Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 1 Dec 2009 12:01 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:06:55 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:37:34 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: > [snip] >>>>> Indeed! I like to also point to a book (upon which I'm now quoted on >>>>> the backside proving his lack of good taste!) -- >>>>> >>>>> Ian Getreu's "Modeling the Bipolar Transistor" >>>>> >>>>> -- which is now finally again available as a Lulu reprint. >>>> Wonderful! >>> hehe. Now if the two people in the world who may care would just buy >>> a copy! >>> >> My wife would scold me if I got another historical book. A few years ago >> I vowed to clean house so I don't occupy all the hallway closets with my >> business stuff :-) >> >> Now would be time to market this to universities. I think that students >> wanting to head for chip design should read it. Although the era of the >> BJT is essentially over in many, many markets. > > Indeed! Though I already own a copy, I no longer do my own > modeling... the foundries provide everything I need. > > I haven't done a purely-BJT chip in probably 10 years. Now running > about 30% BiCMOS and 70% pure CMOS. > This is a problem for designers like me when we need space-rated stuff. Slim pickens these days, you can have chicken with noodles, noodles with chicken or chicken on top of noodles, that's pretty much it :-( > [snip all the proofs that government IS THE PROBLEM] >>>>>> History is very important, and quite well documented because the Romans >>>>>> were sort of perfectionists in this area. Archaeologists always came >>>>>> across as honest and modest folks, at let to me. So when they find >>>>>> evidence I usually believe them. And they did find evidence here, big time. >>>>> I think you are making too much out of far too little. But I don't >>>>> know what you see and perhaps you will be able to walk me through your >>>>> path so that I get it and agree with you. I already said a couple of >>>>> things bother me about the released letters and I've just today >>>>> admitted one of the general areas of that. None of it changes what >>>>> the knowledge I've gained in specific areas where I've spent my time. >>>>> Not in the least. >>>> Schnidljoch is just one example of many, of passes in the Alps that have >>>> been mostly or completely free of ice in the not too distant past (Roman >>>> era). There is proof of that and I have pointed that out, with link. You >>>> can actually go there and look at the stuff they found. Then it got >>>> colder and they became covered in thick ice, became glaciers, >>>> unpassable, uninhabitable. Just like large swaths of Greenland did. Now >>>> the ice begins to melt again and lots of scientists panic ;-) >>>> >>>> [...] >>> Well, I suppose I need you to inform me about all this. ;) >>> >> In a nutshell, this is the story of what happened (a lot of the more >> detailed write-ups are in German): >> >> http://www.oeschger.unibe.ch/about/press_coverage/article_de.html?ID=182 >> >> I can almost here some of the guys from East Anglia exclaim "Oh s..t! >> Why did they have to find this?" ;-) > > Our real problem now is that the American lamestream media are NOT > COVERING THIS. > That's why there is the Internet :-) And AFAIR Rush covered it, like usual with gusto. > Might I suggest that everyone cancel their newspaper subscriptions? > Tell them, as I did, "I don't PAY to be fed leftist weenie pablum". > The only reason why we still have our rather left-leaning local paper is that there ain't anything else. There is a small one that's much more to my political likings but a bit provincial for my taste. When semi-retiring some day I'll probably drop it (if it hasn't gone under by then anyway) and subscribe to the Wall Street Journal instead. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Jim Thompson on 1 Dec 2009 12:52 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:01:14 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote: [snip] > >> Might I suggest that everyone cancel their newspaper subscriptions? >> Tell them, as I did, "I don't PAY to be fed leftist weenie pablum". >> > >The only reason why we still have our rather left-leaning local paper is >that there ain't anything else. There is a small one that's much more to >my political likings but a bit provincial for my taste. > >When semi-retiring some day I'll probably drop it (if it hasn't gone >under by then anyway) and subscribe to the Wall Street Journal instead. Isn't that startling! I didn't expect the WSJ to leave the cheering section so quickly. ...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: Rich Grise on 1 Dec 2009 13:28 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:53:55 +0100, Uwe Hercksen wrote: > Jim Thompson schrieb: > >> Uninformed leftist loon. > > are you able to proof the "uninformed" in any way? Do you mean "prove"? When I proof it, I find that it's spelled correctly. ;-) But don't take JT too seriously - he's still a rabid Bushist, and even though he's an old fatass that wears Fred Mertz pants, he has an ego as big as Al Gore's. ;-) CHeers! Rich
From: Rich Grise on 1 Dec 2009 13:30 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:19:59 -0800, Joerg wrote: > Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> Anyway, yes I have a problem with this kind of frank comment. But I saw >> the fuller context. I'd like to know if you went to the actual >> exchanges, yourself, or if all you've done is read some angry summary >> and got angry yourself without taking _your_ time to see for yourself. >> > Unless you or someone else proves that these emails were faked or pulled > out of some hat then this is very serious. And I hope the two congressmen > who want to have this investigated prevail with their efforts. The people > of this world have a right to get to the ground of this. Does putting it "in context" make it any less criminal? Thanks, Rich
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 14:12
On Nov 28, 8:51 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2:13 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: > > > > > 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. > > Since I included the date and time and source of your post in my > response to it, > > "On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com" > > I'm tolerably confident that I wasn't responding to anybody else, and > yet there doesn't seem to be a corrseponding post in the archive that > I can get at. I can't explain your mistake, nor do I care. I don't remember saying climate models diverge after a fortnight, nor can I imagine saying that because I know it isn't true. If I did make such a mistake, it'd be all over the internet in archives and on hard drives everywhere. Have at it. I make no attempt to stay abreast of the latest modeling, there's no need, any more than I need to follow and understand every nuanced detail of divining rod construction or voodoo-doll design. They don't matter. I know from my own understanding that today's modeling can't possibly predict over the timespans climastrologists claim, and I have, independently, the word of a worker in the field to confirm it. As far as I'm concerned, I won't bother taking long-term forecasts from models (or divining rods) seriously until they prove themselves. <snip> > > > > As a second measure of global climate models (GCM), we know from > > > > actual life how poorly the models predict El Nino, or hurricanes, or > > > > other near-term phenomena that depend on accurate understanding of > > > > real temperature, deep ocean currents, or other quantities critical to > > > > long-term projections (if those are even possible), but which are not > > > > known well enough to make even short-term predictions. > > > > As a 3rd measure of GCM, before you graced s.e.d. with your inquiries, > > > > I related that I got that same info (above) from one of the persons > > > > *responsible* for one of the main climate models. That person said > > > > GCM are important and useful tools in understanding climate, and for > > > > making predictions as far as several weeks into the future. Beyond > > > > that, says (s)he, the models quickly diverge uselessly from reality.. > > > > James Arthur doesn't know the difference between a global climate > > > model, which predicts over a span of year and a global weather model > > > which falls to pieces in about two weeks. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect > > > >http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm > > > I know the difference. But suppose I didn't--it still doesn't > > matter. Cast aside your irrelevant bile and consider: we're in a 10- > > year cooling trend. I don't remember any stern warnings from > > climastrologists this was imminent, do you? Quite the opposite. But > > your memory is better than mine--you remember things that didn't even > > happen. Maybe you could cite those warnings for us. > > > Or is 10 years "just weather," and not climate? > > In this context it is a lot closer to weather than climate. > > If you were anything like as au fait with the current state of climate > modelling as you claim, you'd be aware that the current explantation > of the relatively slow warming over the past decade involves the > influence of the North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which is > still relatively poorly understood, though we are now starting to get > useful information from the Argo program (which you'd know all about > if you were as well-informed as you like to pretend). I don't claim to be current on this, any more than I keep pace with Tom Cruise's progress to the next level of Thetan-hood. But, above you've just offered a story, not a theory, not an explanation, not something quantified, tested, or proved. Even so, if the NAMDO--which affects temperatures and weather and clouds--isn't understood, as you concede, how did those climate models accurately project and integrate the effects of those clouds over all that simulated time? If the GCM doesn't know how many, how reflective, and how widespread the clouds are, how can it compute and integrate the solar input to calculate total warming? It can't. It's bogus. -- Cheers, James Arthur |