Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 1 Dec 2009 01:35 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:13:59 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(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: >> >> > 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.) >> >> You said it all right. You seem to have - very wisely - requested that >> your post was not to be archived, and have managed to contain your >> outrage at being caught making a fool of yourself until the original >> evidence had evaporated. > >No, if I said it, it's still here in the archives. Maybe you've >confused me with someone else. > >My information on GCMs came from reading their summaries (supplied by >each GCM group), reading as much of one global climate model's FORTRAN >spaghetti source-code as I could stand, and, mostly, _directly_ from >one of the world's preeminent experts, who works on them. > >So, I've always known the difference. > > The last FORTRAN i worked with at all (F77 many years ago) did not seem very spaghetti code friendly. It did not seem particularly structured code friendly either. (not that i knew that back then.) Please send me a file or two of FORTRAN spaghetti code, i am curious about what it looks like. <snip>
From: JosephKK on 1 Dec 2009 02:00 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:23:42 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 28, 5:50 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:43:49 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > ><snip> > >> >> Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to >> >> control everyone. Politicians (are) like that. >> >> >Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting. >> >Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy), >> >looks into the future. >> >> SOL James, but it doesn't, at least if you use the same model the AGW >> group does. Even others that contain any of the canonical >> presumptions of AGW fail to reconcile with well documented history. > >SOL? I don't understand. The meaning I know doesn't work here. > >But, I was referring to a whim I posted wayyy back, that you can curve- >fit a polynomial that mimics history to perfection, yet has zero >predictive value. E.g. the stock market, where that gets tried and is >a temporary fad every few years, until it blows up. > >Much of the evolution of the main models fits that description--build >it, then monkey with the constants until it seems stable, as opposed >to a) inputting precise measurements of b) accurately known parameters >into c) models that faithfully duplicate physical processes. > >I'm told that pre-twiddling the early models railed, either freezing >atmosphere, or melting lead. Communication glitch. I was applying Squat Out of Luck to the AGW models being worthwhile. For much the same reasons you cite.
From: JosephKK on 1 Dec 2009 02:17 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:41:47 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:27:20 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > So you have demonstrated what Bill is to your satisfaction. Well and good. Could you now just ignore him, even you are getting frustrated with the way his evasions waste everybody's time. What is it JT says? Something like "Let him die, alone and forgotten".
From: Bill Sloman on 1 Dec 2009 04:57 On Dec 1, 8:17 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:41:47 -0600, John Fields > > <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:27:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > ><bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > So you have demonstrated what Bill is to your satisfaction. Well and > good. John Fields is easily satisfied. In his "solenoid" rant, he has invented a statement that he thinks I made - in the relevant thread I never even posted the word "solenoid" - and congratulates himself for carrying out a perfectly useless "experiment" to prove that the statement that he had invented isn't actually true. I didn't take him seriously at the time, and if you hadn't shown signs of taking him seriously I'd have continued to confine myself to jeering at him. If you feel the need to waste your time on this non-issue, check out the thread "Batteryless current clamps?" which started on November 17 2009. John's florid delusions started appearing a couple of days later. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jan Panteltje on 1 Dec 2009 06:32
On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:42:42 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <7139b36e-0c66-44fa-9532-02a046bf8577(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>: >> You, and your grass shack? > >The claim about the "greenies" wanting us to move into unheated grass >shacks came from you. I can't remember seeing any such policy in any >of the Greenpeace literature that my wife used to get, and I'm >begiining to get the impression that you invented it. The general impression greenies leave is this: Save the birds, the bugs, the fish, anything except humans. Stop all energy production and industrialisation. Live like a bird in nature but grass shack will do, but be careful not to step on the grass. Did not you notice? |