The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: bill.sloman on 26 Nov 2008 19:09 On 26 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:43:36 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 26 nov, 06:57, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:15:34 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> > On 25 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:42:55 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> >> > On 25 nov, 17:50, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:14:09 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: > >> >> >> > On 25 nov, 09:47, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> >> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > <snip> > > >> > The issues that you seem to be wanting to raise are the heat transfer > >> > through the lower atmosphere by convection and by evaporation and > >> > condensation, which are interesting enough - here's the abstract of a > >> > 1960 paper on the subject > > >> >http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113519112/abstract?CRETRY=... > > >> > but you'd need to have access to a univerity libary to be able to read > >> > the full paper (and it's numerous successors) for nothing. > > >> For a 48 year old paper? Yeah, right. > > > It's successors might be more interesting - the computers available in > > 1960 weren't all that impressive. I wrote my first program in 1965 for > > Melbourne University's IBM 7040/44 which had 32k of 36bit words of core > > memory, and relied on magnetic tape for mass storage, and cost the > > university a million dollars. > > >> You don't show much promise. All you seem to be able to do is posture, > >> bluff, and hope nobody calls you on it. Can you explain as I asked > >> above or not? > > >> I'm betting not. > > > In theory, I could produce an explanation - I did elementary versions of > > this sort of modelling for my Ph.D. project back in the late 1960's, so it > > ought to be a practicable project. > > > It certainly wouldn't be a practical project, and there's no way in which > > I would waste my time re-inventing the wheel, when the climatologists have > > been working on exactly that project for the last forty-odd years. > > > The IPCC exists to provide exactly that kind of explanation, and they got > > to share a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore precisely because the Nobel > > Prize committe thought that they had made a good job of it. > > > If you seriously thought that it would be worth my time getting into the > > public education business in competition with them, you'd have to be as > > far out of touch with reality as Jim Thompson and Eeyore. That requires > > remarkably extensive ignorance, so my betting is that you are more likely > > to be trying to score some kind of recherché debating point. > > Actually, I was trying to see if you had anything to offer to help me > understand why no one can explain what seems to be some basic > contradictions in the AGW belief system. > As often occurs, I was over > optimistic. Since you didn't bother to mention what these contradictions are, we can presume that this is the usual dumb debating ploy. <snipped the rest of the rubbish> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Michael A. Terrell on 26 Nov 2008 19:41 Jim Thompson wrote: > > Wouldn't it be amusing to track down and post some of Slowman's > "published cited scientific papers in refereed journals" ?:-) > > Talk about "pig-ignorant"! There is no need to insult pigs. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
From: Bill Ward on 26 Nov 2008 20:31 On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:09:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 26 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:43:36 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> > On 26 nov, 06:57, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:15:34 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> > On 25 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:42:55 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> >> > On 25 nov, 17:50, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:14:09 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> >> >> > On 25 nov, 09:47, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> > <snip> >> >> >> > The issues that you seem to be wanting to raise are the heat >> >> > transfer through the lower atmosphere by convection and by >> >> > evaporation and condensation, which are interesting enough - here's >> >> > the abstract of a 1960 paper on the subject >> >> >> >http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113519112/abstract?CRETRY=... >> >> >> > but you'd need to have access to a univerity libary to be able to >> >> > read the full paper (and it's numerous successors) for nothing. >> >> >> For a 48 year old paper? Yeah, right. >> >> > It's successors might be more interesting - the computers available in >> > 1960 weren't all that impressive. I wrote my first program in 1965 for >> > Melbourne University's IBM 7040/44 which had 32k of 36bit words of >> > core memory, and relied on magnetic tape for mass storage, and cost >> > the university a million dollars. >> >> >> You don't show much promise. All you seem to be able to do is >> >> posture, bluff, and hope nobody calls you on it. Can you explain as >> >> I asked above or not? >> >> >> I'm betting not. >> >> > In theory, I could produce an explanation - I did elementary versions >> > of this sort of modelling for my Ph.D. project back in the late >> > 1960's, so it ought to be a practicable project. >> >> > It certainly wouldn't be a practical project, and there's no way in >> > which I would waste my time re-inventing the wheel, when the >> > climatologists have been working on exactly that project for the last >> > forty-odd years. >> >> > The IPCC exists to provide exactly that kind of explanation, and they >> > got to share a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore precisely because the >> > Nobel Prize committe thought that they had made a good job of it. >> >> > If you seriously thought that it would be worth my time getting into >> > the public education business in competition with them, you'd have to >> > be as far out of touch with reality as Jim Thompson and Eeyore. That >> > requires remarkably extensive ignorance, so my betting is that you are >> > more likely to be trying to score some kind of recherché debating >> > point. >> >> Actually, I was trying to see if you had anything to offer to help me >> understand why no one can explain what seems to be some basic >> contradictions in the AGW belief system. >> As often occurs, I was over >> optimistic. > > Since you didn't bother to mention what these contradictions are, we can > presume that this is the usual dumb debating ploy. You snipped that earlier in the thread, apparently your ploy to avoid a rational discussion. Here, I'll repost it: <begin repost> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:50:37 -0800 [...] Now explain in your own words how traces of CO2 can affect Earth's surface temperatures in the presence of a large excess of water. Include the effects of latent heat convection, the near adiabatic lapse rate through the troposphere, and the observation that the effective radiating altitude and cloud tops are near each other. Can you do that, or are you just blowing smoke? <end repost> At this point, you're not only blowing smoke, you're looking a bit dishonest with your snipping, then complaining.
From: Jamie on 26 Nov 2008 20:31 Bill Ward wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:09:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > >>On 26 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:43:36 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >>> >>>>On 26 nov, 06:57, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:15:34 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On 25 nov, 22:31, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:42:55 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On 25 nov, 17:50, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:14:09 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On 25 nov, 09:47, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>bill.slo...(a)ieee.org � wrote: >>> >>>><snip> >>> >>>>>>The issues that you seem to be wanting to raise are the heat >>>>>>transfer through the lower atmosphere by convection and by >>>>>>evaporation and condensation, which are interesting enough - here's >>>>>>the abstract of a 1960 paper on the subject >>> >>>>>>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113519112/abstract?CRETRY=... >>> >>>>>>but you'd need to have access to a univerity libary to be able to >>>>>>read the full paper (and it's numerous successors) for nothing. >>> >>>>>For a 48 year old paper? � Yeah, right. >>> >>>>It's successors might be more interesting - the computers available in >>>>1960 weren't all that impressive. I wrote my first program in 1965 for >>>>Melbourne University's IBM 7040/44 which had 32k of 36bit words of >>>>core memory, and relied on magnetic tape for mass storage, and cost >>>>the university a million dollars. >>> >>>>>You don't show much promise. � All you seem to be able to do is >>>>>posture, bluff, and hope nobody calls you on it. � Can you explain as >>>>>I asked above or not? >>> >>>>>I'm betting not. >>> >>>>In theory, I could produce an explanation - I did elementary versions >>>>of this sort of modelling for my Ph.D. project back in the late >>>>1960's, so it ought to be a practicable project. >>> >>>>It certainly wouldn't be a practical project, and there's no way in >>>>which I would waste my time re-inventing the wheel, when the >>>>climatologists have been working on exactly that project for the last >>>>forty-odd years. >>> >>>>The IPCC exists to provide exactly that kind of explanation, and they >>>>got to share a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore precisely because the >>>>Nobel Prize committe thought that they had made a good job of it. >>> >>>>If you seriously thought that it would be worth my time getting into >>>>the public education business in competition with them, you'd have to >>>>be as far out of touch with reality as Jim Thompson and Eeyore. That >>>>requires remarkably extensive ignorance, so my betting is that you are >>>>more likely to be trying to score some kind of recherché debating >>>>point. >>> >>>Actually, I was trying to see if you had anything to offer to help me >>>understand why no one can explain what seems to be some basic >>>contradictions in the AGW belief system. >>>� As often occurs, I was over >>>optimistic. >> >>Since you didn't bother to mention what these contradictions are, we can >>presume that this is the usual dumb debating ploy. > > > You snipped that earlier in the thread, apparently your ploy to avoid a > rational discussion. > > Here, I'll repost it: > > <begin repost> > > Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:50:37 -0800 > > [...] > > Now explain in your own words how traces of CO2 can affect Earth's surface > temperatures in the presence of a large excess of water. Include the > effects of latent heat convection, the near adiabatic lapse rate through > the troposphere, and the observation that the effective radiating altitude > and cloud tops are near each other. > > Can you do that, or are you just blowing smoke? > > <end repost> > > At this point, you're not only blowing smoke, you're looking a bit > dishonest with your snipping, then complaining. > > What do you expect? He voted for Obama! http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"
From: bill.sloman on 26 Nov 2008 20:52
On 26 nov, 22:33, James Arthur <bogusabd...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > DeadFrog wrote: > > > "James Arthur" wrote in message > >news:CMhXk.1310$QX3.999(a)nwrddc02.gnilink.net... > >> DeadFrog wrote: > > >>> "James Arthur" wrote in message > >>>news:%6hXk.1301$QX3.963(a)nwrddc02.gnilink.net... > >>>> Whata Fool wrote: > >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >>>>>>> You should note that the infra-red spectra of both carbon dioxide > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> water vapour absorb are line spectra, and the lines aren't all that > >>>>>>> wide (though this does depend on atmopsheric pressure and > >>>>>>> temperature > >>>>>>> - search on "pressure broadening") and they don't overlap to any > >>>>>>> great > >>>>>>> extent, which allows both gases to make independent contributions to > >>>>>>> the greenhouse effect. > > >>>>> Sloman resumes the AGW discussion of spectra, with no numbers > >>>>> showing flux rates. Water vapor has some pretty wide bands, CO2 > >>>>> much more narrow. > > >>>> Bill's arguments are qualitative. > > >>>> As they must be. So far, AGW is uncomputable, > >>>> unpredictable, unverifiable. > > >>>> Hence the controversy. > > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> James Arthur > > >>> You must have been asleep for the last decade or so. > > >> No, I just understand a bit about the scale of the > >> problem understanding something so vast, of gathering > >> the necessary data, and the modeling challenges. > > >> Models are verified by making predictions, then checking > >> against reality. In science theories are checked by > >> experiment. But that hasn't been done for AGW. > > >> (What facet of AGW have computer models successfully > >> predicted? In advance, that is.) > > >> Cheers, > >> James Arthur > > >> ~~~~~~ > >> It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't > >> matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with > >> experiment, it's WRONG. --Richard Feynman > > > "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections" > > Rahmstorf et al, Science, Vol 316, 4 May 2007. > > That paper says warming and sea-level rise have been much > faster than projected, and CO2 increase has been slower. > > Which underscores my point: if this were all understood, > if the models were true-to-life, if climate were computable > with current models, these gross discrepancies wouldn't > (and couldn't) exist. Not true. All computer models are simplifications of reality. The system we need to model for AGW is big, complicated and involves lots of fine detail. We can model the gross features of anthropogenic global warming, but we can't do it all that accurately. > If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG. Computer models aren't perfect. They aren't wrong if they merely produce reasonable approximations to reality. > The paper then offers up a number of /possible/ explanations > as to why that might be, first being "intrinsic variability," > next being forcings other than CO2. > > /Possible/, of course, means they don't know. That's not > a criticism, just a fact. > > Again, if it were science, they would measure, test, > and /know/. To the extent that it is possible to know. Some systems are less easy to predict and model than others. >And the fact that they don't know doesn't mean they're > wrong, it just means they don't know. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |