Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 22:19 On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(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.) You said it all right. You seem to have - very wisely - requested that your post was not to be archived, and have managed to contain your outrage at being caught making a fool of yourself until the original evidence had evaporated. > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > > wrote: <snip> > As a second measure of global climate models (GCM), we know from > actual life how poorly the models predict El Nino, or hurricanes, or > other near-term phenomena that depend on accurate understanding of > real temperature, deep ocean currents, or other quantities critical to > long-term projections (if those are even possible), but which are not > known well enough to make even short-term predictions. > As a 3rd measure of GCM, before you graced s.e.d. with your inquiries, > I related that I got that same info (above) from one of the persons > *responsible* for one of the main climate models. That person said > GCM are important and useful tools in understanding climate, and for > making predictions as far as several weeks into the future. Beyond > that, says (s)he, the models quickly diverge uselessly from reality. James Arthur doesn't know the difference between a global climate model, which predicts over a span of year and a global weather model which falls to pieces in about two weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm > 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. James Arthur "improving" what he remembers. > 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. It was a few weeks on the 22nd November. Marvellous how getting caught with your pants down "improves" your memory. > Of course you can see that easily, independently, if you just look at > the models, see how incomplete they are, how rudimentary our > understanding of critical processes is, how loose the parameters are, > how many arbitrary and unexplained factors they apply, and so forth. Not having spent years working on the models, I doubt very much that I could see anything of the sort. I had enough trouble with the much simpler simulation I wrote in 1968 to model the chemical reaction in the reaction cell I used in my Ph.D. work. If James Arthur can produce this model which he claims to know so much about we could - of course - test this hypothesis, but since neither of us has spent our professional careers improving climate models our opinions are unlikely to be even useful, let alone decisive. > Or look at how well the climate models predicted the current cooling > transient--they didn't. In fact they predicted more and more heat and > hurricanes, didn't they? And we were supposed to brace ourselves for > those, to spend money and prepare, but they never came. The models > were wrong. The models aren't precise, and they aren't designed to to produce accurate predictions over periods of a few years. They failed to predict the current slowing in the rate of global warming because didn't allow for the movement in the ocean circulation that the Argo project is only now beginning to telling us about. The excursion away from the smooth and continuous heating strawman prediction that James Arthur is trying to set up is small, of the order of a tenth of a degree or so, and of the order of the noise on the global temperature record over the last century. This degree of deviation from reality doesn't make them wrong, merely less precise than than the denialist press would like, and it certainly doesn't invalid the longer term prediction. > Or just do an error-budget analysis. The AGW contribution alleged > from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A range of estimates from ~0.25 to > 1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered. (That wide an > uncertainty band is pretty pathetic on its face, isn't it?) It might be if it had been offered by someone who knew what they were talking about. These are the sorts of numbers that Christopher Monckton comes up with http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html#sec7 More reliable sources seem to be able to come up with a narrower range. http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/?p=204 gives a figure of 1.66 W/m², with a range between 1.49 and 1.83 W/m². This ties up with http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ They don't give nice simple numbers, but they do derive their numbers from the measured behaviour of the atmosphere which does constrain the numbers to within about +/-10%. And you have to keep in mind that forcing depends on the other gases in the atmosphere. Some IR absorbtion lines overlap, and pressure broadening makes individual absorbtion lines wider. It is all predictable but it means that total forcing is averaged over a lot of rather different situations. > The uncertainty over the contribution of clouds alone swamps even > the highest figure by nearly two orders of magnitude. Says who? Another one of these people whose advice you seem to have trouble remembering with any precision? > And yet you'd tell me you know for a fact that man-made CO2 is beyond > any doubt the one, most important, overriding factor? > > Yes, you would. And I'd be right. Your capacity for creative scepticism verges on denialism, and you can't - or won't - identify your sources, so your credibility is totally shot. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Don Klipstein on 28 Nov 2009 00:02 In article <7nb1fqF3l78fsU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Joerg wrote in part: >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 :-) It was a claim of Eeyore that thick ice now covers where the vikings settled. I have yet to see this actually established, and I have dug up photos of at least part of the settlement areas being green in the summer in recent decades. Nearly all of the settlement areas are ice-free in the summer lately according to maps of snow/ice cover. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 28 Nov 2009 00:31 In <504bec29-d5f2-4faf-814c-9133a1a225b0(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Bill Sloman wrote in part: >On Nov 27, 10:43�am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: <I snip> >> 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, There are other processes that will be affected by global warming. For one thing, the warming has been predicted by much of the models so far to warm the Arctic more than elsewhere, and so far the Arctic has warmed more than the world as a whole has. This will decrease temperature contrast between the Arctic and the tropics, and that temperature contrast is the main driving force in extratropical cyclones of the kind shown on weather maps. Rainfall other than either convective in nature or from tropical weather systems may not increase much in the Northern Hemisphere, and could become spottier or shift from an area used to the rain to an area that is not. However, I see precipitation pattern shifts so far being mostly from periodic factors, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (roughly 65 year period), a loosely linked Pacific one that I merely suspect exists, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (period around half that of the "multidecadal" stuff). >> 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. I would rather suspect that someone having fuel consumption double is either getting out of a rut of a few warm winters or into a rut of a few cold ones, or got more sensitive to cold due to advancing age or need to cut calorie intake to avoid clogging of arteries. Maybe something reminding me of location where home heating fuel needed such an increase would be useful - I can dig up weather records for the nearest similar-altitude official weather station similarly situated as far as major mountain ranges go, or a few stations of wunderground.com. That would tell us what temperature trend has been - at that specific little region of Northern California. (I have a bit of impression that the location in question is east rim of the Central Valley ENE of Sacramento - any correction/clarification? How about elevation? - that may matter in local or regional weather and climate issues.) - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: John Fields on 28 Nov 2009 06:58 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:11 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 27, 2:44�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 26, 7:35�pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in >> >> <6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy= >> >> >, >> >> >> as your car does not run on electricity (yet). >> >> >> Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, the= >> >> >re would be no civilisation >> >> >> and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man= >> >> >ufacturers have their own power plants. >> >> >> >And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these >> >> >nice things will go away again. >> >> >> >> Been there. >> >> >> Now wake up from your green dreams. >> >> >> >An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know >> >> >what he is talking about. >> >> >> mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists? >> >> >I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who >> >post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite >> >often post total nonsense. >> >> --- >> Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field >> surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? > >Joel Koltner was making a joke. The smiley should have told you that. --- He wasn't making a joke, he was being humorous in his presentation, you wretch. But, whether he was making a joke or not is immaterial, since I _proved_ my point by experimentation and presented the data and method for anyone who cared to replicate the experiment to do so. You, however, refused to acknowledge the results of the experiment as supporting my position, even though you hadn't done the experiment yourself and tried to impugn my work by claiming it as irrelevant because it responded to a "joke". So far, you're the only joke I've responded to here and you're certainly no scientist, Sloman; all you are is a lonely, doddering old man who can't stand to be wrong and will try all sorts of chicanery to "shoot the messenger" in order to keep from having to admit to being unhorsed. You're an utter disgrace and you should be ashamed of yourself. JF
From: John Fields on 28 Nov 2009 07:35
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >Your scepticism is nether humble nor yours. You pick up neatly >packaged chunks of scepticism from your frieindly neighbourhood >denialist propaganda machine and regurgitate them here. > Jahred Diamond's >book "Collapse" makes it pretty clear that the leaders of a failing >society will have their attention firmly fixed on maintaining their >status within that society - in your case, your status as a successful >businessman - right up to the point where it starts collapsing around >their ears. --- Seems to me that your accusation that Larkin here regurgitates propaganda he's picked up elsewhere is PKB. JF |