Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 1 Dec 2009 19:09 On Dec 1, 7:30 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > 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? The implication was that putting the e-mails in context revealed them to be saying something rather different from what the denialist commentators are claiming. Presumably the actual activites being discussed weren't - in reality - criminal. Ravinghorde will be heart- broken. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 19:10 On Nov 30, 7:36 pm, John Larkin wrote: > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >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. > > You can curve-fit random noise pretty well, too. The higher the order, > the better the fit, and the less predictive it will be. Yep. And that's essentially what you have when climate guys tweak the zillion factors in their models empirically, until they converge. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 19:20 On Nov 30, 7:57 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 30, 7:06 pm, dagmargoodb...(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: > > > 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. > > My cardiologist claims that my aortic valve isn't opening wide enough, > which means that my heart has to develop a blood pressure of 220/60 to > produce the 120/60 that one sees on the other side of the valve. > > High, and the cardiologist plans on having something done about it in > the next few months, but a long way short of of any incipient risk of > detonation. I even went to field-hockey practice earlier this evening, > though I didn't do a lot of running around. You'd best take good care of yourself then--otherwise we shills might just pull out all the stops and plaster the internet with Exxon- Mobil / Royal-Dutch propaganda in your absence. So there, that's something to live for! ;-) -- Best wishes, James Arthur
From: Bill Sloman on 1 Dec 2009 19:37 On Dec 1, 3:27 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:40:28 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(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. I understand it well enough. You had a solenoid and bunch of wires and you wanted to play with them. What I don't understand is why you think that you can get away with claiming that I said anything about a solenoid, when the Google Groups search engine makes it perfectly obvious that I didn't. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 19:43
On Dec 1, 1:35 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:13:59 -0800 (PST), 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. > > >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> O Lord I dread sussing and fishing that out. Maybe this HOWTO file extract will appease you: ======= begin quote ======= (from the GISS model) file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/climate/GISSmodelE1/modelE1_pub/doc/HOWTO.html) A: How to TUNE a specified ocean run (using U00ice/HRMAX) It is desirable to run a specified ocean model in such a way that it is in RADIATIVE BALANCE, i.e. that the net flux of energy into the ocean (which has no effect, since ocean data are specified) is zero if averaged over a whole year. One way to roughly achieve this goal is to pick the right values for U00ice/U00wtrX/HRMAX. These parameters influence the cloud formation where the temperature is below/above 0C and the cloud formation in the boundary layer respectively, and can therefore be used to change the radiative balance. Run the model for a year and find the annual mean net heating at the ground (GLOBAL: NET HEAT AT Z0, or OCEAN: NET HEAT Z0+RVR budget pages). That quantity can change from year to year within .5 W/m2. Increasing U00ice by .01 decreases the cloud cover and planetary albedo. Increasing U00wtrX to be larger than 1 reduces cloud cover in the low latitudes. HRMAX can vary between 200 and 1000 m. Increasing HRMAX increases the cloud cover in the boundary layer which has a warming effect. Note HRMAX is only affective if the do_BLU00 option is set (which is not be default). Rerun that year with the new values and hope that the annual mean net heating at the ground averages out to less than .3 W/m2 in absolute value over the next few years. Other obsolete ways to handle the rad. balance problem: Change the solar constant until rad. balance results (most people hate that way), change the solar irradiance into the ocean when running the Qflux model (using the old SRCOR parameter) offsetting the imbalance (advantage: no need to repeat the control run, disadvantage: Jim hated it, no longer part of the code). ======= begin quote ======= Now that's perfectly clear, reasonable documentation on how to tweak factors for clouds, solar irradiance, albedo, and the model's radiative balance into balance--I applaud that, and the public disclosure. But, so tuned, what is it that we're predicting? -- Cheers, James Arthur |