Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 22:36 On Nov 28, 5:15 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 27, 10:19 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > 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?) > > Check out the ranges of forcings estimated here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas > > " * water vapor, which contributes 3672% [a 2:1 range] > * carbon dioxide, which contributes 926% [3:1] > * methane, which contributes 49% > * ozone, which contributes 37%" These aren't, stictly speaking. forcings. If you had read further down the page, you would have come across this line "It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.[8][9]" Forcings are calculated for for actual atmospheres containing specific concentrations of gases and this particular source of uncertainty largely goes away. Since the lapse rate means that water vapour concentrations drop away quite rapidly with increasing altitude, this isn't an entirely trivial calculation. For the record, you have just proved - once again - that you don't know what you are talking about. > > 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 > > They estimate it using models: > > "So how is Radiative Forcing calculated? For the most > part, it is estimated using data from what is referred > to as General Circulation Models (GCMs). These > models use numerous methodologies[...]" As I mentioned in the post to which you are responding, (a point also made in the wikipedia page you cited, but don't seem to have read either), the greenhouse effect of each gas in the atmosphere depends on the concentration of the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and you have to construct a model of the atmosphere before you can calculate a radiative forcing for that atmosphere. > > gives a figure of 1.66 W/m², with a range between 1.49 and 1.83 W/m². > > The same source goes on to give a 4:1 uncertainty range(!) for net > anthropogenic forcing: > > "Overall, the total net anthropogenic Radiative Forcing > is equal to an average value of 1.6 W/m² [0.6 to 2.4 W/m²]. > This means a warming of the climate." IIRR these are 95% confdence limits, and include quite a lot of uncertainty to cover features of the atmosphere that the current generation of climate models, running on the current generation of computers don't model well. We may be able to do better in a few years http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/a-computer-for-the-clouds <snipped the rest - James Arthur really doesn't know what he is talking about, and it would be unkind to make the point again and again> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Michael A. Terrell on 28 Nov 2009 22:47 Jim Thompson wrote: > > Most fraudulent scientists are smart enough to slink quietly away when > their fraud is discovered. Slowman has no such IQ. Sloman is a typical 'meat popsicle'. -- The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 23:17 On Nov 28, 5:53 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 27, 10:19 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > 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. > > You cite authorities. That is, you rely on experts to explain > something that's over your head--you said that about the models, not > me--and take what they say on faith. The same kind of faith that I have in the results of most scientific work being produced by a number of separate groups of scientists working in parallel and criticising each other's work. > I don't claim any authority, nor do I require any credibility. Just as well. > I only claim I can add, and read, and think. You don't seem to be all that competent in any of these areas, given your capacity to get things wildly wrong. > You're free to do the same. Very generous of you. > I constantly cite public sources of raw data, but most people don't > have the time to waste checking them. So for alls' sake I prefer to > point out obvious contradictions, sanity checks. Quickies. Except that when you cited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas it didn't support the point you were making, because you obviously hadn't read the text that you were citing. If it was a sanity check, you failed it. > To wit, the common man doesn't need to know what makes a car go to > tell whether or not it goes--he can just try driving the car and see. <snipped the rest of the patronising rubbish> > Global Climate Models fail simple tests like that. They don't know > from ocean currents. Yet. Because we don't yet have the ocean current data to plug into them. > They don't accurately model clouds. Yet. > Without > those things you can't model heat flow from the equator to the poles, > which is what drives our entire climate. Nonsense. You just can't model as accurately as you could if you had the data about the ocean currents and didn't have to smear out the effets of clouds. The heat still has to get from the equator to the poles, and you can plug in black boxes that will do it well enough for government work. > That *is* our climate. They > assume static ice sheets and static vegetation, i.e., semi-static > albedo. IOW, they run on hamsters. And they're missing some wheels. > > They're getting better, but they still aren't predictive 100 years or > even 20 years--or even 10 years, as we've just seen--into the future. Of course they are predictive. It's just that the predictions are a good deal less than perfectly accurate. > So, pointing to GCMs as proof of apocalyptic prognostications of doom > is, well, bogus. They just aren't nearly that good yet--they don't > handle all the many factors well enough--and even if they did we have > no way to prove they're right, to know they haven't omitted something > important, or just plain made a mistake. They aren't proof of apocalyptic prognostications of doom. They are tools that let us see that if we continue to inject CO2 into the atmosphere at the current rate or faster, the world will be several degrees warmer than it is now within a hundred years or so The oceans will then be warm enough that CO2 will start coming out of solution - while at the moment some 30% of teh CO2 we emit is dissolving in the oceans ratther than increasing greenhouse warming - and it may be warm enough to start melting methane clathrates. The last time this happened was during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum which left the global temperature going up some 6C and staying high for some 20.00 years. This didn't produce a global extinction, but did lead to a lot of speciation. If it happened to us, our civilisation would fall apart, and our population would crash, which is a pretty good approximation to doom This is not a prognostication - I'm not predicting that it is going to happen - merely an observation that there is a risk that continued warming might pan out the same way it did in the geological past, and that our descendants might not enjoy such an experience. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jim Thompson on 28 Nov 2009 23:19 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:52:02 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:05:57 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >wrote: > >>On Nov 28, 1:40�pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> 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 >> >>This (above) is why many serious scientists dare not voice contrary >>opinions--they'd get lynched, and they know it. > >One of the requisites of a serious scientist is guts. In fact, bravery >is fundamental to a lot of important activities. > >Brave people are able to think, because fear doesn't distort their >perceptions or reasoning. And brave people make the best partners in >most any activity, because you can never trust a coward. > >John > Indeed! We may yet surface as close friends! ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
From: John Larkin on 28 Nov 2009 23:29
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:32:53 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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. What could be more real than building things that work? John |