Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 13:20 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >The global warming hoax revealed: > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss > ><Quote from that article> >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material >for historians.' ><end quote> > >LOL. >Some science! > >And that in a leftist newspaper! > Could you find another source, they not only want me to register (so that they can spam me) they want cookies. I don't give cookies to my ISP or my bank, let alone others.
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 13:20 On Nov 28, 9:49 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Jon Kirwan wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:17:20 -0800, 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: > >>>>>> [...] > > >>>>>>>> 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 > >>> 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. <snip> > 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 The Holocene thermal maximum occured some thousands of years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum The current inter-glacial had clearly clearly passed its peak before we started burning fossil carbon, and we were heading for another ice age, which the current spot of anthropogenic global warming does seem to have put off. This is a good thing, but we need to take care that we don't end up with much too much of a good thing. <snip> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 13:30 On Nov 27, 5:46 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > 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. Identify one. The settlement was not lost because it was inundated with ice, but because the weather got just a little too cold to allow the Vikings to harvest enough food to keep them going. > 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. The lost Viking settlement in Greenland was only lost about a thousand years ago. A few thousand years ago is another story - we are getting back a lot closer to the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the warmest period of this interglacial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum The climate had been cooling off towards the next ice age ever since, until we started digging up and burning fossil carbon, and put the next ice age on hold. This was a good thing, but we are now well on our way to having too much of a good thing. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Joerg on 28 Nov 2009 13:39 Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 28, 9:49 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:17:20 -0800, 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: >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> 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. > > <snip> > >> 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 > > The Holocene thermal maximum occured some thousands of years ago > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum > Then how come Roman coins were found at Schnidejoch? Did they have time machines or did Exxon-Mobil stuff them there? > The current inter-glacial had clearly clearly passed its peak before > we started burning fossil carbon, and we were heading for another ice > age, which the current spot of anthropogenic global warming does seem > to have put off. > > This is a good thing, but we need to take care that we don't end up > with much too much of a good thing. > You are repeating yourself :-) Plus I'd like some of that good thing but it ain't happening here in the Sierras. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 13:40
On Nov 27, 4:33 pm, John Larkin <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:25:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 27, 9:44 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> On Nov 27, 11:48 am, John Larkin > > >> <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> > <bill.slo...(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. > > >> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204.... > > >> > John > > >> Spot-on. > > >Anything but. The journalist is treating a highly necessary bit of > >quality control as "suppresion of dissent". If they'd done theri job > >properly, they'd have found this out. > > Threatening journal editors is "quality control"? They weren't threatening him, they were getting him fired forpublishing what was - at the very least - outrageously poor work. He'd published a very poor paper, bad enough to provoke three memebers of the editorial board into resigning. When the dust settled, one of the board members who had resigned came back as the new editor. Ravinghorde and his fellow conspiracy theorists want to see this as the scandalous ejection of an editor who was brave enough to publish a dissenting paper, but they can't be bothered to produce the paper and explain why it provoked such an intense response when the people who published Lindzen's dissenting papers have got off scot-free. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |