Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jan Panteltje on 2 Dec 2009 07:19 On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:35:31 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <02e3b690-5085-4a76-85b8-0ec1b3f8bd4c(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: >I can't say that I've noticed any signs of Royal Dutch Shell >subsidised denialist propaganda - that oil company publicly claims to >believe in anthropogenic global warming, and in fact is behind the >prospective Dutch trial of CO2 sequestration under Barendrecht that is >so upsetting Jan Pateltje. Barendrecht does not bother me the least, I do not live n Barendrecht, just like Joerg does not live in Oregon. The idea of putting it under my house is something I do not like though. I did read today the the people in Barendrecht will oppose the plan, and I also did read the politician responsible saying that they will store it there anyway. I just wonder if that politician would accept to be beheaded if anything went wrong. Houses in Barendrecht will likely drop in price considerably. Why do you not move there?
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Dec 2009 09:08 On Dec 1, 9:36 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 28, 10:36 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Nov 28, 5:15 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: > > > > > Or just do an error-budget analysis. The AGW contribution alleged > > > > > from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A range of estimates from ~0.25 to > > > > > 1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered. (That wide an > > > > > uncertainty band is pretty pathetic on its face, isn't it?) <snipped a load of unspecific dancing around the point> http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/?p=204 > > > > gives a figure of 1.66 W/m², with a range between 1.49 and 1.83 W/m². The NOAAA web-site, which you snipped http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ doesn't give a specific figure, but does give a graph - Figure 3 - of the measured CO2 forcing rising with CO2 concentration, showing it to have reached 1.7 Watts per square metre. The introduction at the top of the web-page makes it clear that the uncertainty on this figure is around 10%, which matches the Colorado numbers. Your claim was "The AGW contribution alleged from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A range of estimates from ~0.25 to 1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered." You can't substantiate this claim, or tell us where you got it, and in fact it seems to be flat out wrong. Do tell us again how much you know about climate modelling, and about the excellent advice you can get from someone directly involved in the subject - we need a good laugh. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen>
From: John Larkin on 2 Dec 2009 10:03 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >The global warming hoax revealed: > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss > ><Quote from that article> >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material >for historians.' ><end quote> > >LOL. >Some science! > >And that in a leftist newspaper! > 537 posts in this thread so far, many over 400 lines, mostly written by people who aren't very good with electronics. Get a life, guys. You'll never be good climatologists. If you work at it, you may aspire to being passable circuit designers. John
From: Jim Thompson on 2 Dec 2009 10:51 On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:03:57 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>The global warming hoax revealed: >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss >> >><Quote from that article> >>This shows these are people willing to bend rules and >>go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer >>R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research >>on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material >>for historians.' >><end quote> >> >>LOL. >>Some science! >> >>And that in a leftist newspaper! >> > > >537 posts in this thread so far, many over 400 lines, mostly written >by people who aren't very good with electronics. > >Get a life, guys. You'll never be good climatologists. If you work at >it, you may aspire to being passable circuit designers. > >John I'm puzzled! Is there some orgasmic result from feeding trolls? If not, WHY do you keep doing it? ...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: John Fields on 2 Dec 2009 10:57
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:22:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 27, 2:44�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> >I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who >> >post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite >> >often post total nonsense. >> >> --- >> Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field >> surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? > >A subject on which you have posted a lot of nonsense. You did take >that joke seriously, as if there was some doubt that it was a joke, >and since then you have been wasting bandwidth trying to to claim that >my treating it as a joke meant that I didn't understand that it was >joke. > >One expects puppies to chase their own tails, but it is unusual to see >an adult so wound up in his own misconceptions. --- Indeed, and now that you've been shown that a solenoid won't work in the way you originally thought it did, you should be wagging your tail instead of chasing it. JF |