Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 19:32 On Nov 27, 8:53 am, John Larkin <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:41:07 +0000, Martin Brown > > > > > > <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Jan Panteltje wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > >> <4688b1c8-f155-4b23-bb22-a8e56c28f...(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>: > > >>>> And even if you assumed CO2 levels did, where did the CO2 come from? > > >>> CO2 is being subducted - as carbonate rock - all the time. The > >>> carbonate is unstable once it gets into the outer mantle and comes out > >>> again in volcanic eruptions. The spectacular volcanic eruptions that > >>> created the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps released a lot of CO2 > >>> in a relatively short time - geologically speaking. > > >> Good, so it does not come from us burning stuff. > > >We already know how much fuel we burn and the residual amount staying in > >the atmosphere is around 60% from Keelings original work at Mauna Lau. > >Now refined by NOAA with global monitoring. You can even watch the > >fossil fuel CO2 emitted by the northern hemisphere industrial nations > >move to the southern hemisphere with a suitable time lag. > > >AND you can tell it isn't coming out of the oceans because the changing > >isotopic signature matches the fossil fuel that we burnt. > > >Be careful what you wish for...today volcanic activity contributes about > >1% of the carbon dioxide net increase. The rest is coming from us. A > >reasonably detailed article on CO2 from vulcanism is online at: > > >http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/directDownload.cfm?id=432&noexcl=true&... > > >Climate change around the time of the Deccan traps vulcanism 65 Million > >years ago was one of the worst periods of global extinction the Earth > >has seen. Do you really want to go the way of the dinosaurs? > > >>> The fact that some of the laval flow came up through coal fields meant > >>> that they burnt a fair bit of fossil carbon in the process. > > >>>> It is much more simple (Occam's) to think CO2 levels went up because the = > >>> warmer climate > >>>> had more animals populate the earth.... > >>>> But even that may not be so. > >>> It isn't. there aren't enough animals around to to have much direct > >>> effect on the CO2 level in the atmosphere - if they don't go in for > >>> digging up and burning fossil carbon on an industrial scale. > > >> Good, then we can forget all that Gore stuff about farting cows and pigs that are bad for the world, > >> and need to be more taxed. > > >He has a point at least where methane emissions are concerned. > > >CH4 though short lived is a more potent GHG in the atmosphere than CO2. > >And it could be a real menace if we release the huge volumes trapped in > >permafrost and oceanic seabed clathrates. > > >And it would improve the health of the US population to eat a bit less > >meat. Japans high life expectancy is in part due to a much better diet. > > >Regards, > >Martin Brown > > Don't you people ever do electronic design? One nice thing about > electronics is that you know pretty soon whether you're right or not. > Another is that you can finish one thing and move on to another. Unfortunately, real life is less accomodating. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 19:42 On Nov 26, 10:19 pm, John Larkin <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:18:03 -0800 (PST), 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.) > > >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. > > >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. > > The only way one can predict the desired dire consequences of CO2 is > to conjecture a number of positive feedback mechanisms. Those same > positive feedbacks make the models unstable. Positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to instability. The currently accepted explanation of the regular oscillation between ice ages and interglacials over the past few million years requires a limited amount of positive feedback to amplify the Milankovitch forcing up to a level where they could create the temperature swings we can deduce from the historical record. The last time I heard about an electronic engineer making an equally ridiculous claim was when I was being told about a guy who had taken a circuit of mine which used a smidgin of positive feedback to linearise a platinum resistance thermometer, and ripped out the positve feedback "because it would make the circuit oscillate". Someone at Honeywell had the same idea at the same time, and it didn't make their circuit oscillate. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 19:54 On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:00:43 -0800, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ><dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:ccd55e6a-2676-4460-9bc3-65b5524cd2a8(a)u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com.... >"Conserve. That means using more efficient devices (e.g. replacing T12 >fluorescents with T8s), and using them more wisely (e.g. turning off >Al Gore's lights when he's not home). That's possible, with zero >technical risk, and perhaps 40-50% payback." > >Agreed, people certainly should make an effort to not just waste resources >when not doing so has zero or a very small cost. I'm all for legally required >standards for fuel economy, appliance efficiency, etc. -- but of course >there's always debate on just where the line should be drawn. (E.g., most >recently here the debate on plasma TVs...) > Joel, please reset your quoting to default. It is easier to read.
From: Malcolm Moore on 28 Nov 2009 20:03 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:18:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: <snip some, including a conspiricist rant> > >Here is some more, grabbed from us.politics today: > > > From: Eunometic <eunometic(a)yahoo.com.au> > Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,us.politics,soc.culture.irish > Subject: Proff Bob Carter Torpedoes Climate Hoax > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:39:38 -0800 (PST) > > Below find some videos for those too busy to read a book. > > Professor Bob Carter > http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-1326937617167558947&ei=1oAOS8ynNJv-qAO1loDkDQ&hl=en# > Note in minute 31 of the video he mentions some of the work of the > infamous jones who is involved in climate gate emails. > > Dr Tim Ball on Climate Gate, how peer review and the IPCC was > corrupted. > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/video-dr-tim-ball-on-the-cru-emails/#more-13062 > > Proffesor Ian Wishart, author of "Air Con" > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90otAJORkK8 Why don't the likes of Raveninghorde & yourself ever check the material you find and post. Ian Wishart is not a professor. A google or wikipedia search would have quickly revealed that. He is a journalist/publisher who inhabits the conspiracy theory end of the publishing world. A review of Air Con is at http://hot-topic.co.nz/somethin%E2%80%99-stupid/ That review led in part to http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/08/air-con-author-preparing-to-sue-herald-and-hot-topic.html the threatened legal action has not eventuated. I took a stab in the middle of that youtube video. After referring to claims of melting icecaps, he's talking about possible sea level rise and how the landscape behind him used to be at the bottom of the ocean and is now 100m above, and CO2 has had nothing to do with that. That's entirely correct, what he doesn't mention is that the landscape is in New Zealand and it has uplifted due to tectonic plate movement, nothing to do with sea level change due to changing amounts of water stored as ice. Perhaps the conspiracy is coming from your favoured sources, but I've always preferred the saying about not atributing to conspiracy that which can more simply be explained by stupidity. > Original Climate Gate E-mails: > http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html > > Climate Catastrophe Cancelled! (Part 1 of 5) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abd81S-Syzo > > Note Hadley are custodians of the worlds climate data, they produce > papers that feed much of the IPCC reports. (Dracula in charge of the > Blood Bank) -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 20:07
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:35:42 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in ><6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0caf(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? > > > >>> Or renounce it all, and go live on one of the last energy free little isl= >>ands... atolls... >> >>Not necessary. We can generate all the energy we need without burning >>fossil carbon. >> >>And if you had read your newspaper this morning you would have learned >>that your electricity and gas bills are going to go up to help pay for >>the capital investment that is going to make this happen in the >>Netherlands over the next couple of decades. > >Well, I read almost no paper newspapers, really, but I have a much faster internet >news feed, of a much broader spectrum from many different countries, and Netherlands too. >That energy prices will go up is no news, it is the way the system works. >That taxes will go up, exactly the same. >All that said, a good thing I did not sign on some years ago for a fixed (high) energy price, >just got some Euros back on my yearly electricity bill, man was I right. >But it also helped that I have the computer control all energy here. >And I wrote the programs myself. >Capital investment, well there are windmills here up the road, and a lot more further on. >Now they want to build some in the sea. >Have you calculated how much percentage those will supply? >They still have not got the strength to build some nuke plants here... >But this morning I was thinking that the best nuke plant location would probably be Nijmegen. >A great place for CO2 storage too ;-) >So they build coal and natural gas plants... Fine with me, next they will >import the coal from China, where >100 miners die each year. >But those death are far away, do not weight on the political agenda I guess. >And I think the same is happening with uranium mining, I have seen movies where all those >guys had was a paper face mask... here is our society, >taxes, profit, and lip service to reality. >We are still a devouring animal type, really. >Nature, we are part of it, and as we are part of it we need to accept the climate cycles >unless we develop technology like terra forming that _really_ can change the climate, maybe it will happen one day. >But hiding CO2 under your bed won't work. Jan, a government is a real omnivore. It will consume anything, including that or those who established it to stay alive. |