Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 28 Nov 2009 07:44 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. --- I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for the fraud you are. JF
From: John Fields on 28 Nov 2009 07:49 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:48 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >The aim is to educate you to the point where you can save yourself - >there still seems to be quite a way to go. --- Oh, please... The all-merciful guru wants to teach the human race to save themselves; but only if they do it _his_ way. Physician, heal thyself. JF
From: Spehro Pefhany on 28 Nov 2009 08:37 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:35:46 -0800, the renowned John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:38:44 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> >wrote: > >>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. ;-) > >That's fine, if you like it. But at 6400 feet, after an hour boiling >they are still *raw*. > >> >>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! ;-) > >What's a potato ricer? > >John An extruder for (cooked) potatoes.. dozens of little holes maybe 0.05" in diameter for the press to squish the potato through. Like a big garlic press. Bigger holes and you've got a spatzle (sp?) dumpling press. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: Joerg on 28 Nov 2009 12:49 Jon Kirwan wrote: > 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. > I meant a pronounced increase in precipitation. >>>> 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. > There wasn't that much meat in it. As an engineer I am used to seeing more graphs and tables from official or at least credible sources. >>> 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. ;) > I am not disputing that. As I wrote in my reply to Bill, there are glaciers in Europe that are going almost totally bare. What the warmingists don't seem to grasp or sometimes deny tooth and nail is that this is quite normal. A few thousand years ago they wear also iceless or nearly iceless, as evidence by the findings of ancient weaponry, shoes, coins, and the typical litter that unfortunately always happens along major thoroughfares. They must have lacked an "Adopt-a-Highway" program back then ;-) Since they found Roman coins there the last warm period without ice on the glacier cannot have been be that long ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm > 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. > Thanks, but right now I have to first find some inductors for an EMI case :-) >>>> 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. ;) > True. But the question is whether it's 90%, 50%, or maybe only 2%. That where warmingists are often making shaky assumptions. >> 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. > Thing is, there's tons and tons of other cases. I mean, guys like old Oetzi was for sure not doing a glacier hike just for the fun of it. He was probably hunting on fertile grounds that were ice-free, and then from what archaeologists have determined killed if not murdered up there. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 28 Nov 2009 12:53
Don Klipstein wrote: > 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. > Read your own words again and note two words in your post: "in the summer" and "Nearly". They would not possibly have picked a location under the ice or one that iced over in the winter. Then there's all those retreating glaciers in the alps where they now miraculously find all sorts of stuff from Romans and other folks who used the routes when they obviously were free of ice. Unless you can convince me that Roman supply wagons had studded wheels, electronic ABS and totally fearless horses and that Roman soldier were immune to frostbite. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |