Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 19:52 On Dec 1, 3:08 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:12:09 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote: > > > 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. > > Everybody knows Garbage In, Garbage Out. > > Therefore, garbage into a garbage "model" yields Garbage Squared. ;-) And here I thought you were going to say GI==> GM ==>"Policy" ! -- Grins, James Arthur
From: Bill Sloman on 1 Dec 2009 19:54 On Dec 1, 5:16 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:59:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >The deceit is yours. You say that I claimed that one could > > >" extract energy from a varying magnetic field > >surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? " > > >but this was - in fact - your misunderstanding of what I actually said <snipped an extract from one of John's postings on the subject, plus commentary about the way he thought that I should have reacted> You still don't seem to be quoting anything that I posted. Your "evidence" seems to consist of your theory about why I wasn't taking you seriously, which doesn't seem to include the possibility that I thought that you were getting excited - in the usual way - about a non-issue. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 1 Dec 2009 20:01 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:35:15 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >I know it is. But is also has been a few thousand years ago. Back then >many people were smarter than today. For example, I read about a French >architect who loudly said that building at the place where New Orleans >now is was a bad idea. And he gave the reasons. Nobody listened ... The story popular in New Orleans is that the Indians gave the land to Bienville because it was so hot, wet, and full of mosquitoes that they didn't want it. John
From: Bill Sloman on 1 Dec 2009 20:14 On Dec 2, 12:15 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 29, 7:49 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Nov 28, 1:27 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > Malcolm Moore wrote: > > > > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > >But Jan and I took it as a wrong answer to Jan's claim, that the very > > > > >infrastructure we're using was built on fossil fuel. > > > Since Jan's claim - that the infrastructure we now use was built with > > energy derived by burning fossil carbon - has zero relevance to the > > question of whether we should continue to generate the bulk of our > > energy by burning fossil fuel - I was not all that interested in > > addressing Jan's claim. > > > > > There was no answer because there was no question. Bill made a correct > > > > claim in response to Jan's correct claim. > > > > And there we have it. > > > > Stating a new, unrelated fact is not a response, that's talking past > > > someone. If Bill meant his claim as a related response, it was > > > wrong. If he meant it as a new, interesting fact, it was non- > > > responsive. > > > > Bill explains later that he meant it as a response, which is how I > > > treated it. > > > > Either way, it leaves a misleading notion w.r.t. the extent of > > > France's independence from fossil fuels. > > > Which is totally irrelevant to the important question, which is where > > we can and should get our energy in the future. > > It is relevant in showing that even France, despite its advanced use > of nuclear power, is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. IOW, > ditching carbon ain't all that easy. No-one ever said that it did. It is still both possible and necessary. > > > I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil > > > fuels. Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal. > > <snip> > > > Your own approach is less extravagant - you don't actively deny > > anthropogenic global warming, but claim that its progression is too > > unpredictable to justify any serious investment in cutting down our > > CO2 emissions. > > I don't think fossil fuels is the right boogeyman. I'm more concerned > about mankind and the earth as a whole. > > Energy improves peoples' lives. I'd rather Amazonian natives trying > to improve their lot burn oil than rainforest, wouldn't you? And > since oil is so much more efficient than burning wood, burning oil > saves CO2 too, if that matters. Meaning that it is easier to burn oil efficiently than it is to burn wood efficiently? And the Amazon natives can have energy from solar power plants, hydro- electric power plants and windmills, just like everybody else - the capital cost per kilowatt is higher than it is for burning oil, but the capital cost of losing the Amazon rainforest balances this out, with a bit to spare. > > You don't actually specify how precise a prediction would be needed to > > justify such an investment, but since you seem to think that the past > > ten years of relatively limited warming should have been predicted > > back in the 1990's, you do seem to think that a precison of a tenth of > > a degree or so is necessary, which isn't actually a rational > > requirement. > > No, I just point to the current anomaly as evidence the models don't > reflect reality. Current models, if accurate, would've shown the > dip. Extrapolating bad results ad infinitum into the future is just > plain wacky. If you knew as much about computer models as you claim, you'd be aware that all computer models simulate simplifications of reality, rather than reflecting reality. The models you are complaining about don't include the Multidecadal North Atlantic Oscillation, so their failure to model its effects doesn't make them bad models, merely crude models. They are designed to simulate the crude effects of letting the CO2 level in the atmosphere get up to 500 or 600ppm, and even a very crude model can tell you that this is a very bad idea. > I do think we should conserve because it's good for the planet, good > for the economy, and it plain makes sense on its own merits. Zero > technical risk, for the most part, easily and quickly deployed. But not good enough to slow down anthropogenic global warming. > I used 166KWHr (9 milliGores) last month. How about you? I haven't a clue. Since I'm in no position to do anything about it - we did what little we could to minimise our gas bills when we moved into our current house back in 1993 - I'm not going to waste my time finding out. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 1 Dec 2009 20:27
On Dec 2, 12:47 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote: > > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > >I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil > > >fuels. Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal. > > > So you should have stated that rather than offering a "fact check." > > Maybe. But Bill later said he meant France as an example of > independence from fossil fuels. Huh? I don't remember saying that. The point was that France gets a a substantial proportion of its energy from nuclear power stations, while Jan seemed to be saying that everything is powered by burning fossil carbon. > So, a fact check as to the extent > that independence was entirely appropriate. Except that it wasn't a fact check at all, but the usual debating trick of framing things to suit your own point of view, delivered with the usual sanctimonious bombast. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |