Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Rich Grise on 30 Nov 2009 13:09 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:25:18 -0800, Joerg wrote: > Bill Sloman wrote: >> >> But the ice sheet wasn't growing directly on top of the farm, was it >> > No, but obviously the growing ice pack caused it, didn't it? I have the > feeling you will not accept any proof and will try to find all sorts of > excuses and hair in the soup. What's next? Their language wasn't Norwegian > enough anymore so they don't count? Cooking the books: http://www.gocomics.com/chipbok/2009/11/25/ Cheers! Rich
From: John Larkin on 30 Nov 2009 13:19 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:06:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 29, 1:58�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:44:05 -0600, John Fields >> >> >> >> <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:44:43 -0800, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >> >><bill.slo...(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 >> >> Sloman is clearly confused. I was of the impression that he was a >> sour, mean-spirited old git, but it's likely that he is actually >> delusional. As such, it's neither kind nor productive to argue with >> him. > >He's gotta be maxed out over his heart. That's no fun. Maybe we >should have mercy, lest he explode it. Agonizing and arguing over something you can't affect (ie, AGW and Exxon) is a sure source of stress, and longterm stress is a cardiovascular killer. Designing and building electronics, on the other hand, is both satisfying and relaxing. John
From: Rich Grise on 30 Nov 2009 13:19 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:35:46 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:38:44 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> > >>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? > http://images.google.com/images?&q=%22potato+ricer%22 Cheers! Rich
From: Jon Kirwan on 30 Nov 2009 13:21 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:59:29 +0100, Uwe Hercksen <hercksen(a)mew.uni-erlangen.de> wrote: >Jon Kirwan schrieb: > >> 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! > >Hello, > >96 % of all studied glaciers do shrink, and only the rest of 4 % do >increase. I'm aware of the general figures. A very interesting paper recently came out, because it provides a greatly expanded update of estimates of global average balance of small glaciers, from Cogley, J. G., 2009, "Geodetic and direct mass-balance measurements: comparison and joint analysis." It's available, in full, here: http://www.igsoc.org/annals/50/50/a50a043.pdf Another, from Kaser et al., 2006, "Mass balance of glaciers and ice caps: Consensus estimates for 1961�2004?" is here: http://www.hydro.washington.edu/pub/lettenmaier/lettenmaier_milly_2009/kaser_et_al_grl_2006.pdf For those interested in a wonderful web page with a great many links of the papers used in the recent Copenhagen Diagnosis, I'd refer them here: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/ It is an incredible resource of papers that won't cost a cent. Gruesse, Jon
From: Joerg on 30 Nov 2009 16:19
Uwe Hercksen wrote: > > > Joerg schrieb: > > >> Ahm, the glacier north of us on Mt.Shasta is growing ... > > Hello, > > but 96 % of all studied glaciers are shrinking. What is the use of > argumenting only with a very small minority? > Bill mentioned "the glaciers aren't going to be coming back any time soon" which isn't right. Quite a few do, right now, and it is necessary to find an explanation why they do. Given the precipitation link I posted we don't seem to have a sufficient explanation (yet). -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |