Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Dec 2009 06:32 On Dec 1, 10:44 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 28, 11:18 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Nov 28, 2:44 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: > > > > > Of course you can see that easily, independently, if you just look at > > > > > the models, see how incomplete they are, how rudimentary our > > > > > understanding of critical processes is, how loose the parameters are, > > > > > how many arbitrary and unexplained factors they apply, and so forth. > > > > > Not having spent years working on the models, I doubt very much that I > > > > could see anything of the sort. I had enough trouble with the much > > > > simpler simulation I wrote in 1968 to model the chemical reaction in > > > > the reaction cell I used in my Ph.D. work. > > > > > If James Arthur can produce this model which he claims to know so much > > > > about we could - of course - test this hypothesis, but since neither > > > > of us has spent our professional careers improving climate models our > > > > opinions are unlikely to be even useful, let alone decisive. > > > > So, your argument is that you're a poor judge of source code when you > > > see it, and that it's all over your head anyhow. And, you can say > > > this without reading the code, or trying to see if it makes sense. > > > Therefore, the code is reliable. > > > No. You want me to have blind faith in your judgement of the > > reliablity of the code. Granting your memory and credibility problems, > > even you should be able to understand that this might not be evidnece > > of sound judgement. > > > > You argue from faith: blind faith, sight unseen, in people you don't > > > know, their measurements, their adjustments, their understanding of > > > the processes, their integrity, and their code. All these are > > > necessary. > > > In a large number of different people who are publishing comparing the > > results they get from a range of different models. This sort of > > process seems to work well in a lot of different areas of science, and > > there doesn't seem to be any reason to suppose that it isn't working > > in climatorlogy. > > > > I've seen the code I critique; you say it's pure, though you've never > > > looked. That's faith. > > > I didn't say ot was pure. I said I didn't trust your judgement. > > Then read it yourself you goof. Don't defend what you haven't seen to > someone who has. To someone who claims he has. Your 22nd November pratfall suggests that your own evaluation of your expertise isn't all that realistic. > <snip posting conspiracy theory> The section snipped seems to have been " > I argue from knowledge, confirmed and supported by an expert with > impeccable recommendations from someone I know, trust, and respect. And your 22nd November report of what they had said was fatuous nonsense. There are several possible explanations for this, and none of them leave you with any kind of credibility. " I don't see any conspiracy theory here, but a reference to a post where your claimed expertise seems to have deseted you. > > > > The models aren't precise, and they aren't designed to to produce > > > > accurate predictions over periods of a few years. They failed to > > > > predict the current slowing in the rate of global warming because > > > > didn't allow for the movement in the ocean circulation that the Argo > > > > project is only now beginning to telling us about. > > > > You'll notice that I pointed that shortcoming out years ago, here? > > > In another post which has mysteriously vanished from the archives? > > Okay, let's just address that, shall we? > > In the following post, for example, I said that you can't model > climate without ocean currents, and I explained weather models to you, > Bill: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thre... > ===== Quote ===== > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > From: James Arthur <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> > Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:41:41 -0700 > Local: Fri, Aug 24 2007 12:41 pm > Subject: Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst? > > Bill Slomanwrote: > > James Arthur wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Currents move heat. You can't predict where a current will wind up > > > unless you can predict the other currents it will interact with. To > > > predict those you need to know their initial state. > > > If you can't predict the heat flows, you can't predict the climate. > > We know that you can't predict the weather that way, let alone the > > climate. > > Incorrect. Weather *is* predicted that way: intial conditions input > into a finite element analysis (FEA) modelling program. > > The results are surprisingly good these days, but the farther you > project the results, the greater the model diverges from reality.[...] > > > The equations you have to solve to do detailed predictions are too > > sensitive to intial conditions for it to be possible to predict the > > weather more than four or five days in advance. > > AIUI, weather can be predicted decently well as much as two weeks(?) > in advance by the above method.[...] > > === <snip>=== > > > In order to predict the climate, you have to lose the fine detail and > > set up lumped approximations that capture the average behaviour of the > > system - it isn't precise or exact, but it does give you a better > > understanding of the system than does throwing your hands up in the > > air and denying that any kind of prediction is possible. > > That would be kind of useless, wouldn't it? How do you propose to > know the climate without knowing the course and temperature of the > Gulf Stream, that huge moderating influence to the U.K.'s (and > Europe's?) weather? > > Surely we've not forgotten the large affect El Niño has on our > weather? Or the jet stream, for that matter. How can one make claims > about the future climate without knowing these? > > And how can you project these surface effects without knowing the deep > ocean currents? > ===== End quote ===== > > Quod erat demonstrandum. Congratulations. You've established that you then knew that the current generation of climate models represent a simplified model of the world. What you don't seem to realise is that all computer models are simplified models, and that some are more simplified than others Despite your scepticism, one can make broad-brush predictions about the climate without knowing the exact path that the ocean currents follow from the equator to the poles. We've got a tolerably good idea of how much heat has to be moved, and that can be handled as a lumped approximation. Obviously, this loses you the bobbles on the on the warming curve that correspond to the El Nino and La Nina alternation, and the similar - if slower - alternation in the North Altlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, but these are oscillations and cycle back to repeat themselves over the years, while the CO2 level just keeps on going up. I'm not saying that a more detailed model capturing more of the observations wouldn't be better, but computer based simulation always depends on manipulating a simplified model of reality, and their usefulness - in this context - doesn't lie in exactly predicting what the climate will look like next year, but rather roughly what it would look like in a century. Effectively you are asking for a weather prediction program, when you should know that such programs break down due to the butterfly effect with a fortnight, and you are ignoring the techniques used to immunise climate prediction programs agains the butterfly effect, as well as neglecting the obvious point that the current generation of climate models are aimed at finding out how difficult we are going to make life for our children (or nieces and nephews) and their children and are thus sub-optimal for predicting next years weather. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jan Panteltje on 2 Dec 2009 07:01 On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:27:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <6a65fb45-1d30-40e4-a3ad-88c318eb0f31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: >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. I never said that, and I was the one who made the case for nuclear power. You are starting to be a twising lier, just like your fellow warmists.
From: Jan Panteltje on 2 Dec 2009 07:03 On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:20:20 -0800 (PST)) it happened dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote in <74a70b20-c170-42ce-a563-305c1d386eb5(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>: >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! ;-) I think these days they use used oil pipes for fixing arteries. I think Cheney has some installed too.
From: Jan Panteltje on 2 Dec 2009 07:11 In a cold arctic snowstorm because of AGW fanatics farting, Bill Sloman puffed: >On Dec 1, 4:52�pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Dec 2009 07:03:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Slo= >man >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in >> <783e8bc3-404a-4357-9a3e-48202ba23...(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >the causes of the ice ages leads directly to the conclusion that ther= >e >> >> >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 that noise! >> >> >One wonders why Jan thinks that. >> >> Look, even specialised scientists working years on that issue cannot agre= >>e it is above noise level. >And where do they say that? I posted some links recently in reply to your rantings, try reading those. > >> Only Bill Sloman thinks so, and some other AGW fanatics. > >Describing the IPCC as AGW fanatics does seem to be a popular sport >amongst lunatic denialists, but even George W. Bush didn't dare go >that far. > >> How many sigma do you have proof of? > >The IPCC figure is 0.74�C [0.56�C to 0.92�C] where the limits are >presumably +/- 2.5 sigma, so the 0.74 warming in the last century is >about four standard deviations. >> from non cooked data? > >Anybody can claim that data has been cooked, but nobody has proved it, >nor shown any sign of coming close to proving that anybody has >"cooked" the relevant data. An other University professor stepped down today, article NYtimes.com, that person is under investigation. Guess why? >> Nobody knows right? > >Wrong. Sorry, I forgot you :-) >> But we *do* know ice ages came and went, without us helping. > >And now we know how. > >> Ice ages will keep coming, and will keep going. > >Actually, they won't. They started up about 2.58 million years ago, >and the current anthropogenic global warming has already been enough >to ensure that the next ice age won't arrive until after we've gone >extinct. You are not doing science here, merely advocating your AGW religious beliefs!
From: Jan Panteltje on 2 Dec 2009 07:13
On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:12:31 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <acd87db9-5dfb-4d53-83a7-71404d2f0c9a(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: >On Dec 1, 12:32�pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:42:42 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl= >oman >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in >> <7139b36e-0c66-44fa-9532-02a046bf8...(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? > >I can't say that I have noticed anything of the sort. School children >and pop-stars might say things like that, but I don't have any contact >with Dutch school children, and don't read the kinds of papers that >report what pop-stars have to say. > >Can you point to an example of this kind of program? > >Granting your capacity to extract "general impressions" that don't >have much to do with reality, I'd like better evidence than your >"general impression". You should folow politics a bit closer. |