPCC AR4 research has also found that rains become more intense in already-rainy areas as atmospheric water vapor content increases (Pall et al. 2007; Wentz et al. 2007; Allan and Soden 2008). These conclusions strengthen those of earlier studies and are expected from considerations of atmospheric thermodynamics. However, recent changes have occurred faster than predicted by some climate models, raising the possibility that future changes will be more severe than predicted. "... "In addition to the increases in heavy precipitation, there have also been observed increases in drought since the 1970s (Sheffield and Wood 2008), consistent with the decreases in mean precipitation over land in some latitude bands that have been attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Zhang et al. 2007). "The intensification of the global hydrological cycle with anthropogenic climate change is expected to lead to further increases in precipitation extremes, both increases in very heavy precipitation in wet areas and increases in drought in dry areas. While precise figures cannot yet be given, current studies suggest that heavy precipitation rates may increase by 5% - 10% per �C of warming, similar to the rate of increase of atmospheric water vapor." On a separate topic, I thought you might be interested in the GLIMS numbers for the glaciers on Mt. Shasta: (Unnamed, I think) G237813E41427N 1950-07-01 58849 G237815E41410N 1950-07-01 58850 Konwakiton Glacier G237805E41400N 1950-07-01 58851 Watkins Glacier G237821E41403N 1950-07-01 58852 Whitney Glacier G237787E41415N 1950-07-01 58853 G237804E41420N 1950-07-01 58854 Bolam Glacier G237799E41421N 1950-07-01 58855 G237803E41424N 1950-07-01 58856 G237813E41422N 1950-07-01 58857 Hotlum Glacier G237814E41418N 1950-07-01 58858 G237818E41416N 1950-07-01 58859 You can use those to secure data on those from the GLIMS dataset. Not that it probably matters. But there it is because I wasted my time looking for them. Oh, well. >>> 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 :-) Not the point when talking about averages, is it? >> 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. Accepted. >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. Understood. It is the __attribution__ that you are questioning. In many cases, it's worth keeping that in view. Not __everything__ in the world is 100% due to humans. ;) >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 :-) Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point, I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious criticism. >> 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? Of course. But I am not always sure the vein in which it was made. I may understand better now. Jon |