Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 13:32 On Nov 29, 5:08 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:00:10 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <79cb352b-afb2-456a-bf0d-3c38393e5...(a)b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: > > >> Windmills are an unreliable energy source, no wind for some time and no > >> energy AT ALL. > > >Any single windmill is unrliable in this sense. Build enough of them > >over a sufficiently large geographical area and hook them up to grid, > >and the statistics are a lot more attractive. > > >> You need an energy storage system, several experiments are being done, > >> but an energy storage system that can bridge weeks for example, is not > >> currently possible. in an economic way. > > >Weeks? > > Yes weeks. This isn't an answer. If a country was to rely on windmills alone for its energy, you might need several days worth of storage to keep the country running. A period of tatl calm extending over an enture country - even one as smal as the Netherlands - is remarkably improbable. It's also irrelevant to any discussion of the way we'd get our energy if we were to stop burning fossil carbon, because we wouldn't rely on windmills alone, but on a mix of windpower, solar power, hydrolelectric power and probably the osmotic pressure generator that are now showing up as prototypes, as well as the occasional nuclear power station and probably a few residual fossil-carbon-fueled power stations that sequestered their CO2 output into under-ground or undersea storage Our current grid could survive without storage with up to 20% of our power coming from windmills. There are small-scale installations - on islands for example - where a day's worth of storage is enough to let the system tolerate a much higher windmill contribution http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1164 And every clean kilojoule that we generate from wnd at the moment is saves us the CO2 emission from the fossil-carbon we didn't have to burn. > >> And the same green nut cases that vote for 'clean' energy vote against wi= > >ndmills because of 'horizon pollution', > >> and because those kill birds, and .. and .. ? > > >Too true. And they get upset about CO2 being sequestered under thier > >beds. > > Personally I never voted against windmills, I quit the political party the moment they did that. > But I also know windmills will not provide all our power needs. > They are also noisy, I know, I can hear them here, other then you in Nijmegen hidden deep in the city. > Chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp, all night long. > > >> Solar power in the Netherlands is a big joke, as it has now been raining = > >and cloudy for weeks, > >> so nothing would work. > > >Direct sunlight is a lot better scattered light, but you still get > >useful power if the sun is up. > > Define 'Useful power', lemme guess: 1W / m^2? > > >> I tried a solar panel myself, and you are lucky if it can power a transis= > >tor radio, at low volume that is. > >> It would not even charge my nicads (long time ago). > > >A larger solar panel with a better dc-to-dc inverter might have done > >better. > > Yea, like a whole football field, and a converter designed by Bill Slowman. Rather more than you'd need to charge a NiCad. > >> There is a plan for solar power in the Sahara desert, but that is future = > >talk, > >> political instability makes it sort of difficult to guarantee the electri= > >city will make it all the way here > >> that is not counting transport losses. > > >Happily, the Germans are more enthusiastic about the idea than you > >are. > > Actually it is an international project, but enthusiasm alone does not really do anything. It translates into money, and high voltage DC transmission liks. > >> And *STILL* that does not run your cars, your building machines, ships, > >> what not. So that is bull. > > >It wouldn't run the car I've got at the moment, but it can run a car > >and a building machine. Ships are trickier, and aircraft very tricky > >indeed. But we do need to keep on emitting some carbon dioxide to > >stave off the next ice age, so we may be able to work something out. > > See, here you do it again, and show your big misconception: > 'stave off the next ice age'. > Forget it, it will come! Or so your masculine intuition tells you. Science would tell you different if you understood it. > No matter what you do. > http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm > http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf Useful web-sites. It is a pity that you lack the knowledge necessary to understand them. > >> Shoot it into the sun, and store it under Nijmegen of course. > >> Make nice small RTGs with it, everybody one for in the car and in the hou= > >se. > > >Shooting it into the sun might not be a good idea - we've only got one > >sun, and an unexpected interactions could make life difficult or > >impossible. > > Next loony concept revealed: > Do you know the mass of the sun? Ever heard of poisoning or catalysis? > You clearly suffer from a lack of grasp of the size of nature, and nature's forces! You clearly suffer from a lack of grasp of nature's capacity to make life complicated. > Really Bill, you make no longer sense, and are here for the sake of the discussion only. Really Jan, from you that is truly comical. > That does explain why you cannot change viewpoint, as it would end all reactions of people > pointing out your errors. And you think you have found one? > Let's talk about other things OK? > > BTW thank you for praising my language abilities, calling me 'bilingual', > in fact I speak German, French, Dutch, English, and a little Portuguese. > And learning some more. I should have said multilingual > You living in the Netherlands so long, I would have expected you to speak Dutch too. I do. I passed NT2 (Dutch as a second language) in reading, listening and speaking someyears ago. I didn't pass on my written Dutch - nobody has ever wanted me to write Dutch so I've never had enough practice to get rid of the minor grammatical errors. > Many Dutch also speak English. Almost everybody. This meant that everybody could read my reports, and minutes of meetings (in Dutch) in English, while many of the customers didn't speak or read Dutch. Had I written my reports in Dutch, they would have had to be translated back into English for all the overseas customers who don't know Dutch and don't have any compelling reason to learn it. And I have learned other languages - French, German, and a little Russian. I've never used any of them enough to be truly fluent, and learning Dutch compleltely destroyed my capacity to speak German, though I now understand it a bit better than I used to. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 13:37 On Nov 27, 2:46 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Here you go Bill: There you go Jan. Posting denialist propaganda may be a nice way of showing your gratitude to Exxon-Mobil, but it is a complete waste of bandwidth. You need to read this document http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jamie on 29 Nov 2009 13:56 Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 28, 4:35 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >><bill.slo...(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. > > > John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the > difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind > of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a > scientific education and you might be able to do better. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > Hmm, I think I can smell fire and brimstone.
From: John Larkin on 29 Nov 2009 13:41 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:10:51 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Bill Sloman wrote: >> On Nov 28, 4:25 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>> On Nov 28, 12:54 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>>> 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. >> >> Except that they aren't. >> >> And neither the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were >> particularly dramatic temperature excursions. Denialists do claim that >> the existence of these small and local excursions proves that the >> warming that we are seeing at the moment isn't anthropogenic, but the >> logic doesn't really hold up. >> >> To make the argument work you have to claim - and prove - that CO2 >> isn't a greenhouse gas, or that the measured concentrations in the >> atmosphere aren't higher than they have been for 650,000 years (as >> recorded in the ice core data) and probably for the last 20 million >> years (if you trust the geological data). >> > >No, warmingists have to prove that CO2 _is_ causing trouble for us. The human cost of serious CO2 reduction would be immense, especially in the poorest countries. Climate researchers have an overpowering moral obligation to be honest and keep an open mind. John
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2009 13:44
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:44:43 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>> It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful >>> about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that >>> a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg. >> >>That seems to reflect a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model. I'm working >>on it. > >But you used mosfets. --- Priceless!!! JF |