For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
Jim Thompson
"Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | 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 |
I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
WangoTango
The-Enve...@My-Web-Site.com says...
> For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
>
> http://www.chuckroger.com/
>
> "Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
>
> ...Jim Thompson
>
"Weather and climate are two different things."
One is right now and the other is a trend.
How can we tell if this weather is part of a trend or not?
Raveninghorde
I'll answer for Bill. You're dumb.
A trend is any period of supposed rising temperature, an anomaly is
any period of decreasing temperature.
1998 is the warmest year with a strong El Nino this proves it's a
rising trend. However we must ingore last year as it was a La Nina
year and gave an embarrising drop in temperature. The Met Office
forecast a near record year for 2008 last January. However La Nina
means it must be ignored (see Met Office website).
The basic data is crap but as that's how they did it in 1870 it's good
enough for 2008 because climatologists use it to prove global warming.
John Larkin
| | |\ |
weather----------| |-----+------| >|-------------+------------climate
| | | |/ | |
| |
| |
----- -----
^ -----
/ \ |
----- |
| |
| |
| |
gnd gnd
John
Bill Sloman
"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
news:jmn9m4l5972r6iqfv...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:34:12 -0500, WangoTango
> <asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <vlf9m4541jlgigdh8...@4ax.com>, To-Email-Use-
>>The-Enve...@My-Web-Site.com says...
>>> For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
>>>
>>> http://www.chuckroger.com/
>>>
>>> "Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>
>>I already know the response :
>>
>>"Weather and climate are two different things."
>>
>>One is right now and the other is a trend.
>>
>>How can we tell if this weather is part of a trend or not?
>>
>
> I'll answer for Bill. You're dumb.
>
> A trend is any period of supposed rising temperature, an anomaly is
> any period of decreasing temperature.
No, that's Eeyore line (and it's crap)
My liine is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
The longer version is that there has always been short term noise on
the year-on-year temperature figures, and you will have to wait a bit before
you can convincingly claim that the current slow-down in the warming
trend represents a break from the warming trend over the last century.
> 1998 is the warmest year with a strong El Nino this proves it's a
> rising trend. However we must ingore last year as it was a La Nina
> year and gave an embarrassing drop in temperature. The Met Office
> forecast a near record year for 2008 last January. However La Nina
> means it must be ignored (see Met Office website).
>
> The basic data is crap but as that's how they did it in 1870 it's good
> enough for 2008 because climatologists use it to prove global warming.
Ravinghorde's understanding is crap, but since he's as convinced of his own
genius as Eeyore, it's kind of difficult to get this across to him.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
O wise one, please let us know the correct duration for a trend.
>
>> 1998 is the warmest year with a strong El Nino this proves it's a
>> rising trend. However we must ingore last year as it was a La Nina
>> year and gave an embarrassing drop in temperature. The Met Office
>> forecast a near record year for 2008 last January. However La Nina
>> means it must be ignored (see Met Office website).
>>
>> The basic data is crap but as that's how they did it in 1870 it's good
>> enough for 2008 because climatologists use it to prove global warming.
>
>Ravinghorde's understanding is crap, but since he's as convinced of his own
>genius as Eeyore, it's kind of difficult to get this across to him.
So the Met Office forecast a 14.37C fro 2008 with a claimed mean error
of 0.07C, allowing for La Nina. Please remind me of the actual
outcome.
Joerg
ROFL! Made my day :-)
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
James Arthur
Improved model:
V+
-+-
|
+------+-------------+-----+---------.
| | | | |
| | R3 | |
R1 | | | |
| | LED --- R4 |
| |/ <~~\ / | |
C1 +----| Q2 --- | |
| |>. "GAME | | |<'
| | |<' | OVER" +-----+--R5---| Q4
weather-----| |--------| Q1 | | |\
| | |\ | | |
| | |/ |
| +-------+---| Q3 |
V+|--R2--+ | | |>. |
| ----- | | |
--- ----- | gnd |
D1 \ / | C2 | |
--- | +----------R6---------'
| gnd |
| |
gnd '------------------> climate
James Arthur
Charles
It makes no sense to argue this point when so many (here) have economic and
life-style concerns that overrule any inate intelligence that might be
lurking in their reptillian brains.
They simply don't give a damn about future generations and the dismal legacy
that we are currently generating.
Charles
"Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gk3cbo$hkv$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> The staunch denialists and their synchophants reign here.
should be sycophants (brown-nosers)
Bill Sloman
"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
Here's a clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
If you look closely, you will see that it shows not only the year on year
fluctuations, but also the five year averages, which are a lot closer to
monotonic, but still show peaks and valley's. There last fews years do show
a short term decline, but these have showed up in pretty much every decade
since 1850, so it seems a little premature to claim this decline is a trend
breaker when none of the previous negative excursions were. The sun may not
come up tomorrow morning, but so far nobody would have lost money betting
that it would
> So the Met Office forecast a 14.37C fro 2008 with a claimed mean error
> of 0.07C, allowing for La Nina. Please remind me of the actual
> outcome.
Seems to have been 14.3C - just 0.07C below the prediction. If the 0.07C is
the expected root mean square error, the original claim would have been that
there was a roughly 65% chance that the temperature would fall in the range
14.3C to 14.44C and a 95% chance that it would fall in the range 14.23C to
14.51C.
What are you getting excited about?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bule...@columbus.rr.com
Site.com> wrote:
> For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
>
> http://www.chuckroger.com/
>
> "Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
>
> ...Jim Thompson
I'll bet that 1 million years ago, the liberal cavemen were telling
all the cavemen that if they need to stop eating meat and go
vegetarian, or else the sun would burn them all up.
Fortunately, those cavemen killed off all those liberals cavmen, and
have kept humanity stupid proof for almost 100 years. They missed one
or two apparently, becuase the gene pool has been noticabley poluted
again.
Jim Thompson
Jasen Betts
>
> O wise one, please let us know the correct duration for a trend.
>
a trend for prediction sholuld be measured over a significant
multiple of the period of interest.
Thus if you're interested in predicting the temperature in two hours time
five minute averages taken over the last 48 hours would probably give a good
indication what to expect.
Raveninghorde
Agreed.
So how many years does it take to know the trend in global
temperature?
Raveninghorde
Thank you for your well argued contribution.
Sycophants as opposed to Psycho fanatic AGW believers?
Jasen Betts
which trend?
bill....@ieee.org
> On Jan 7, 9:41 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
>
> Site.com> wrote:
> > For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
>
> >http://www.chuckroger.com/
>
> > "Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
>
> > ...Jim Thompson
>
> I'll bet that 1 million years ago, the liberal cavemen were telling
> vegetarian, or else the sun would burn them all up.
>
> have kept humanity stupid proof for almost 100 years. They missed one
> again.
Buleg's grasp of human evolution is as weak as his grasp of spelling
and
grammar - there are five corrections in the text above.
There weren't any cavemen around a million years ago - as far as is
known,
our ancestral species didn't have any marked preference for living in
caves.
Anatomically modern humans evolved more recently - genetic research
"has placed the origin of all modern humans at between 140,000 and
290,000 years ago"
http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_sap.htm
Behaviourly modern humans don't seem to shown up before 50,000 years
ago, and silly ideas about diet do seem unlikely to have preceded
language.
Some silly ideas about diet - the Jewish orthodox tradition comes to
mind -
do seem to have survived despite being maladaptive, so Buleg's
scenario
does seem unlikely.
Buleg's opinions about global warming are similarly maladaptive, and
while
we could hope - on evolutionary grounds - that some irritable liberal
might
bash out his defective brains, in fact we'll have to rely on the
female
preference for intelligent mates to filter his defective contribution
out of
the gene pool.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
You mean the media got it wrong in the movie 1 million years BC with
Rachel Welch?
Jim Thompson
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:48:07 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
>>On 8 jan, 02:20, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 7, 9:41 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
>>>
>>> Site.com> wrote:
>>> > For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
>>>
>>> >http://www.chuckroger.com/
>>>
>>> > "Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
>>>
>>> > ...Jim Thompson
>>>
>>> I'll bet that 1 million years ago, the liberal cavemen were telling
>>> all the cavemen that they need to stop eating meat and go
>>> vegetarian, or else the sun would burn them all up.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, those cavemen killed off all those liberal cavmen, and
>>> have kept humanity stupid proof for almost 100 years. They missed one
>>> or two apparently, because the gene pool has been noticeably polluted
>>> again.
>>
>>Buleg's grasp of human evolution is as weak as his grasp of spelling
>>and
>>grammar - there are five corrections in the text above.
Really? My spell checker catches only the "cavman" typo.
Slowman, You really are a jerk.
That was a "Cavewoman" ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | 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 |
The difference between a horse's asshole & Bill Sloman's mouth?
Lipstick!
Charles
"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote in message
news:u3hbm4p4ip4a3012k...@4ax.com...
Anthropogenic Global Warming
As we move towards 10 billion humans trying to thrive on this finite
resource called spaceship Earth, there are bound to be many damaging
activities. Many of us are suggesting cleaner and renewable sources of
energy. That makes us fanatics and Psychos?
Thank you for illuminating this troubling issue.
Raveninghorde
Yes
You are accidently or delibrately confusing different issues.
I agree there are too many people.using too many resources and
causing too much pollution. Renewable energy is a good idea when it is
cost effective.
That doesn't mean people are the cause of global warming - if it's
happening.
Richard Henry
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:17:34 -0500, "Charles"
>
>
>
>
>
> <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote in message
> >news:u3hbm4p4ip4a3012k...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:21:52 -0500, "Charles"
>
> >>>"Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:gk3cbo$hkv$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> >>>> The staunch denialists and their synchophants reign here.
>
> >>>should be sycophants (brown-nosers)
>
> >> Thank you for your well argued contribution.
>
> >> Sycophants as opposed to Psycho fanatic AGW believers?
>
> >Anthropogenic Global Warming
>
> >As we move towards 10 billion humans trying to thrive on this finite
> >resource called spaceship Earth, there are bound to be many damaging
> >activities. Many of us are suggesting cleaner and renewable sources of
> >energy. That makes us fanatics and Psychos?
>
> Yes
>
> You are accidently or delibrately confusing different issues.
>
> I agree there are too many people.using too many resources and
> causing too much pollution. Renewable energy is a good idea when it is
> cost effective.
>
> That doesn't mean people are the cause of global warming - if it's
> happening.
You're so cute. Please continue.
Charles
> I agree there are too many people.using too many resources and
> causing too much pollution. Renewable energy is a good idea when it is
> cost effective.
This is the point where traditional engineering implodes and ill serves the
future. Cost effective must be weighed against consequences and the current
crop of engineers is mostly not capable of embracing this concept. Their
employers have a lot to do with this. An engineer with a social conscious
is often an unemployed engineer.
Engineers are pawns. Loveable and wiley, but not at the edge of policy
formation.
> That doesn't mean people are the cause of global warming - if it's
> happening.
Of course people are not "the" cause. Nobody with any brains ever said
that. Is it happening? Actually, this is debatable but most informed folks
say YES!
bill....@ieee.org
Site.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:08:57 +0000, Raveninghorde
>
>
>
>
>
> <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
> >>On 8 jan, 02:20, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> >>> On Jan 7, 9:41 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
>
> >>> Site.com> wrote:
> >>> > For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
>
> >>> >http://www.chuckroger.com/
>
> >>> > "Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
>
> >>> > ...Jim Thompson
>
> >>> I'll bet that 1 million years ago, the liberal cavemen were telling
> >>> all the cavemen that they need to stop eating meat and go
> >>> vegetarian, or else the sun would burn them all up.
>
> >>> Fortunately, those cavemen killed off all those liberal cavmen, and
> >>> have kept humanity stupid proof for almost 100 years. They missed one
> >>> or two apparently, because the gene pool has been noticeably polluted
> >>> again.
>
> >>Buleg's grasp of human evolution is as weak as his grasp of spelling
> >>and
> >>grammar - there are five corrections in the text above.
>
> Really? My spell checker catches only the "cavman" typo.
I said I'd corrected his text. Have a look at what he posted. I
apoligise for missing "cavman" but amateur proof-readers typically
only find 30% of the errors in a text, so there are pobably a few more
left.
> Slowman, You really are a jerk.
Jim does seem to feel the need to remind me that he doesn't approve of
me. He needn't have bothered.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jim Thompson
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:17:34 -0500, "Charles"
><charles...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote in message
>>news:u3hbm4p4ip4a3012k...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:21:52 -0500, "Charles"
>>> <charles...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:gk3cbo$hkv$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>> The staunch denialists and their synchophants reign here.
>>>>
>>>>should be sycophants (brown-nosers)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your well argued contribution.
>>>
>>> Sycophants as opposed to Psycho fanatic AGW believers?
>>
>>Anthropogenic Global Warming
>>
>>As we move towards 10 billion humans trying to thrive on this finite
>>resource called spaceship Earth, there are bound to be many damaging
>>activities. Many of us are suggesting cleaner and renewable sources of
>>energy. That makes us fanatics and Psychos?
>>
>
>Yes
>
>You are accidently or delibrately confusing different issues.
I vote "deliberate".
>
>I agree there are too many people.using too many resources and
>causing too much pollution. Renewable energy is a good idea when it is
>cost effective.
Indeed. I have no problem with alternate sources of energy PROVIDED
that good engineering is involved. Ethanol (from corn) is the biggest
farce foisted onto mankind... after the global warming BS.
>
>That doesn't mean people are the cause of global warming - if it's
>happening.
I think Slowman's farts cause more damage than that from all the cows
in the world ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | 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 |
bule...@columbus.rr.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I put my spelling efforts into the stuff I write for work. Most of
what I post on the internet is not worth the effort to proofread.
bule...@columbus.rr.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I remember watching that movie as a kid. Looking back on it, Rachel
Welch was a lot more convincing than Al Gore.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
If I'm to be your nemesis don't I have to keep you annoyed ?:-)
[snip]
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | 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 |
Jim Thompson
wrote:
When we were teenagers she WAS indeed very convincing ;-)
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> There weren't any cavemen around a million years ago - as far as is
> known
Have you never watched 'The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy' ?
Graham
Eeyore
bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> I remember watching that movie as a kid. Looking back on it, Rachel
> Welch was a lot more convincing than Al Gore.
Wouldn't be difficult.
Remember, Al Bore continues to refuse to debate AGW. This is because he knows
nothing about science and doesn't want to upset his carbon trading futures that
allow him to be profligate with petroleum products.
Graham
Eeyore
John Larkin wrote:
> Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> > WangoTango <asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>Jim Thompson says...
> >>> For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
> >>>
> >>> http://www.chuckroger.com/
> >>>
> >>> "Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
> >>>
> >>> ...Jim Thompson
> >>>
> >>I already know the response :
> >>
> >>"Weather and climate are two different things."
> >>
> >>One is right now and the other is a trend.
> >>
> >>How can we tell if this weather is part of a trend or not?
> >>
> >
> >I'll answer for Bill. You're dumb.
> >
> >A trend is any period of supposed rising temperature, an anomaly is
> >any period of decreasing temperature.
> >
> >1998 is the warmest year with a strong El Nino this proves it's a
> >rising trend. However we must ingore last year as it was a La Nina
> >year and gave an embarrising drop in temperature. The Met Office
> >forecast a near record year for 2008 last January. However La Nina
> >means it must be ignored (see Met Office website).
> >
> >The basic data is crap but as that's how they did it in 1870 it's good
> >enough for 2008 because climatologists use it to prove global warming.
>
> | | |\ |
> weather----------| |-----+------| >|-------------+------------climate
> | | | |/ | |
> | |
> | |
> ----- -----
> ^ -----
> / \ |
> ----- |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> gnd gnd
Lovely !
Graham
Eeyore
Bill Sloman wrote:
> Ravinghorde's understanding is crap, but since he's as convinced of his own
> genius as Eeyore, it's kind of difficult to get this across to him.
Ever got the impression you might just be in a tiny minority ?
Graham
Eeyore
Charles wrote:
> The staunch denialists and their synchophants reign here.
>
> It makes no sense to argue this point when so many (here) have economic and
> life-style concerns that overrule any inate intelligence that might be
> lurking in their reptillian brains.
>
> They simply don't give a damn about future generations and the dismal legacy
> that we are currently generating.
You're a LOONIE !
Don Klipstein
Possibly a cycle of the Multidecadal Oscillation, though I don't know if
that is a nice periodic oscillation or more closely resembles random noise
filtered by a resonant bandpass filter. But I suspect it has an effect on
global surface temperature and has a period of 60-65 years.
If that oscillation is for real and fairly periodic, then it might be
useful to look at a stretch as short as 15-20 years and compare to a 15-20
year stretch from one cycle ago of that oscillation to see any change in
longer term trend over the past 65 years. That may still be suspect - the
1910 dip was more consolidated and deeper than the corresponding cool
times centered one cycle later.
It does appear to me that a 10 or 11 year stretch can give a poor view
of a trend if it begins with a spike going one way and ends with a spike
going the other.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>1998 is the warmest year with a strong El Nino this proves it's a
>rising trend. However we must ingore last year as it was a La Nina
>year and gave an embarrising drop in temperature. The Met Office
>forecast a near record year for 2008 last January. However La Nina
>means it must be ignored (see Met Office website).
If you are talking about annual global HadCRUT-3 or -3v, their figure
for the year-in-progress as of when it included only January was not a
forecast for the year but average of the year so far.
That is the graph of annual global HadCRUT-3v shown in The Register's "A
Tale of Two Thermometers" article. That shows 2008's figure being about
.1 degree C warmer than the 1961-1990 average, and the most recent prior
year that cold or about that cold was 1993.
Sometime around May last year, the Hadley Centre of Met Office changed
their practice to have the figure for the year-in-progress to be their
projection/forecast for how the whole year will end up. They did say in
their explanation for the change that the use of the La Nina dip of early
2008 as representing temperature for the whole year was misleading.
(As of last May IIRC their forecast/projection was around .25 or .3
degree C warmer than 1961-1990 average. That was not an erroneously warm
one - so far, the figure they have for 2008 is .326 degree C warmer than
1961-1990 average, but the data for the month of December is not yet
figured in.)
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Jim Thompson
Didn't you leave out the moon-is-blue-cheese effect ?:-)
Raveninghorde
It aslo looks like we are hitting a solar grand minima which is about
a 210 year cycle. And there are other longer cycles as well. I'm
seeing some articles saying we'll have a cooling phase to about 2030
before temperatures rise again.
For me the short term trend is important. Have we entered a cooling
phase? If so it debunks the more extreme claims that AGW has
overridden the solar cycle.
bill....@ieee.org
Site.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:31:08 -0800 (PST), buleg...@columbus.rr.com
It's good to have an ambition, but I'd suggest that you go for
something more realistic, like running a four minute mile.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Heard it on radio when it was first broadcast, and read the book.
Douglas Adams was great, but I've never got around to watching
anything of his on film or TV.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Bill Slomanwrote:
> > Ravinghorde's understanding is crap, but since he's as convinced of his own
> > genius as Eeyore, it's kind of difficult to get this across to him.
>
> Ever got the impression you might just be in a tiny minority ?
I've got a Ph.D., a couple of patents, and about a dozen published
scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals (some of which seem to be
cited from time to time) which does identify me with a a fairly small
proportion of the population.
You are an archetypal representative of another, slightly larger,
proportion of the population - the nitwits who think they should
express their opinion about subjects that they don't know much about.
There's a difference, but you don't seem to be equipped to perceive
it.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:4966A644...@hotmail.com...
It is a pity that Graham doesn't have as much sense. He knows even less
about
global warming than Al Gore, and continues to post nonsense in the delusion
that he is participating in a debate, rather than acting as an unpaid shill
for
Exxon-Mobil and other parties with their own ax to grind.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
news:rqcem41k44esipqao...@4ax.com...
In fact only deluded extremist denialists think that the solar cycle has
any perceptible effect on climate. The sun's output does change, but
not much, and nowhere near enough to explain the observed changes
in the temperature of the earth (or any of the other planets for that
matter).
The propostion ws put forward some years ago in a peer-reviewed
publication, but didn't survive critical examination, which hasn't
stopped the denialist web-sites from putting it forward as if it was
still a plausible alternative explanation.
Since I've told you this recently, with URL's pointing to the relevant
web-sites, you've just lost a few more credibility points.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
Red herring. I never mentioned the suns output, tyou are trying to
confuse the issue. The sun has several mechanisms to affect the earth,
the solar magnetosphere for example.
>
>The propostion ws put forward some years ago in a peer-reviewed
>publication, but didn't survive critical examination, which hasn't
>stopped the denialist web-sites from putting it forward as if it was
>still a plausible alternative explanation.
>
>Since I've told you this recently, with URL's pointing to the relevant
>web-sites, you've just lost a few more credibility points.
Assume for the sake of this discussion that the evidence showing tha
we have had a cooling for the last few years.
How many years would the earth have to cool for you to accept there is
a downward trend?
And what would be sufficient evidence for you to accept a link with
the solar cycle?
Raveninghorde
Do we all have to list our degrees, patents and publications here
before offering an opinion? It seems quite important to you.
IMHO the only qualification that counts for the over 30's is the
quality of their recent work. Isn't the definition of a doctor
someone who knows a lot about nothing?
Raveninghorde
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I agree there are too many people.using too many resources and
>>causing too much pollution. Renewable energy is a good idea when it is
>>cost effective.
>
>Indeed. I have no problem with alternate sources of energy PROVIDED
>that good engineering is involved. Ethanol (from corn) is the biggest
>farce foisted onto mankind... after the global warming BS.
>
Typical greenie thinking. Promote a "clean" technology that leads to
increased destruction of the rain forrests and then complain about the
increase in CO2.
There is an interesting proposal to build a barrage across the River
Severn. This would generate 15GW, about 20% UK requirement. The
greenies are trying to stop it because it threatens the lesser spotted
marsh mushroom or something. Ditto hydoelectric bad - loss of
environment. Nuclear bad, coal bad, wood bad, oil bad ... The GW
greenies are happy with wind generation because it's useless.
TBH I think a lot of them would vote for Pol Pot. After all his
policies would have the right outcome for the greenies.
Jim Thompson
P-h-D == Piled higher and Deeper ;-)
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
>
> In fact only deluded extremist denialists think that the solar cycle has
> any perceptible effect on climate.
Now we all know you're a COMPLETE idiot.
(not that most of us didn't already know that.)
Thanks,
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> TBH I think a lot of them would vote for Pol Pot. After all his policies
> would have the right outcome for the greenies.
Warmingism is some weird morphodite of human arrogance and angst: "The sky
is falling and it's ALL YOUR FAULT! Convert to my religion or WE'RE ALL
GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you denialists DESERVE IT!!!!! I'm
gonna SAVE YOUR SOUL if I have to BURN YOU AT THE STAKE TO DO IT!!!!!"
Feh. Not a functional neuron in the lot.
Thanks,
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
From where? In what?
> a couple of patents,
Please be more specific.
> and about a dozen published
>>scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals (some of which seem to be
>>cited from time to time)
Which "papers", in which "peer-reviewed" journals? Frankly, if they're
reviewed by _YOUR_ peers, it's clearly the same kind of "peers" as
they use for the warmingist propaganda tracts.
>which does identify me with a a fairly small
>>proportion of the population.
OK, then you should be able to name names.
SO: I've got $100.00 in real money that says Sloman will not only refuse
to answer these questions, but immeditely start calling me names.
Cheers!
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
Nah, just a victim of an overdose of warmingist brain soap.
Cheers!
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
>
> I put my spelling efforts into the stuff I write for work. Most of what I
> post on the internet is not worth the effort to proofread.
So, you're saying that your USENET posts have no value?
Thanks,
RIch
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
>
> It is a pity that Graham doesn't have as much sense. He knows even less
> about
> global warming than Al Gore, and continues to post nonsense in the
> delusion that he is participating in a debate, rather than acting as an
> unpaid shill for
> Exxon-Mobil and other parties with their own ax to grind.
Face it, Bill, you're a laughingstock.
Sorry.
Rich
bule...@columbus.rr.com
wrote:
They have value to me as a source of entertainment. I do not delude
myself into thinking they have value to anyone else.
I don't need to get all my grammer correct to be entertained.
bill....@ieee.org
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 06:01:40 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >On 9 jan, 02:23, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Bill Slomanwrote:
> >> > Ravinghorde's understanding is crap, but since he's as convinced of his own
> >> > genius as Eeyore, it's kind of difficult to get this across to him.
>
> >> Ever got the impression you might just be in a tiny minority ?
>
> >I've got a Ph.D., a couple of patents, and about a dozen published
> >scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals (some of which seem to be
> >cited from time to time) which does identify me with a a fairly small
> >proportion of the population.
>
> >You are an archetypal representative of another, slightly larger,
> >proportion of the population - the nitwits who think they should
> >express their opinion about subjects that they don't know much about.
>
> >There's a difference, but you don't seem to be equipped to perceive
> >it.
>
> Do we all have to list our degrees, patents and publications here
> before offering an opinion? It seems quite important to you.
I don't make a habit of it, but in this instance it offered the
opportunity to turn Eeyore's line back at him.
> IMHO the only qualification that counts for the over 30's is the
> quality of their recent work. Isn't the definition of a doctor
> someone who knows a lot about nothing?
You are thinking of the definition of the expert as someone who knows
absolutely everything about absolutely nothing. As far as I am
concerned, all that getting a Ph.D.proves is that you are persistent
and can present a tolerably coherent extended argument. Once I'd got
the Ph.D, in physical chemistry I went off and became an electronic
engineer.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
What Rich "knows" bears a rather uncertain relationship to reality.
He's not always wrong, but a stopped clock is right twice a day.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Rich does have a rich imagination, uninhibited by much in the way of
factual knowledge.
His claim that anthropogenic global warming was some kind of religion
would be more persuasive - the upgrade would be from demented to
insane, so I'm not granting him much in the way of extra credibility -
if he ever showed any evidence of knowing anything about the subject.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" <nu...@example.net> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2009.01.09....@example.net...
You lose. Go to scholar.google.com and search with "A W Sloman"
This also picks up a few odd papers where I cleaned up the English and got
an acknowledgement for it, but they should be easy to see.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" <nu...@example.net> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2009.01.09....@example.net...
Face it Rich, you haven't got a clue.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
Have you noticed Bill always tries to avoid answering a question if it
will show what he does or doesn't know? Everytime I get him in a
corner he comes up with an insult somewhere else.
Jim Thompson
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
That's why I kill-filed him years ago. He's just an egomaniac that
thinks he's better than anyone else... in other words he's a leftist
weenie and/or Democrat and/or fairy and/or queer ;-)
I only see his shit during filter testing or if someone else responds
to him, then I take the opportunity to poke him in the ass... he's so
sensitive to criticism I just can't resist ;-)
bule...@columbus.rr.com
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:56:52 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
>
>
>
>
> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:28:19 +0000, Raveninghorde
> ><raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You know.. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting a different result.
If you keep talking sense to Sloman, pretty soon I will have to
conclude that you are insane.
Don Klipstein
>On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:55:04 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don
>Klipstein) wrote:
>
<SNIP to this point>
>>>So how many years does it take to know the trend in global temperature?
>>
>> Possibly a cycle of the Multidecadal Oscillation, though I don't know if
>>that is a nice periodic oscillation or more closely resembles random noise
>>filtered by a resonant bandpass filter. But I suspect it has an effect on
>>global surface temperature and has a period of 60-65 years.
>>
>> If that oscillation is for real and fairly periodic, then it might be
>>useful to look at a stretch as short as 15-20 years and compare to a 15-20
>>year stretch from one cycle ago of that oscillation to see any change in
>>longer term trend over the past 65 years. That may still be suspect - the
>>1910 dip was more consolidated and deeper than the corresponding cool
>>times centered one cycle later.
>>
>> It does appear to me that a 10 or 11 year stretch can give a poor view
>>of a trend if it begins with a spike going one way and ends with a spike
>>going the other.
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>
>It aslo looks like we are hitting a solar grand minima which is about
>a 210 year cycle. And there are other longer cycles as well. I'm
>seeing some articles saying we'll have a cooling phase to about 2030
>before temperatures rise again.
>
>For me the short term trend is important. Have we entered a cooling
>phase? If so it debunks the more extreme claims that AGW has
>overridden the solar cycle.
To look for a global warming that overrides solar cycles and the
multidecadal oscillation, maybe a stretch of 5-6 years with El Ninos and
La Ninas and any major volcanic eruptions filtered/accounted somehow.
The most recent stretch maybe good enough to look at is the one from the
2000 La Nina to the 2007-2008 one which was a little stronger.
Late 2006 had a weak El Nino helping it become the warmest year since
the record 1998 El Nino according to HadCRUT and both UAH and RSS
determinations of lower troposphere temperature from MSU satellite data,
and the warmest on record according to NASA's GISS and NCDC (which show a
lesser spike from the 1998 El Nino).
However, we could have the Sun and the Multidecadal Oscillation's effect
on global temperature more downhill now or soon than in the 2001-2005
stretch. I think it would be useful to compare the next stretch of years
with "no babies" (neither El Nino or La Nina) to 2002-2005.
To get 2 decent stretches with "no babies" sounds to me like something
that can usually be done over 10-16 years or so.
If AGW fails to maintain a warming trend through times when the
Multidecadal Oscillation and solar output would normally make global
temperature go downhill, then that failure may show up as early as
2011-2012 or as late as sometime around 2020 or in the 2020's.
So far, I am merely expecting warming to slow after 2005 from the maybe
.13-.14 degree C per decade from 1979 to 2011 that I expect the lower
troposphere determinations from MSU satellite data to show once 2011's
data is in and considered, probably to slower than the .11 degree/decade
that I like to find in the 1979-2008 stretch in Dr. Roy Spencer's
website's graph of UAH determination of lower troposphere temperature
anomaly from MSU satellite data.
If the 2005-2024 stretch (2 decades ending about 15.97 years from today)
shows warming at all according to all of HadCRUT-3 and -3v and NCDC and
NASA's GISS and both UAH and RSS determinations of lower troposphere
temperature anomaly from MSU satellite data, I think we're in some
doo-doo. If none of those report less than warming of .025 degree C per
decade and average of those is warming of at least .05 degree C per
decade, then the 3-4 decades after 2030 may well have warming
significantly more than that from early 1970's to 2005 (that stretch
looks to me like from smoothed HadCRUT-3 like .17 degree C per decade,
.165 degree C per decade even with the 1998 El Nino spike excluded).
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Raveninghorde
Klipstein) wrote:
For the sake of argument I'll assume the UAH temperature data is
accurate. Then I agree that continued warming to 2024 would be
worrying. However I believe the global mean temperature will drop over
the next few years.
I see a graph of solar activity like:
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-3/fig_17.html
from here:
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2008-3&page=articlesu2.html
http://www.solarcycle24.com/ has a nice animation showing the ongoing
downward revisions by NASA for the next solar cycle. There are
suggestions that the rate of rise predicted by NASA is excessive given
the current very low level of activity and if that is revised will
also decrease the average solar activity both thermal and magnetic.
Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
>I see a graph of solar activity like:
>
>http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-3/fig_17.html
That didn't work. It's fig 17 in section 4.1
bill....@ieee.org
Site.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:31:31 +0000, Raveninghorde
>
>
>
>
>
> <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:56:52 -0700, Jim Thompson
> ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:28:19 +0000, Raveninghorde
> >><raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
Which is to say that Jim doesn't like it when I point out that he is
posting nonsense - which covers most of his off-topic posts. Since he
can't produce rational refutations of my points he goes in for
childish ad homenim abuse (and he's not very good at that either).
Why would I care if he though me a leftist, a Democrat, or a queer?
He's not going to proposition me.
I did get a bit peeved when he clained to have reported me to the FBI
as dangerously anti-American - it could have been inconvenient if
they'd taken him seriously - but since they obviously didn't, I can
write off his opinions as those of a notorious right-wing nut-job, who
nobody takes seriously outside of electronics
> I only see his shit during filter testing or if someone else responds
> to him, then I take the opportunity to poke him in the ass... he's so
> sensitive to criticism I just can't resist ;-)
Jim's self-control does leave something to be desired.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>My liine is
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
>
>The longer version is that there has always been short term noise on
>the year-on-year temperature figures, and you will have to wait a bit before
>you can convincingly claim that the current slow-down in the warming
>trend represents a break from the warming trend over the last century.
>
What about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Nice stable CO2 through the middle ages and Mann's non existant lttle
ice age.
However AGW fans trying to keep up with the real evidence are saying
the little ice age was triggered by reforrestation and CO2
sequestration not shown in the above graph.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/manvleaf-010709.html
Me thinks the AGW mob are getting desperate.
bule...@columbus.rr.com
> Which is to say that Jim doesn't like it when I point out that he is
> posting nonsense - which covers most of his off-topic posts.
I think that one can rightfully assume that any off-topic-post in
usenet is pretty much nonsense.
>Since he
> can't produce rational refutations of my points he goes in for
> childish ad homenim abuse (and he's not very good at that either).
>
He only has to be good enough to entertain himself at it.
> Why would I care if he though me a leftist, a Democrat, or a queer?
> He's not going to proposition me.
>
> I did get a bit peeved when he clained to have reported me to the FBI
> as dangerously anti-American - it could have been inconvenient if
> they'd taken him seriously - but since they obviously didn't, I can
> write off his opinions as those of a notorious right-wing nut-job, who
> nobody takes seriously outside of electronics
>
You have not completely written him off. You have dedicated several
minutes of your time to construct these paragraphs about him.
>
> Jim's self-control does leave something to be desired.
>
So Jim gets to act like an ass once in a while in a silly forum. It
is more fun watching the ass than watching the person that takes
themselves too seriously.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Slowman, himself, proves me successful... at annoying the crap out of
him ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | 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 |
The difference between a horse's asshole & Bill Sloman's mouth?
Lipstick!
bule...@columbus.rr.com
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:27:12 -0800 (PST), buleg...@columbus.rr.com
>
> The difference between a horse's asshole & Bill Sloman's mouth?
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think he has proven that he is a master at annoying the crap out of
himself.
Raveninghorde
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
>
>http://www.chuckroger.com/
>
>"Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Bill can admit he's wrong now. The lefties are deserting the sinking
ship:
Don Klipstein
best-fit-straight line in UAH about .11 degree/K rather than the reported
.128, and in RSS to be about .125-.13 rather than the reported .157.
It does now appear to me simultaneously true that I am seeing things
well and that the higher reported numbers are not result of dishonesty on
part of those coming up with the bigger numbers.
My "eyeball best fit straight line" is probably close to what minimizes
average deviation from the line. Usual mathematical practice is "least
squares", which puts the line where RMS deviation from it is minimized.
Using RMS rather than average increases weighting of the bigger peaks
and dips. The greatest La Nina since pre-1979 was in 1984, and the
greatest El Nino since pre-1979 was in 1998. Use of "least squares best
fit" gives these more weight than I did and would increase the slope of a
"best fit straight line".
I expect "minimum average deviation" and "least squares" to have
agreement with each other in slope of "best fit line" improving over the
next decade, and that the agreeent will become fairly good as soon as
either we have the record long enough to get the 1998 El Nino in the first
half of it (that would be 2018), or the next La Nina stronger than the
1988 one.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Michael A. Terrell
Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> P-h-D == Piled higher and Deeper ;-)
Pathetic, Horribly Dense.
--
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.
Michael A. Terrell
Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:08:57 +0000, Raveninghorde
> <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:48:07 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> >>On 8 jan, 02:20, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> >>> On Jan 7, 9:41 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
> >>>
> >>> Site.com> wrote:
> >>> > For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
> >>>
> >>> >http://www.chuckroger.com/
> >>>
> >>> > "Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
> >>>
> >>> > ...Jim Thompson
> >>>
> >>> all the cavemen that they need to stop eating meat and go
> >>> vegetarian, or else the sun would burn them all up.
> >>>
> >>> Fortunately, those cavemen killed off all those liberal cavmen, and
> >>> have kept humanity stupid proof for almost 100 years. They missed one
> >>> or two apparently, because the gene pool has been noticeably polluted
> >>> again.
> >>
> >>Buleg's grasp of human evolution is as weak as his grasp of spelling
> >>and
> >>grammar - there are five corrections in the text above.
>
> Really? My spell checker catches only the "cavman" typo.
>
> Slowman, You really are a jerk.
>
> >>
> >>There weren't any cavemen around a million years ago - as far as is
> >>known,
> >>our ancestral species didn't have any marked preference for living in
> >>caves.
> >>
> >>Anatomically modern humans evolved more recently - genetic research
> >>"has placed the origin of all modern humans at between 140,000 and
> >>290,000 years ago"
> >>
> >>http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_sap.htm
> >>
> >>Behaviourly modern humans don't seem to shown up before 50,000 years
> >>ago, and silly ideas about diet do seem unlikely to have preceded
> >>language.
> >>
> >>Some silly ideas about diet - the Jewish orthodox tradition comes to
> >>mind -
> >>do seem to have survived despite being maladaptive, so Buleg's
> >>scenario
> >>does seem unlikely.
> >>
> >>Buleg's opinions about global warming are similarly maladaptive, and
> >>while
> >>we could hope - on evolutionary grounds - that some irritable liberal
> >>might
> >>bash out his defective brains, in fact we'll have to rely on the
> >>female
> >>preference for intelligent mates to filter his defective contribution
> >>out of
> >>the gene pool.
> >
> >You mean the media got it wrong in the movie 1 million years BC with
> >Rachel Welch?
>
> That was a "Cavewoman" ;-)
He must need glasses really bad.
Michael A. Terrell
Eeyore wrote:
>
> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
> > There weren't any cavemen around a million years ago - as far as is
> > known
>
He doesn't have a towel.
Don Klipstein
Those denying AGW tend to show sunspot count being very low during the
Little Ice Age.
It does appear from your link that atmospheric CO2 content blipped
downward by a few to maybe a little over 10 ppmv during and probably
somewhat lagging the Little Ice Age. I suspect that was mostly from
oceans cooling and becoming more absorbant of CO2. Since the lag there
appears to have historically been 800 years, I find it no surprise that
global temperature running less than 1 degree C low for 2-3 centuries
moved little CO2 from atmosphere to ocean.
I think that the Little Ice Age was indeed caused by a dip in solar
output and the main positive feedback mechanism assisting it was change in
snow and ice cover, probably mostly in and near the Arctic.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> > P-h-D == Piled higher and Deeper ;-)
>
> Pathetic, Horribly Dense.
So go and get one yourself. The University of Florida used to be
notorious for offering a degree course in fly-fishing, so you can
probably find a study area that you could master.
Actually writing the thesis might be beyond you - a hundred pages of
"me-too" won't hack it.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:41:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
> >For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
>
> >http://www.chuckroger.com/
>
> >"Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
>
> > ...Jim Thompson
>
> Bill can admit he's wrong now. The lefties are deserting the sinking
> ship:
>
Or so Senator James Inhofe would like to think. His seniority makes
him the ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, and allows him to put loads of denialist
crap on it's web-site as a minority (of one) opinion.
He's a right wing fundamentalist fruit-cake, so divorced from reality
that even other Republicans find him a bit funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On 10 jan, 18:35, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:41:00 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
> > >For Slowman's Annoyance of the Day...
> >
> > >http://www.chuckroger.com/
> >
> > >"Earth: It takes a licking and keeps on ticking"
> >
> > > ...Jim Thompson
> >
> > Bill can admit he's wrong now. The lefties are deserting the sinking
> > ship:
> >
> > http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Speeches&C...
>
> Or so Senator James Inhofe would like to think. His seniority makes
> him the ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on
> Environment and Public Works, and allows him to put loads of denialist
> crap on it's web-site as a minority (of one) opinion.
>
> He's a right wing fundamentalist fruit-cake, so divorced from reality
> that even other Republicans find him a bit funny.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
You know, getting re-elected has a great influence on politicians' policies.
Graham
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
From the wikipedia article
"Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from
the oil and gas industry than Inhofe in the 2002 election cycle.[24]
The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural
resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.
[25]"
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jon Kirwan
><snip -- quote from Wiki following here>
>"The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural
>resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars."
And part of the drum beating by the ignorant about climate scientists
is that they are the ones in it for the money simply because they
actually like to eat once in a while and want to get paid for
something quite a bit more down to earth than stuffing campaign
coffers -- earnest, hard work. I suppose that even if climate
scientists, as a whole, decided to work for free then some other
conspiracy would have to be, and most certainly would be, concocted
out of just such thin air. "Hmm. Why are they working for free on
this -- what is their *real* motivation? What are they hiding??"
It's "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of logic they apply.
Jon
Jim Thompson
Both pro and con AGW types receive income from "energy" sources.
My biggest source of amusement arises from "scientists" who were on
the pro-AGW payroll... now that they've lost their funding or have
been laid off, they've switched to anti-AGW ;-)
One of the most recent was a Nobel Prize winner. I'd look up his
name, but I'm sure Slowman already knows.
He will, of course, deny, deny, deny....
We will, of course, ignore, ignore, ignore Slowman... he's far less
reliable than a Wiki citation ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | 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 |
James Arthur
>
> John Larkin wrote:
>
>> Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>>> The basic data is crap but as that's how they did it in 1870 it's good
>>> enough for 2008 because climatologists use it to prove global warming.
>> | | |\ |
>> weather----------| |-----+------| >|-------------+------------climate
>> | | | |/ | |
>> | |
>> | |
>> ----- -----
>> ^ -----
>> / \ |
>> ----- |
>> | |
>> | |
>> | |
>> gnd gnd
>
> Lovely !
>
> Graham
Maybe, but my version eliminated the deadband, compensates the
diode drops, and added the doomsday latch. And an LED, so you
know when it's all happened.
Otherwise, you might miss it.
Cheers,
James Arthur
bill....@ieee.org
Site.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:52:38 GMT, Jon Kirwan
>
> >On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:37:51 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> >><snip -- quote from Wiki following here>
> >>"The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural
> >>resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars."
>
> >And part of the drum beating by the ignorant about climate scientists
> >is that they are the ones in it for the money simply because they
> >actually like to eat once in a while and want to get paid for
> >something quite a bit more down to earth than stuffing campaign
> >coffers -- earnest, hard work. I suppose that even if climate
> >scientists, as a whole, decided to work for free then some other
> >conspiracy would have to be, and most certainly would be, concocted
> >out of just such thin air. "Hmm. Why are they working for free on
> >this -- what is their *real* motivation? What are they hiding??"
>
> >It's "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of logic they apply.
>
> >Jon
>
> Both pro and con AGW types receive income from "energy" sources.
>
> My biggest source of amusement arises from "scientists" who were on
> the pro-AGW payroll... now that they've lost their funding or have
> been laid off, they've switched to anti-AGW ;-)
That not how it works. Most of the denialist "scientist" have retired,
and seem to need the bribes the that the "energy" sources will pay
them for signing their famous names to denialist propaganda.
They don't have to know anything about climate science to be able to
supplement their pensions this way, and most of them don't.
> One of the most recent was a Nobel Prize winner. I'd look up his
> name, but I'm sure Slowman already knows.
>
> He will, of course, deny, deny, deny....
>
> We will, of course, ignore, ignore, ignore Slowman... he's far less
> reliable than a Wiki citation ;-)
So here is someone else's quote about the Nobel Prize winner Ivan
Giaever, who got his Nobel for work on the Josephson junction (which
doesn't have much to do with climatology).
Okkim Atnarivik 11 dec 2008, 12:51 frpm the thread "Something for
Slowman"
"Not wishing to comment on the global climate change here, I just
noted that all the links mainly refer to the opinion of the Nobelist
Ivar
Giaever. It is dangerous to substitute critical argumentation on
the actual subject by reliance on opinions of Nobel prize
winners. For instance, Giaever's Nobel co-winner Brian Josephson has
for years been a strong proponent of parapsychology, and is nowadays
not considered very credible within the physics community. "
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
>
> You lose. Go to scholar.google.com and search with "A W Sloman"
Typical weasel.
Do your own damn homework.
Besides, last time I checked, neither "Bill" nor "William" starts with
"A".
Thanks,
Rich
JosephKK
Getting? They were desperate from the start, they had a political
agenda to push and the current science did not support the claims.
Then came the scientific fraud of Michael Mann, and they thought that
they were home free. But, the universe did not cooperate with them
and neither did honest scientists.
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> That not how it works. Most of the denialist "scientist" have retired,
> and seem to need the bribes the that the "energy" sources will pay
> them for signing their famous names to denialist propaganda.
The only propaganda is from the AGWists and you can't bribe the truth.
Graham
bill....@ieee.org
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:18:00 +0000, Raveninghorde
>
>
>
>
>
> <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 19:25:23 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
> ><bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >>My liine is
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
>
> >>The longer version is that there has always been short term noise on
> >>the year-on-year temperature figures, and you will have to wait a bit before
> >>you can convincingly claim that the current slow-down in the warming
> >>trend represents a break from the warming trend over the last century.
>
> >What about this one?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
>
> >Nice stable CO2 through the middle ages and Mann's non existant lttle
> >ice age.
>
> >However AGW fans trying to keep up with the real evidence are saying
> >the little ice age was triggered by reforrestation and CO2
> >sequestration not shown in the above graph.
>
> >http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/manvleaf-010709.html
>
> >Me thinks the AGW mob are getting desperate.
>
> Getting? They were desperate from the start, they had a political
> agenda to push and the current science did not support the claims.
This is rubbish. The scientific concensus has accepted that
anthropogenic global warming is real for some thirty years now, and
while there are still some isolated and eccentric figures who
disagree, the claim that "current science" does not support the
hypothesis is simply wrong. There are denialist web-sites around,
funded by groups who have a vested interest in denying the reality of
global warming, but these sites use the technique - originally
pioneered (often by the same people) for the tobacco companies in
their struggle to deny that smoking damaged your health - of reviving
old and long since resolved - controversies to make it appear that the
scientific concensus is less than solid.
> Then came the scientific fraud of Michael Mann,
Nobody who knows what they are talking about thinks that Michael Mann
committed scientific fraud. Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph has
been replicated by at least a dozen other studies, so whatever (if
anything) might have been wrong with Michael Mann's data analysis, his
conclusions are still rock solid. McIntrye doesn't like the system of
data analysis that Mann used, but Mann wasn't aware that it might be
seen to be inadequate when he published his results, so any claim that
Mann intended to deceive the public is entirely fraudulent.
> and they thought that they were home free.
Since Mann's results have been replicated repeatedly, they were
right.
>But, the universe did not cooperate with them
Only on denialist web-sites
> and neither did honest scientists.
Those few "honest" scientists seem to have been paid liberally for
expressing their doubts in public by groups with a vested interest in
denying the reality of global warming. The rewards available for
expressing such scepticism have been large enough to encourage a
number of scientists who haven't been active in climatology to publish
their own - often ludicrously ill-founded - doubts.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Graham's judgement is less than sound, as he has demonstrated here by
posting some remarkably ill-founded claims about global warming from
time to time.
It is self-evident that you can't bribe the truth - truth is an
abstract concept, and doesn't happen to have a wallet, a bank account
or any use for money - so I'm obliged to guess what Graham might have
thought that he was saying. It does seem to be possible to pay
"sceptical" scientists for publishing their doubts about the current
concensus in climatology, even when the scientists being paid don't
have enough standing as climatologists to give their opinions any
perceptible worth.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
>On 14 jan, 01:38, JosephKK <quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:18:00 +0000, Raveninghorde
>
>
>> Then came the scientific fraud of Michael Mann,
>
>Nobody who knows what they are talking about thinks that Michael Mann
>committed scientific fraud. Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph has
>been replicated by at least a dozen other studies, so whatever (if
>anything) might have been wrong with Michael Mann's data analysis, his
>conclusions are still rock solid. McIntrye doesn't like the system of
>data analysis that Mann used, but Mann wasn't aware that it might be
>seen to be inadequate when he published his results, so any claim that
>Mann intended to deceive the public is entirely fraudulent.
>
No medieval warm period, no little ice age. It looks like a fraud, it
smells like a fraud, it tastes like a fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
/quote
On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a
paper in Geophysical Research Letters that claimed various errors in
the methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the
"Hockey Stick" shape was the result of an invalid principal component
method.[15] They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al.,
they were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal
component in 99 percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used
as input.
/endquote
bill....@ieee.org
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:57:39 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >On 14 jan, 01:38, JosephKK <quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:18:00 +0000, Raveninghorde
>
> >> Then came the scientific fraud of Michael Mann,
>
> >Nobody who knows what they are talking about thinks that Michael Mann
> >committed scientific fraud. Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph has
> >been replicated by at least a dozen other studies, so whatever (if
> >anything) might have been wrong with Michael Mann's data analysis, his
> >conclusions are still rock solid. McIntrye doesn't like the system of
> >data analysis that Mann used, but Mann wasn't aware that it might be
> >seen to be inadequate when he published his results, so any claim that
> >Mann intended to deceive the public is entirely fraudulent.
>
> No medieval warm period, no little ice age. It looks like a fraud, it
> smells like a fraud, it tastes like a fraud.
No deception - the graph has been replicated by a number of other
investigators - and no intention to deceive.
So where's the fraud? You don't like the result, and you'd prefer to
see the little ice age and the medieval warm period showing up on the
graph, despite the fact that they don't show up in the Tasmanian tree-
ring record, but crying fraud is giving your prejudices rather more
weight than they deserve.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
>
> /quote
>
> On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a
> paper in Geophysical Research Letters that claimed various errors in
> the methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the
> "Hockey Stick" shape was the result of an invalid principal component
> method.[15] They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al.,
> they were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal
> component in 99 percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used
> as input.
>
> /endquote
Big deal. Their implementation of Mann's data analysis might have got
four different hockey sticks out of trendless red noise - left to
right, right to left , blade up and blade down - but Maan and the
people who replicated his work all got the variant with the blade up
and on the right.
Trendless red noise sounds like a neat trick; apparently it is what
used to be called a drunkards walk, which didn't average to zero when
I had to learn about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colors_of_noise
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
/quote
The hockey stick controversy is a dispute over the reconstructed
estimates of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature changes over the
past millennium
/endquote
When did Tasmania move from the northern to the southern hemisphere?
Mann et al:
http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resources/Mann,%20et%20al.%20Global%20scale%20temp%20patterns.pdf
/quote
Northern hemishere mean annual temperatures for three of the past
eight years....
/end quote
No mention in this article of Tasmanian tree rings.
Don Klipstein
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:57:39 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
>>On 14 jan, 01:38, JosephKK <quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:18:00 +0000, Raveninghorde
>>
>>> Then came the scientific fraud of Michael Mann,
>>
>>Nobody who knows what they are talking about thinks that Michael Mann
>>committed scientific fraud. Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph has
>>been replicated by at least a dozen other studies, so whatever (if
>>anything) might have been wrong with Michael Mann's data analysis, his
>>conclusions are still rock solid. McIntrye doesn't like the system of
>>data analysis that Mann used, but Mann wasn't aware that it might be
>>seen to be inadequate when he published his results, so any claim that
>>Mann intended to deceive the public is entirely fraudulent.
>
>No medieval warm period, no little ice age. It looks like a fraud, it
>smells like a fraud, it tastes like a fraud.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
>
>/quote
>/endquote
How about Loehle's "corrected global temperature reconstruction"? Ends
at 1925, but shows Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age more than
everything shown by Wikipedia in the link above.
Eeyore likes to mention Loehle, and a bit often has posted a graph of an
earlier Loehle article (excluding link to text data that ends with 1980).
Loehle's two articles widely mentioned in global warming debate threads
in sci.electronics.design are favored by denialists and skeptics of AGW on
basis of showing MWP and LIA more than everything shown by Wikipedia in
the above link, and due to reasoning to exclude tree rings. (Trees may be
adapting to slower climate changes more than faster ones).
A link to these two Loehle articles, in a single PDF:
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Meanwhile, see what happens as a result of splicing smoothed HadCRUT-3
or smoothed HadCRUT-3v (good enough for The Register in their "A Tale of
Two Thermometers" article) onto Loehle's "Corrected Global Temperature
Reconstruction" at any year in the stretch that both exist (1850 to 1925).
The result is usually showing the past decade being slightly warmer than
the peak of the MWP.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
bill....@ieee.org
> In art. <64irm49c5qo6u926m60vorsjbtnne1s...@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
Loehle's eighteen sources aren't spread uniformly across the globe.
Nine are spread around the North Atlantic ocean, there are two in
south Africa. two in Indonesia and two in the north of China.
There isn't anything for South America, India, central Asia or
Australia. Tasmanian and New Zeeland tree-ring records don't show
either the little ice age or the medieval warm period as such - the
temperatures shift around, but there's no obvious synchronisation with
the north atlantic excursions.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen