Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jan Panteltje on 1 Dec 2009 06:35 On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:45:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <747b02f7-9d2c-4bd2-9ecd-5c2ece16ae1b(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: >On Nov 30, 2:52�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:05:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't >> >happening any more. >> >> --- >> >> Here; read a little Santayana: >> >> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." > >The last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago. I don't think that >anybody could be expected to remember it. > >Jan was encouraging me to understand the Earth's natural cycles, which >demands a little more involvement than merely remembering them, and is >- in any event - somewhat ironic, since the current understanding of >the causes of the ice ages leads directly to the conclusion that there >aren't going to be any more "natural" climate cycles to understand, >because anthropogenic effects have overwhelmed th natural driving >forces. Bull, your data A is in th@ noise!
From: Uwe Hercksen on 1 Dec 2009 06:49 Joerg schrieb: > Bill mentioned "the glaciers aren't going to be coming back any time > soon" which isn't right. Hello, it is not possible that the ice volume a shrinking glacier lost in several decades is replaced in several years again. Bye
From: Uwe Hercksen on 1 Dec 2009 06:53 Jim Thompson schrieb: > Uninformed leftist loon. Hello, are you able to proof the "uninformed" in any way? Bye
From: John Fields on 1 Dec 2009 09:27 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:40:28 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 30, 3:37�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:34:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > ><snipped the usual pleasantries> > >> Hardly, since the experiment was done in order to show you (I even >> emailed it to you, remember, since for some reason you can't access >> abse?) that you were wrong about being able to extract energy from the >> varying magnetic field surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid >> around it. > >The solenoid was entirely your idea. A clamp-on meter - which is what >I was talking about - isn't a solenoid, but a toroidal transformer >core which can be opened and closed. The output power - such as it is >- is extracted from a second wiinding wrapped around part of that >core. > >This creates a perfectly conventional transformer with a single-turn >primary - one of the power companies active lines runs inside the >toroid, and the rest run outside, forming a rather loosely wound >single turn. > >You didn't understand this and got excited and ran your "experiment" >with a solenoid and a bunch of wires - a configuration that has >nothing to do with clamp-on meters --- I see you _still_ don't understand the experiment. If you did, you'd have realized that there were two different configurations; one with a solenoid wound around a conductor carrying an alternating current, and the other with a toroid surrounding the conductor. Then, the annotation should have led you to see that with the solenoid surrounding the conductor, the open-circuit output voltage and short-circuit output current from the solenoid were truly miniscule, while the same outputs from the solenoid were significant. Here's the data: SOLENOID TOROID T/S ----------+----------+------- CURRENT 4.17�A 34.1mA 818 VOLTAGE 28.81�V 11.295V 3.92e5 T/S is the ratio of the outputs, so you can see how truly disparate they are. --- >If I thought that you had enough sense to realise this, I'd say that >you were the fraud, --- What a strange thing to say! Since I obviously understood it by making it one of the cases in my experiment and showing the instrumentation used and the data obtained, how could I possibly be a fraud? You, however, parading around with your newly acquired information about how the transformer on a clamp-on ammeter is wound, as if you knew it from the beginning, do seem to fit the bill quite nicely --- >but in fact you are merely a loud-mouthed and >persistent fool. --- Well, since you do have trouble separating fact from fantasy, let's just say that you're in no position to judge... JF
From: Joerg on 1 Dec 2009 09:50
Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:25:27 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:25:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>>>> <much snipped, my apologies> >>>>> >>>>> In general, there is no profit for a science team to duplicate work. >>>>> If they duplicate the work and get the same or similar results from >>>>> it, they've merely stared at their belly buttons and wasted a lot of >>>>> money in the process. If they duplicate the work and find an error, >>>>> then a correction is made and science moves on. But the team doesn't >>>>> really get much credit for it. It reflects more upon the team that >>>>> made the error. The ones finding it merely did a 'clean up' job that >>>>> shows they can follow procedure like they should be able to and really >>>>> doesn't reflect on their creativity and ability to "do science." So >>>>> again, they wasted their time even if they helped fix an error that >>>>> someone else should have caught. >>>>> >>>>> An example of this later case is the artifact of the diurnal >>>>> correction that had been incorrectly applied to MSU T2LT raw data by >>>>> Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, scientists outside this >>>>> inner circle had been "clubbed" by the University of Alabama's results >>>>> that conflicted with pretty much every other approach by teams all >>>>> over the world. Both Spencer and Christy were repeatedly asked to go >>>>> back through their methodology to see if they could find an error. >>>>> Over and over, they insisted they didn't need to do that. Finally, >>>>> Carl Mears and Frank Wentz apparently got sick and tired enough with >>>>> the continuing conflict that they decided to waste their own precious >>>>> time to duplicate the efforts by Spencer and Christy. That effort, by >>>>> all rights, should have been Spencer and Christy's efforts. But since >>>>> they weren't taking action, if finally all came to a head. In any >>>>> case, Mears and Wentz went through all the trouble to secure the data >>>>> sets and then attempt to duplicate the processing. In the end, they >>>>> discovered an error in the diurnal correction used by the Alabama >>>>> team. Once shown their error -- and it took them four or five months >>>>> to admit it -- they publicly made corrections to their processing and >>>>> republished old data which then, while on the lower end of the >>>>> spectrum, was "within" the range of error of the results of other work >>>>> long since published. At that point, though, Spencer and Christy's >>>>> work had been tarnished and Remote Sensing Systems began publishing >>>>> their own analysis in parallel. It happens. But there isn't much >>>>> credit given for this. Just credit taken away. >>>>> >>>>> Most scientists want to find creative new approaches to answering >>>>> questions that will confirm or disconfirm the work of others -- not >>>>> duplicate the exact same steps. Or they want to solve new problems. >>>>> That illustrates creativity and leads to a reputation. Novelty is >>>>> important. >>>>> >>>>> _Methods_ and _results_ are disclosed, though. But software programs >>>>> and interim data aren't that important. ... >>>> But raw input data is. That's what it was about. >>> Yes. However, raw data has been fairly easy to attain, my experience. >>> Very much _unlike_ raw data in the clinical/medical field where >>> _everyone_ seems to consider it highly proprietary. >>> >>> Mind telling me what raw data you asked for? >> Sea level data. A FTP link would have sufficed. > > That isn't raw data, Joerg. It's digested and developed from several > methods applied to a range of data sets taken in a variety of ways > from sites all over the world, each of which have their unique > characteristics that need to be understood and applied to develop a > sense of 'global sea level'.... all of which goes through refinements > and changes, from time to time. Assuming, of course, that you meant > to have "global sea level data" when you wrote "sea level data." > > It would have helped you a lot had you known what you were looking > for. > I did. I asked for the local water level _readings_. Before that request I had already found quite a few data sets on my own. When that data did not corroborate what they had published I asked for more of that data. To be able to understand where their conclusions came from. > Have you ever sat down and actually _read_ a report on these kinds of > subjects? I mean, really just one of them? Or the IPCC AR4 > discussion, even? If you had, you'd know that "sea level data" isn't > "raw data" without my saying so. > > Here, take a look at this one from this year: > > http://www.igsoc.org/annals/50/50/a50a043.pdf > 1.12mm/year, or 0.77mm per the other guys. Whew, we won't drown then :-)) > Since you were discussing mountain glaciers earlier, you have given me > a segue. It's really a very simple paper that illustrates the issues > involved when trying to see if there is a way to develop an improved > understanding by joining datasets from different sources and means. > > Now, I think you can understand the reaction if you were writing to > some scientist about glaciers and asking for "glacier levels." They > wouldn't really know what you meant if you were asking for the raw > data. Which raw data? > I often deal with this when writing module specs. Since I can never assume how well versed the readers will be there is a lot of underlying data and explanations. A regular engineer like you and I won't read those but they are still provided. If the AGW folks want to make a case they better do the same, be open. Especially now since the trust of the public has been thoroughly shaken. > Suppose I asked you about the getting access to "capacitor values?" > You might wonder, "Um... which types of capacitors? What values, > exactly? Do they need to know about temperature or voltage effects? > What application is this for?" Etc. And then you'd begin to wonder > if the questioner had any clue, at all, asking like that. > But I would not brush them off. > I would. > > This is why I said it helps if you inform yourself by actually doing > some serious, sit-down reading of the material. Get familiar with the > issues of the day. Learn a little, first. By then, you can refine > your questions to something they can make good sense of and place it > into a context they understand. > > I mean, how many times have you seem people writing in about > electronics and asking some bizarrely phrased question that makes it > patently obvious they have no clue, at all? And you know, before even > thinking about answering, that anything you say will only make it > worse? "There is too much current for my radio to work right. How > can I lower the current?" Stuff like that where you not only know > they have no clue, you know there is NO CHANCE that you can give a > short, directed answer that helps, either. > Then I ask questions. Like "What is it that you don't like with the sound of your radio?" > It really does help a lot to do some reading on your own before going > around asking questions. > > I don't mean to be flip or abrupt, Joerg. Your question is the kind > of question that non-specialists really might have to help them think > about things. But you also have to understand this from the side of > someone who is deep into the details (like you are, here.) Consider > how you might have to respond in similar circumstances. > > The data you asked for isn't 'raw data.' > It may not be called that and I only used that expression here for brevity. What I asked for was sea level data from stations. Can't be that hard. >>>>> ... If you are going to attempt >>>>> replication (and sometimes you do want to, as mentioned), you want to >>>>> do it with a "fresh eye" to the problem so that you actually have a >>>>> chance to cross-check results. You need to walk a similar path, of >>>>> course. To do that, you want to know the methodology used. And of >>>>> course you need the results to check outcomes in the end. That's all >>>>> anyone really needs. >>>>> >>>>> If you are creative enough to take a different approach entirely in >>>>> answering the questions, then you don't even need that. >>>>> >>>>> The methods and sources used are an important trail to leave. And >>>>> they leave that much, consistently. Beyond that, it's really just too >>>>> many cooks in the kitchen. If you can't dispute or replicate knowing >>>>> methods and sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business at >>>>> all. >>>>> >>>>> When you say "underlying data," I haven't yet encountered a case where >>>>> I was prevented access if I were able to show that I could actually >>>>> understand their methods and apply the data, appropriately. ... >>>> Why is it that one would only give out data if using "their methods"? >>> I didn't say "using their methods," Joerg. I said that I understood >>> them, or tried to. In some cases, I frankly didn't fully apprehend >>> what they did and they simply helped me to understand them and then >>> still gave me access. In any case, I wasn't saying that was a "gate >>> keeper" as you seem to have imagined. If you read my writing with >>> understanding, you've have gleened that I was suggesting that they >>> want to know if I am semi-serious or just some random gadfly. >>> >>> I sure would NOT want to get jerked around by every nut and, if I >>> refused, to then get tarred and feathered by you because I decided I >>> didn't feel up to it. >> But if the scientist took the time to write a few sentences, why not >> just send a link to a web site with the data? > > Because it doesn't exist? Sometimes, the data is developed as an > output of specific methods applied to a range of datasets coming from > a variety of sources of varying pedigree/provenance and there are a > host of error bounds and other assumptions, known about and unknown, > applied in order to generate an internal result that is then > summarized. The interim data is internal and, frankly, doesn't really > matter. They've disclosed the methodology and sources in the paper > and they very well may not wish to send you the internal work product. > Then I would have appreciated a link to that paper. > Doesn't bother me in the least, if so. I've had to replicate results > by following procedures. In fact, it's good for you to have to work > for it, like that. Helps you understand things better when you have > to do it, yourself, too. > >> It doesn't have to be >> exhaustive, just some place from where one can probe further and, most >> of all, something from official sources (such as NOAA or other >> countries' agencies). > > May not be there. However, the raw data (like tree ring counts from > some Scottish researcher looking at a certain set of preserved trees > at a particular museum) is often available. Now, if you want that > tree ring data from yet another researcher looking at fossilized trees > from Tibet, 10 years earlier, then you might need to contact someone > else. And if you want that fused together in some kind of new data > set, you might need to contact someone else... if that fused data is > the explicit OUTPUT of a paper. > > Just like in electronics. You get to know the signal inputs, > conditions, and drive requirements... up to a point. And you get to > know the outputs... up to a point. As far as the internals go? Maybe. > Maybe not. If you are informed, you can probably "work it out" on > your own. You don't need them to disclose everything. It's not > entirely different, except that scientists disclose a LOT more I think > and take a less-proprietary approach. So even better, in my opinion. > But you really don't _need_ the internal work product. You can access > the raw data inputs because they are usually the explicit outputs of > someone else's work. You can use the outputs, too. But you don't > have a right to dig into the internal stuff.... if you want it, you > really need to ask VERY NICELY and you need to let them know a lot > more about you and what you intend to do with it. > All I wanted was the input and it's got to be there. Measurements, averages, from the stations. > I'd want the same thing. Otherwise, I might spend the next 10 years > of my life having to either teach that person step by step or else > have them paste my name all over the internet, saying that they have > all this data directly from me all the while completely and totally > misinterpreting it to everyone else... but looking like they know > stuff because __I__ gave them the data and I cannot deny that fact. > Nope, I would not refuse. One can give out the data plus a link to teaching material. I often point email requesters that are more in the league of your example "my radio uses too much of the wrong current" to web sites thta teach the basics. In this day and age there is an abundance, and learning is essentially free. When I began answering requests in the late 80's and early 90's that was not the case at all, lots more work. Yet I always answered them (they had my address from publications). >>> Basically, I treat them respectfully as I'd want to be treated by >>> someone else asking _me_ for a favor. Do that and you get a long >>> ways, my experience. >> That's what I always do. In requests as in replies. > > It's good practice. I wish I followed it as well as you do. > >>>> That's exactly what I'd not want to do. In my case all I wanted to look >>>> at is where exactly sea levels were rising and by how much. After >>>> finding lots of data from places where it didn't happen I was brushed >>>> off with the remark "Well, the ocean is not a bathtub". Here, I would >>>> have expected a set of data that shows that I am wrong. But ... nada. Great. >>>> >>>> <snip of material I'll respond to later when I have time> >>> Do you honestly feel they owe you an education, Joerg? It's a lot >>> better to show that you've at least made some effort on your own. >>> YMMV, of course. Act as you want to. I'm just suggesting... >> I did not want an education, just a hint as to where underlying data >> might be. I don't think that's asking too much. > > Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. But "sea level data" doesn't cut it > unless you are more specific. > Well, I got some of it on my own and told them, so they knew exactly what I was after. I just wanted some more (that I couldn't find), from areas which corroborate their claims. But anyhow, it's history, I am not interested in that particular data anymore. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |