OT: Hot, Flat and Crowded
Bill Sloman
978-1-846-14129-4.
Eeyore wouldn't like it. Friedman - correctly - takes anthropogenic global
warming as an established fact, though he does say enough about it to make
it clear that he has done his homework on the subject, and proceeds to
discuss what we've got to do to adapt our society to deal with this and
related problems.
George Monbiot's "Heat" fits the same description, but where Monbiot is
mainly interested in the technical details of the mechanisms that will let
society continue to work while burning carbon at between 2.5% (American and
Australia) and 5% (Europe) of the current rate, Friedman is primarily
interested in the ways we can encourage technologists to invent and market
the necessary clean hardware in sufficient volumes to bring its costs down
to levels where it can compete with existing power sources, both in terms of
dollars per installed kilowatt and dollars per kilowatt hour
He's a strong proponent of the tax and subsidise approach, which the Germans
are using with some success to persuade people to buy and use wind and solar
power units and plug them into the power grid.
Happily, the right-wing nitwits who object to this kind of government
intervention in the free market don't believe in anthropogenic global
warming in the first place.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/sunspot-cycle-length-temp.JPG
referenced from http://icecap.us
Anthropogenic? Only GW religious fanatics belive that.
John Larkin
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Boring, fat, and unemployed.
John
Michael A. Terrell
And that is just his ego. :(
--
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.
bill....@ieee.org
>
> Anthropogenic? Only GW religious fanatics belive that.
You've got to be very dumb to believe that sunspot numbers explain the
recent warming, and very ill-informed to believe that the evidence
supporting anthropogenic global warming was revealed by revelation.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
if you don't understand the technology involved, and claiming that a
belief in anthropogenic global warming is necessarily based on some
kind of religious faith just demonstrates that you don't understand
the technology involved in collecting the evidence.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:18:46 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
>
Boriing? You responded to it.
Fat? My BMI is 24.1 which isn't fat.
Unemployed? I'm 66 now, which means that I'm retired - whether I like
it or not (and I don't - but while I do keep on applying for jobs, I
can't say I'm all that optimistic about getting one).
Your batting average isn't impressive.
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:18:46 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > Boring, fat, and unemployed.
>
> And that is just his ego. :(
Michael Terrell suffers from the depressing kind of egomania that lets
him think that his unsupported opinion is worth posting. He seems to
gets his kicks by posting me-too's to our collection of right-wingers.
Maybe one day he will have something interesting and unexpected to
say, but it hasn't happened yet, and I'm not holding my breath.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
Occams razor.
I presented you clear data that shows the close relationship between
sunspots and temperature. It explains recent global warming.
As to AGW I saw no one predicting global cooling for the next few
years until very recently. Until the AGW theories can predict 5 to 10
years ahead I ain't going to take much notice of longer term
predictions.
Give it a couple of years of cooling and Jo Public won't bel;ieve in
AGW either.
Jim Thompson
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>Give it a couple of years of cooling and Jo Public won't believe in
>AGW either.
Jo Public with invest in public hangings in a few years when he
finally realizes the fleecing he's been treated to.
...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 |
Think things are bad now? Wait until Obama "takes care" of you.
krw
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:45:58 +0000, Raveninghorde
>>I presented you clear data that shows the close relationship between
>>sunspots and temperature. It explains recent global warming.
>>
>>As to AGW I saw no one predicting global cooling for the next few
>>years until very recently. Until the AGW theories can predict 5 to 10
>>years ahead I ain't going to take much notice of longer term
>>predictions.
>>
>>Give it a couple of years of cooling and Jo Public won't believe in
>>AGW either.
>
>Jo Public with invest in public hangings in a few years when he
>finally realizes the fleecing he's been treated to.
I'll believe it when I see it. We still have the income tax,
employment taxes, death taxes, and witholding.
Jim Thompson
Wait until gasoline is back up above $4/gallon, natural gas is out of
sight, oil and coal heat are forbidden, and coal-generated electricity
is banned... oh, goody! I can hardly wait ;-)
...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 |
Postings via gmail, yahoo, hotmail, aioe, uar or googlegroups, and
wild-cross-posts are now automatically kill-filed using Agent v5.0
To be white-listed, send request via the E-mail icon on my website
bill....@ieee.org
It cuts your throat from ear to ear.
> I presented you clear data that shows the close relationship between
> sunspots and temperature. It explains recent global warming.
You presented me with a well-known correlation covering a rather short
period. As you ought to know, correlation does not imply causation,
and in fact if you stretch the period, the correlation goes away.
> As to AGW I saw no one predicting global cooling for the next few
> years until very recently. Until the AGW theories can predict 5 to 10
> years ahead I ain't going to take much notice of longer term
> predictions.
More fool you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
shows that short term fluctuations in climate dominate the one to five
year periods; it is only over longer periods that the anthropogenic
global warming starts creeping up out of the noise.
> Give it a couple of years of cooling and Jo Public won't believe in
> AGW either.
You'd look less of a fool if you waited a couple of years before
proclaiming the demise of the theory.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> schreef in
bericht news:d0gql4h0ocobsrnpk...@4ax.com...
<snipped the rest of Ravinghorde's idiotic comments>
>>Give it a couple of years of cooling and Jo Public won't believe in
>>AGW either.
>
> Jo Public with invest in public hangings in a few years when he
> finally realizes the fleecing he's been treated to.
Somehow I doubt that the people who take anthropogenic global warming
seriously are going to have to fear for their necks.
There will be a long queue of Republican politicians and hedge fund managers
to work through first, followed by the oil and coal industry executives who
have been funding the global-warming-denial web sites that are deluding
Eeyore, Ravinghorde and the rest of our collection of ignorant lame-brains.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> schreef in
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:15:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:45:58 +0000, Raveninghorde
<snipped Ravinghorde's idiotic misconceptions>
>>>Jo Public with invest in public hangings in a few years when he
>>>finally realizes the fleecing he's been treated to.
>>
>>I'll believe it when I see it. We still have the income tax,
>>employment taxes, death taxes, and witholding.
>>
>
> Wait until gasoline is back up above $4/gallon, natural gas is out of
> sight, oil and coal heat are forbidden, and coal-generated electricity
> is banned... oh, goody! I can hardly wait ;-)
Don't forget that Arizona is going to get paved with solar generating plants
in the process - they will be needed to replace the coal-generated
electricity. Your back yard may yet become valuable real estate, despite the
red-neck blight.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Don Klipstein
Your posted graph ends around 1986.
Meanwhile, in the post-1979 era solar output has been very well
monitored and has not shown any upward trend.
Furtehrmore, sunspot cycle length got longer than 10 years again since
the endpoint of your graph, and global temperature continued increasing.
Furthermore, your temperature anomaly appears somewhat incorrect - with
the lowest since mid 1920's around 1970 rather than around late 40's to
early 50's. You also show a big dip around 1890 and hardly any around
1910 rather than a big dip around 1910 and a lesser one around 1890. You
also don't show the 1878-1879-centered spike - it was major enough to show
up well in smoothed annual figures, with smoothed annual value being
greatest between 1850 and mid 1920's.
For a graph of global temperature anomaly referenced favorably by The
Register in their "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article, go to:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Raveninghorde
Bill, do you insult everyone who doesn't agree with you?
I posted a link showing a relationship between sun spots and
temperature. You say a rather short period and over a longer period
there is no correlation. Yet you post a link to a graph just showing
the same temeprature change and no correlation to anything for the
same time period. Your point??
If you have information that proves my graph wrong then post it.
Don't just insult me for disagreeing.
krw
Use-The-En...@My-Web-Site.com says...>
>
> >On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:15:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
> ><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:45:58 +0000, Raveninghorde
> >
> >>>I presented you clear data that shows the close relationship between
> >>>sunspots and temperature. It explains recent global warming.
> >>>
> >>>As to AGW I saw no one predicting global cooling for the next few
> >>>years until very recently. Until the AGW theories can predict 5 to 10
> >>>years ahead I ain't going to take much notice of longer term
> >>>predictions.
> >>>
> >>>Give it a couple of years of cooling and Jo Public won't believe in
> >>>AGW either.
> >>
> >>Jo Public with invest in public hangings in a few years when he
> >>finally realizes the fleecing he's been treated to.
> >
> >I'll believe it when I see it. We still have the income tax,
> >employment taxes, death taxes, and witholding.
> >
>
> Wait until gasoline is back up above $4/gallon, natural gas is out of
> sight, oil and coal heat are forbidden, and coal-generated electricity
> is banned... oh, goody! I can hardly wait ;-)
Notice with all this GW how hot it's becoming in the NE? I'm glad
I moved to the more temperate South. ;-)
Jim Thompson
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
Bill is best simply kill-filed. Otherwise he causes great indigestion
because of the stress induced by trying to imagine someone so-o-o-o-o
ignorant.
...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!
Okkim Atnarivik
: On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:26:59 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
: >You presented me with a well-known correlation covering a rather short
: >period. As you ought to know, correlation does not imply causation,
: >and in fact if you stretch the period, the correlation goes away.
: If you have information that proves my graph wrong then post it.
: Don't just insult me for disagreeing.
I agree that hard data and proper argumentation is more reassuring
than insults aimed at the opponent.
I'd prefer not to comment whether this proves or disproves anything,
but as a public service I copypasted the sunspot record from
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtm on top of the
Wikipedia's temperature record which mr Sloman referred to. The result is
found at http://www.tinyurl.com/9jya72 .
I also augmented the graph mr Raveninghorde referred to underneath for
comparison. Only then I realized that it is not the sunspot *activity
level* which has been plotted against the temperatures (and which I
feel might conceivably have something to do with the global weather),
but smallish variations (within the 10 to 12 years range) in the *length* of
the sunspot cycle. Pasteing graphs on top of each other was easy but
digging out the sunspot data in a numeric form and Fourier transforming it
is too much for now. I suppose the result also depends quite a lot on
the details of how the data has been filtered and what sort of a sliding
window has been used to find the cycle.
The only mechanism I can think of, which would couple sunspot occurrence
frequency to the global weather is that it is somehow correlated with the
total radiated solar power, through mysterious inner workings of the
sun. But surely the solar radiative power is being monitored directly (is
it?), and *that* is the data which one should try to correlate with the
temperature record?
I'd like, by the way, to thank mr Sloman for taking the time over and again
to protect the cause of us leftist weenies in a (mostly) well-argumented and
civilized manner - something hard-working leftist weenies are typically
hard-pressed to find time for. I'd also like to thank those right-wing
nitwits who have the patience to illuminate their stance in a (mostly)
well-argumented and civilized manner in this forum - eg. mr Larkin's name
comes to mind from the past.
Regards,
Mikko
John Larkin
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
Sloman doesn't care about climate, or about electronics. They are just
subjects he uses to demonstrate how smart he is, and how stupid
everyone else is.
Now *that's* dumb!
John
bill....@ieee.org
I only insult those whose disagreements are ill-founded.
The sunspot correlation story was never more than that - there's no
persuasive connection between sunspot intensity and global warming.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html?page=1
and the impressive graph that started the ball rolling was based on
bad data
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
You posted a URL pointing to the uncorrected version, which you got
from a global warming denial web-site.
Unsurprisingly, they present invalid data that suits their case -
presumably they are as weak on the science as all the other
denialists, and perhaps didn't realise that the graph had been
corrected.
> I posted a link showing a relationship between sun spots and
> temperature.
As it turns out, a link to erroneous data.
>You say a rather short period and over a longer period
> there is no correlation.
That's what I remember from the discussions I've read.
>Yet you post a link to a graph just showing
> the same temprature change and no correlation to anything for the
> same time period. Your point??
I haven't posted any such a link in this thread - you must be
confusing me with one of the other posters.
> If you have information that proves my graph wrong then post it.
> Don't just insult me for disagreeing.
I'm not insulting you for disagreeing, I'm insulting you for being
dumb enough to disgree on the basis of faulty data that you don't
actually understand.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
I'm dumb because of faulty data? Or because you claim I don't
understand the data?
So how accurate is the temperature record?
And how meaningful is a single global temperature figure?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
Bill Sloman
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> schreef in
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:19:42 +0000, Raveninghorde
> <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:26:59 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>
>>>On 1 jan, 22:45, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:51:20 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>> >On 1 jan, 14:21, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:18:46 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
>>>>
>>>> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> >> >I've just got through Thomas L. Friedman's book "Hot, Flat and
>>>> >> >Crowded" ISBN
>>>> >> >978-1-846-14129-4.
<snip>
> Bill is best simply kill-filed. Otherwise he causes great indigestion
> because of the stress induced by trying to imagine someone so-o-o-o-o
> ignorant.
By which he means that I don't share his ill-informed view of the world and
have the gall to correct his more obvious errors; he might more
constrictively mitigate his indigestion by learning a bit more about the
world outside electronics, but that would be painful - finding out that
you've been making idiotic observations for years because you don't know any
better doesn't do anything good for your self-respect.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in
bericht news:3nmsl45cf0r3ibkc4...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:19:42 +0000, Raveninghorde
> <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:26:59 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>
>>>On 1 jan, 22:45, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:51:20 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>> >On 1 jan, 14:21, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:18:46 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
>>>>
>>>> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> If you have information that proves my graph wrong then post it.
>>Don't just insult me for disagreeing.
>>
>
> Sloman doesn't care about climate, or about electronics. They are just
> subjects he uses to demonstrate how smart he is, and how stupid
> everyone else is.
>
> Now *that's* dumb!
It would be, if that were what I was doing. John's perceptions are somewhat
warped by his own-self-image as somebody who knows what he is talking about,
which he has from time to time sabotaged by posting egregious nonsense. He
resented my corrections at the time, and still resents them, and comforts
himself with the delusion that I'm doing it because I have some relentless
need to prove myself smarter than everybody else.
Happily, I don't feel any such necessity - which is just as well because Don
Klipstein does a much better job of correcting the global warming denialists
than I could ever do.
--
Bill sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:32:53 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> Bill, do you insult everyone who doesn't agree with you?
>
> >I only insult those whose disagreements are ill-founded.
>
> >The sunspot correlation story was never more than that - there's no
> >persuasive connection between sunspot intensity and global warming.
>
> >http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html?page=1
>
> >and the impressive graph that started the ball rolling was based on
> >bad data
>
>
> >You posted a URL pointing to the uncorrected version, which you got
> >from a global warming denial web-site.
> >Unsurprisingly, they present invalid data that suits their case -
> >presumably they are as weak on the science as all the other
> >denialists, and perhaps didn't realise that the graph had been
> >corrected.
>
> >> I posted a link showing a relationship between sun spots and
> >> temperature.
>
> >As it turns out, a link to erroneous data.
>
> >>You say a rather short period and over a longer period
> >> there is no correlation.
>
> >That's what I remember from the discussions I've read.
>
> >>Yet you post a link to a graph just showing
> >> the same temprature change and no correlation to anything for the
> >> same time period. Your point??
>
> >I haven't posted any such a link in this thread - you must be
> >confusing me with one of the other posters.
>
> >> If you have information that proves my graph wrong then post it.
> >> Don't just insult me for disagreeing.
>
> >I'm not insulting you for disagreeing, I'm insulting you for being
> >dumb enough to disgree on the basis of faulty data that you don't
> >actually understand.
>
> I'm dumb because of faulty data? Or because you claim I don't
> understand the data?
You are dumb becuse you latched onto an isolated piece of information
which you picked up on a denialist web-site and presented it as if it
meant something. If you'd spent a little time with Google, you could
have picked up the information that I did - that showed that the graph
you presented was invalid and had been corrected.
If you'd spent a little more time, you might have worked out that the
sunspot story was one of a number of wacky hypotheses that have
surfaced in the scientific literature, been subjected to the usual
give and take of scientific debate and eventually discarded.
It's survival on denialist web-sites reflects one of the standard
techniques used by people interested in discrediting a scientific case
when they can't actually discredit the science - they dig out old
controversies and revive the the original proposition while ignoring
the consequent debate (and in this case the correction) in an all-too-
successful tactic of making the real scientific case look weaker than
it is to people who lack the background information to see what is
going on.
Creationists use the same trick when trying to discredit evolution. It
has been around long enough that anybody who still falls for it has to
be seen as somewhat stupid.
> So how accurate is the temperature record?
>
> http://surfacestations.org
Accurate enough. And these days NASA has got a bunch of satellites
backing up the surface stations, which do survery the entire planet.
> And how meaningful is a single global temperature figure?
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
Not all that meaningful - as your web-site points out, it's always
changes in temperature at specific places that we end up worrying
about.
On the other hand, the source of the problem is the accumulation of
green-house gases in the atmosphere, which is remarkably homogenous
around the world, and the problems that this is creating - and will
continue to creat for the next few hundred years - affect temperatures
all over the world, so the rise in the global average temperature is a
useful proxy.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
krw
I wonder if he's ever noticed that few respond to his garbage anymore.
Jim Thompson
We still seem to have a few remanent feed-the-troll types :-(
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> I've just got through Thomas L. Friedman's book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" ISBN
> 978-1-846-14129-4.
>
> warming as an established fact, though he does say enough about it to make
> it clear that he has done his homework on the subject, and proceeds to
> discuss what we've got to do to adapt our society to deal with this and
> related problems.
>
> George Monbiot's "Heat" fits the same description, but where Monbiot is
> mainly interested in the technical details of the mechanisms that will let
> society continue to work while burning carbon at between 2.5% (American and
> Australia) and 5% (Europe) of the current rate, Friedman is primarily
> interested in the ways we can encourage technologists to invent and market
> the necessary clean hardware in sufficient volumes to bring its costs down
> to levels where it can compete with existing power sources, both in terms of
> dollars per installed kilowatt and dollars per kilowatt hour
>
> He's a strong proponent of the tax and subsidise approach, which the Germans
> are using with some success to persuade people to buy and use wind and solar
> power units and plug them into the power grid.
>
> Happily, the right-wing nitwits who object to this kind of government
> intervention in the free market don't believe in anthropogenic global
> warming in the first place.
If it exists, then the cheapest, quickest and best method of fixing it
is geo-engineering. Any one of a number of schemes, or combination
thereof eg iron seeding, cloud generation etc. Costs likely to be
<$10billion per annum.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
Don Klipstein
Where in that page is support for the temperature shown in the graph you
provided a link to?
>And how meaningful is a single global temperature figure?
>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
We have HadCRUT-3 and HadCRUT-3v, appropriately weighting oceans, which
are greatly lacking urban heat islands. HadCRUT-3v is good enough for The
Register in one of their criticisms of NASA's GISS (The "A Tale of Two
Thermometers article).
Then there are the UAH and the MSU/RSS interpretations of "brightness
temperature" as a function of frequency throughout a major atmospheric
shorter-microwave band, to determine temperature of various layers of the
atmosphere, including the lower troposphere - but only since good
satellite coverage of this started in 1979. During their existence, they
correlated fairly well with HadCRUT-3 and HadCRUT-3v. Determining the
temperature of the lower troposphere as a whole avoids problems specific
to weather station locations, such as urban effects. Those are also good
enough for The Register, which tends to argue against existence of AGW.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
krw
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:33:08 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:16:23 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:19:42 +0000, Raveninghorde
>>><raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>Bill, do you insult everyone who doesn't agree with you?
>>>>
>>>>I posted a link showing a relationship between sun spots and
>>>>temperature. You say a rather short period and over a longer period
>>>>there is no correlation. Yet you post a link to a graph just showing
>>>>the same temeprature change and no correlation to anything for the
>>>>same time period. Your point??
>>>>
>>>> If you have information that proves my graph wrong then post it.
>>>>Don't just insult me for disagreeing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Bill is best simply kill-filed. Otherwise he causes great indigestion
>>>because of the stress induced by trying to imagine someone so-o-o-o-o
>>>ignorant.
>>
>>I wonder if he's ever noticed that few respond to his garbage anymore.
>
>We still seem to have a few remanent feed-the-troll types :-(
Trolls are fun to play with. Slowman is an old dried up hag, though.
Raveninghorde
>
>On the other hand, the source of the problem is the accumulation of
>green-house gases in the atmosphere, which is remarkably homogenous
>around the world, and the problems that this is creating - and will
>continue to creat for the next few hundred years - affect temperatures
>all over the world, so the rise in the global average temperature is a
>useful proxy.
Does CO2 lead or lag temperature rise?
Raveninghorde
Klipstein) wrote:
>>
>>So how accurate is the temperature record?
>>
>>http://surfacestations.org
>
> Where in that page is support for the temperature shown in the graph you
>provided a link to?
No direct link. I am questioning the temperature record.
>
>>And how meaningful is a single global temperature figure?
>>
>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
>
> We have HadCRUT-3 and HadCRUT-3v, appropriately weighting oceans, which
>are greatly lacking urban heat islands. HadCRUT-3v is good enough for The
>Register in one of their criticisms of NASA's GISS (The "A Tale of Two
>Thermometers article).
>
> Then there are the UAH and the MSU/RSS interpretations of "brightness
>temperature" as a function of frequency throughout a major atmospheric
>shorter-microwave band, to determine temperature of various layers of the
>atmosphere, including the lower troposphere - but only since good
>satellite coverage of this started in 1979. During their existence, they
>correlated fairly well with HadCRUT-3 and HadCRUT-3v. Determining the
>temperature of the lower troposphere as a whole avoids problems specific
>to weather station locations, such as urban effects. Those are also good
>enough for The Register, which tends to argue against existence of AGW.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Thanks. I will google. I appreciate the constructive response.
For Bill: Health warning. This link is from a "denialist" website.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg
Bill seems to think I'm a denialist. I'm an engineer and expect any
theory to be backed by proper measurements. I also expect any theory
to make predictions that can be validated. The onus is on the
supporters of a theory to make their case.
Unfortunately climate has become political and religious for too many
people.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
/quote
One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change
denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust
denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change
denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ (1)
Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on
trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their
attempts to cover up the ‘global warming…Holocaust’ (2).
Raveninghorde
>
>> So how accurate is the temperature record?
>>
>> http://surfacestations.org
>
>Accurate enough. And these days NASA has got a bunch of satellites
>backing up the surface stations, which do survery the entire planet.
>
The source for the wikipedia graph you keep posting seems to be here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Note a lot of the source data comes from the measurement sites
investigated in my link:
So how accurate is the temperature record you like to quote?
It's pretty dumb to quote data based on appalling measurements. If an
engineer of mine did measurements like that he would be out of a job.
Bill Sloman
"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
news:l5cul4dqk7ftjmat9...@4ax.com...
In the ice core data, which records the climate's response to the (small)
thermal forcing from the Milankovitch orbital changes, the CO2 lags (and
amplifies) the intial forcing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Our current situation is that we are injecting CO2 into the atmosphere by
burning fossil fuels, which immediately raises the global temperature by
increasing the greenhouse effect.
At the moment something like half the CO2 we are injecting into the
atmosphere is being absorbed by the oceans; as the oceans warm up - and they
seem to have time constant of 800 years - this absorbtion will stop and
reverse, so we aren't getting the ful benefit of the CO2 that we are
currently injecting into the atmosphere.
Note that fossil carbon contains less of the short-lived (5568 years)
isotope C-14 than atmospheric CO2 (and the CO2 dissolved in the oceans) used
to so our activities are registered in the declining C-14 content of
atmopsheric CO2 (the Suess effect).
http://www.pojman.com/CHEM1002/C14-dating.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
Sadly, you are probably wrong. "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM
machines".
I'd expect that the data from the suspect measurement sites would be
processed before it went into the record.
The concept of cities as "urban heat islands" has been around for a while
now - since 1820 in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
>news:l5cul4dqk7ftjmat9...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:24:24 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>On the other hand, the source of the problem is the accumulation of
>>>green-house gases in the atmosphere, which is remarkably homogenous
>>>around the world, and the problems that this is creating - and will
>>>continue to creat for the next few hundred years - affect temperatures
>>>all over the world, so the rise in the global average temperature is a
>>>useful proxy.
>>
>> Does CO2 lead or lag temperature rise?
>
>In the ice core data, which records the climate's response to the (small)
>thermal forcing from the Milankovitch orbital changes, the CO2 lags (and
>amplifies) the intial forcing.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
So CO2 lags temperature rise.
The little ice age hit minimum around 1650 (wikipedia). CO2 started
rising soon after. Global temperature has been rising since then as
has CO2.
So of the 100ppm CO2 rise at least some is natural.
Bill Sloman
"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
It presents six years worth of data. The CO2 concentration record shows
a steady progression over this period, but the temperature measurments are
hopelessly noisy. By snipping the right six years out of the climate record
you
can produce any trend that you like, and all it proves is that you don't
know
how to extract useful information from noisy data.
> Bill seems to think I'm a denialist.
No, I think you've shown yourself to be a sucker for denialist web-sites.
>I'm an engineer and expect any theory to be backed by proper
>measurements.
When you don't know enough about the subject to reject improper
conclusions based on short exerpts from noisy data?
>I also expect any theory to make predictions that can be validated.
It is rather difficult to validate long term predictions about long term
trends for a noisy system. Try to think through your demands before
spelling them out in public.
>The onus is on the supporters of a theory to make their case.
Which they have done. The IPCC reports the concensus of the
research published in peer-reviewed journals.
> Unfortunately climate has become political and religious for too many
> people.
>
> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
>
> /quote
>
> One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing 'climate change
> denial'. 'David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust
> denial', she wrote. 'Perhaps there is a case for making climate change
> denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.' (1)
> Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on
> trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their
> attempts to cover up the 'global warming.Holocaust' (2).
British science journalists don't know much about science, and do
seem to be suckers for the kind of obfustication that Exxon-Mobil
used to fund.
Some of the anti-global-warming propaganda presents outright lies,
and a lot more of it lies by omission, which is to say it is fraudulent.
Fraud is a crime, but fraudsters have to take money directly from their
victims in order to run any real risk of prosecution. The millions that
Exxon-Mobil and the coal companies will make because they've
managed to slow effective measures for reducing CO2 emissions
for a few years comes directly out of our pockets, but we can't
easily sue them for their criminal activity.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
From:
/quote
adjustments have been made to account for measurable and predictable
data biases, such as Time of Observation and station moves, but the
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA's Goddard Institute of
Space Flight (GISS) who are the main collectors, analyzers, and
modelers of climatic data have not done a site by site hands on
photographic survey to account for microsite influences near the
thermometer. To date all such studies conducted have been data
analysis and data manipulations used to spot and/or minimize data
inconsistencies.
/end quote
The raw data errors will all be high and probably increasing. So the
temperature curves depend on GISS fudge factors. The phrase garbage
in garbage out springs to mind.
The errors are not a random distribution and looking at the site
survey results will probably exceed the value of the temperature
annomaly.
Bill Sloman
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:6s7v05F...@mid.individual.net...
I'm less enthusiastic about geo-engineering. The general rule is that if
you have got yourself into a hole it is a good idea to stop digging.
Getting the bulk of our enenrgy by burning fossil carbon isn't a sustainable
strategy - there's only a finite amount of fossil carbon in the ground, and
the
cost of extracting it is going to keep on rising as we work our way through
the
more accessible deposits.
In the long term we've got to go over to sustainable energy sources -
basically
solar power from hydro-elecric plants, windmills and and more directly
solar-powered electricity generation schemes - and it makes sense to put our
energy into getting with that rather starting up another large scale
experiment
on the planet's climate.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
By the time we ramp down fossil use, in 20-30 years time, it will
probably be too late to avert major climate change unless we go the
geo-engineering route. Stopping carbon emissions *now* just won't happen.
bill....@ieee.org
> Bill Slomanwrote:
> > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> > more directly solar-powered electricity generation schemes - and it
> > makes sense to put our energy into getting with that rather starting
> > up another large scale experiment on the planet's climate.
>
> By the time we ramp down fossil use, in 20-30 years time, it will
> probably be too late to avert major climate change unless we go the
> geo-engineering route.
> Stopping carbon emissions *now* just won't happen.
Slowing them down now is a possibility, and your "probably" covers a
lot of uncertainty. Going for geo-engineering "now" would be invading
Irak before you'd got control of Afghanistan.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:40:06 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
> >news:vonul41m35gd29i4i...@4ax.com...
I think you are getting excited about a fairly trivial problem.
There are climatologists out there who would like nothing better than
to write a really impressive paper that would debunk global warming.
The fact that they haven't got around to doing it does suggest that
there's not enough uncorrected data in the system to blow up into a
head-line grabbing paper in Nature or Science or the Proceedings of
the American Academy of Science.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:15:54 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
> >news:l5cul4dqk7ftjmat9...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>On the other hand, the source of the problem is the accumulation of
> >>>green-house gases in the atmosphere, which is remarkably homogenous
> >>>around the world, and the problems that this is creating - and will
> >>>continue to creat for the next few hundred years - affect temperatures
> >>>all over the world, so the rise in the global average temperature is a
> >>>useful proxy.
>
> >> Does CO2 lead or lag temperature rise?
>
> >In the ice core data, which records the climate's response to the (small)
> >thermal forcing from the Milankovitch orbital changes, the CO2 lags (and
> >amplifies) the intial forcing.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
>
> So CO2 lags temperature rise.
>
> The little ice age hit minimum around 1650 (wikipedia). CO2 started
> rising soon after. Global temperature has been rising since then as
> has CO2.
>
> So of the 100ppm CO2 rise at least some is natural.
Not a lot of it. Check out the carbon-14 isotope ratio of today's
atmospheric CO2.
Try to read all the way through the site below. You could learn a lot.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Don Klipstein
>On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 05:12:02 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don
>Klipstein) wrote:
>
>>>So how accurate is the temperature record?
>>>
>>>http://surfacestations.org
>>
>> Where in that page is support for the temperature shown in the graph you
>>provided a link to?
>
>No direct link. I am questioning the temperature record.
And thereby calling into question (or agreeing with me to call into
question) the graph that you originally provided including a temperature
record that I found questionable.
>>>And how meaningful is a single global temperature figure?
>>>
>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
>>
>> We have HadCRUT-3 and HadCRUT-3v, appropriately weighting oceans, which
>>are greatly lacking urban heat islands. HadCRUT-3v is good enough for The
>>Register in one of their criticisms of NASA's GISS (The "A Tale of Two
>>Thermometers article).
>>
>> Then there are the UAH and the MSU/RSS interpretations of "brightness
>>temperature" as a function of frequency throughout a major atmospheric
>>shorter-microwave band, to determine temperature of various layers of the
>>atmosphere, including the lower troposphere - but only since good
>>satellite coverage of this started in 1979. During their existence, they
>>correlated fairly well with HadCRUT-3 and HadCRUT-3v. Determining the
>>temperature of the lower troposphere as a whole avoids problems specific
>>to weather station locations, such as urban effects. Those are also good
>>enough for The Register, which tends to argue against existence of AGW.
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>
>Thanks. I will google. I appreciate the constructive response.
>
>For Bill: Health warning. This link is from a "denialist" website.
>
>http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg
That covers a mere 6-7 years, with the most recent noted year in that
short stretch including the 2007-2008 La Nina, greatest one in 20 years,
notably a transient cooling event.
That graph there shows 3 curves:
1. Mauna Loa Observatory "seasonally adjusted" CO2
2. UAH temperature-lower-troposphere interpretation of satellite data
(There is another one "more-warmingist" than UAH but good enough for
"The Register" in their "A Tale of Two Thermometers"article, by RSS/MSU.
That one is the RSS/MSU "lower troposphere",
first of the 4 "line graphs" in the middle of the 13 graphics in:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt)
3. HadCRUT-3v-global
As for versions covering more time than starting with 2002:
HadCRUT-3v-global, link obtained from The Register's "A Tale of Two
Thermometers" article:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
UAH global-as-determinable lower troposphere temperature, in text file
form, 1st column being year, 2nd column being month, and 3rd column being
as-globally-as-determinable deviation from "whatever-was-norm":
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 PPMV in Microsoft's "Excel" format:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/flask_co2_and_isotopic/monthly_co2/
monthly_mlf.csv
>Bill seems to think I'm a denialist. I'm an engineer and expect any
>theory to be backed by proper measurements. I also expect any theory
>to make predictions that can be validated. The onus is on the
>supporters of a theory to make their case.
>
>Unfortunately climate has become political and religious for too many
>people.
>
>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
>
>/quote
>
> One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change
>denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust
>denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change
>denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ (1)
>Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on
>trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their
>attempts to cover up the ‘global warming…Holocaust’ (2).
Meanwhile, you like to concentrate on a roughly 7 year record ending
with the "Great La Nina of 2007-2008", along the lines of others
concentrating on a 10-11 year record ending with the same greatest La Nina
in 20 years and beginning with the greatest El Nino on record.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Raveninghorde
So your argument appears to be that as no one has published the
research and published a report on the accuracy of the raw data then
it must be a trivial problem. And you are happy to ignore the fact
that someone is doing the research and showing the data is unreliable?
And you are not worried that the "experts" haven't bothered to do the
boring ground work before now? And you had the cheek to call me dumb.
And presumably the politically impartial IPCC will take on board such
research like, for example, the Mann hockey stick curve.
Which comes to why I distrust the IPCC. They made such a fuss about
the hockey stick graph which was obviously wrong. No little ice age?
No medieval warm period? First time I saw it I knew it was suspect
and no one on the IPCC knew enough to know that the curve was
defective?
Raveninghorde
Back to my question how accurate is the temperature record?
http://www.cao-rhms.ru/krut/OAO2007_12E_03.pdf
A quick google shows no critcal comment on the article.
In summary the author gives an error band of 0.7K which is greater
than the claimed temeprature increase and also shows that the change
in the last 50 years is within the expected fluctuation range.
JosephKK
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:45:58 +0000, Raveninghorde
><raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:51:20 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>
>>>On 1 jan, 14:21, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:18:46 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> >I've just got through Thomas L. Friedman's book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" ISBN
>>>> >978-1-846-14129-4.
>>>>
>>>> >Eeyore wouldn't like it. Friedman - correctly - takes anthropogenic global
>>>> >warming as an established fact, though he does say enough about it to make
>>>> >it clear that he has done his homework on the subject, and proceeds to
>>>> >discuss what we've got to do to adapt our society to deal with this and
>>>> >related problems.
>>>>
>>>> >George Monbiot's "Heat" fits the same description, but where Monbiot is
>>>> >mainly interested in the technical details of the mechanisms that will let
>>>> >society continue to work while burning carbon at between 2.5% (American and
>>>> >Australia) and 5% (Europe) of the current rate, Friedman is primarily
>>>> >interested in the ways we can encourage technologists to invent and market
>>>> >the necessary clean hardware in sufficient volumes to bring its costs down
>>>> >to levels where it can compete with existing power sources, both in terms of
>>>> >dollars per installed kilowatt and dollars per kilowatt hour
>>>>
>>>> >He's a strong proponent of the tax and subsidise approach, which the Germans
>>>> >are using with some success to persuade people to buy and use wind and solar
>>>> >power units and plug them into the power grid.
>>>>
>>>> >Happily, the right-wing nitwits who object to this kind of government
>>>> >intervention in the free market don't believe in anthropogenic global
>>>> >warming in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> http://icecap.us/images/uploads/sunspot-cycle-length-temp.JPG
>>>> referenced fromhttp://icecap.us
>>>>
>>>> Anthropogenic? Only GW religious fanatics belive that.
>>>
>>>You've got to be very dumb to believe that sunspot numbers explain the
>>>recent warming, and very ill-informed to believe that the evidence
>>>supporting anthropogenic global warming was revealed by revelation.
>>>
>>>Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>>>if you don't understand the technology involved, and claiming that a
>>>belief in anthropogenic global warming is necessarily based on some
>>>kind of religious faith just demonstrates that you don't understand
>>>the technology involved in collecting the evidence.
>>
>>Occams razor.
>>
>>I presented you clear data that shows the close relationship between
>>sunspots and temperature. It explains recent global warming.
>>
>>As to AGW I saw no one predicting global cooling for the next few
>>years until very recently. Until the AGW theories can predict 5 to 10
>>years ahead I ain't going to take much notice of longer term
>>predictions.
>>
>>Give it a couple of years of cooling and Jo Public won't believe in
>>AGW either.
>
>Jo Public with invest in public hangings in a few years when he
>finally realizes the fleecing he's been treated to.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
I wish. But such political crimes are usually rewarded with a higher
position. Follow Michael Mann, follow the money.
JosephKK
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:15:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:45:58 +0000, Raveninghorde
>>
>>>>I presented you clear data that shows the close relationship between
>>>>sunspots and temperature. It explains recent global warming.
>>>>
>>>>As to AGW I saw no one predicting global cooling for the next few
>>>>years until very recently. Until the AGW theories can predict 5 to 10
>>>>years ahead I ain't going to take much notice of longer term
>>>>predictions.
>>>>
>>>>Give it a couple of years of cooling and Jo Public won't believe in
>>>>AGW either.
>>>
>>>Jo Public with invest in public hangings in a few years when he
>>>finally realizes the fleecing he's been treated to.
>>
>>I'll believe it when I see it. We still have the income tax,
>>employment taxes, death taxes, and witholding.
>>
>
>Wait until gasoline is back up above $4/gallon, natural gas is out of
>sight, oil and coal heat are forbidden, and coal-generated electricity
>is banned... oh, goody! I can hardly wait ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Household stoves and fireplaces burning anything will also be banned.
I can cope with all but the last, then my utility bills would exceed
my mortgage payment. How high will yours go?
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
The point being, we don't have to do anything *now*.
JosephKK
And to think, enlightened society supposedly gave up on witch hunts
"centuries ago". In reality NOT. Pseudopower to the sheeple.
JosephKK
Be glad you work in a normal industry where they cannot get tenure.
Bill Sloman
We don't "have" to do anything if we don't want to mitigate the chances of
provoking a global extinction sometime in the next few hundred years.
At the moment we haven't provoked enough global warming to be in a
position to make a particularly accurate prediction of the way the current
global climate will react to further increases in the level of carbon
dioxide
in the atmosphere, and we've got no idea of the way the climate will
change when we've - say - melted all the artic ice and watched the
Greenland ice cap slide off into the ocean.
It might be prudent to try and arrange things so that we never get to find
out.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
You stupidity does happen to be relevant. You think that the errors that
you are fussing about are significant and important. Climatologists clearly
think differently, and you feel happy about attributing their indiffence to
a
lack of willingness to do "boring ground work" which - as any graduate
student will tell you - is what graduate students are for.
> And presumably the politically impartial IPCC will take on board such
> research like, for example, the Mann hockey stick curve.
The problem with Mann's hockey stick curve wasn't the result - which has
been confirmed repeatedly since Steve McIntyre found the error in Mann's
technique - but Mann's data reduction scheme.
It's not easy to detect the existence of a fault in the data analysis when
the
analysis happens to produce the right answer.
> Which comes to why I distrust the IPCC.
Actually, you distrust the IPCC because Exxon-Mobil and a bunch of
other interested parties spent a load of money on anti-IPCC propaganda,
and you are too stupid to realise that you have been manipulated.
>They made such a fuss about
> the hockey stick graph which was obviously wrong. No little ice age?
> No medieval warm period?
Both of which figure largely in Northern European history. Asian and
Southern Hemisphere data tell rather different stories.
> First time I saw it I knew it was suspect
> and no one on the IPCC knew enough to know that the curve was
> defective?
Actually, they knew enough to know that neither the little ice age or
medieval warm period were global phenomena - your suspicions were
merely parochial prejudice.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I think the fact that the Earth has in the past been a lot hotter with
more CO2 means that we will be OK
> in the atmosphere, and we've got no idea of the way the climate will
> change when we've - say - melted all the artic ice and watched the
> Greenland ice cap slide off into the ocean.
In a few hundred years.
Time to move North.
> It might be prudent to try and arrange things so that we never get to find
> out.
Not if it costs too much.
Raveninghorde
You are a closed minded little man. You think you know it all don't
you?
I now understand why Jim said to kill file you - but I haven't given
up all hope for you yet.
The reason I am skeptical is because " Climatologists clearly
think differently". In my experience most academics aren't into
boring work whatever their subject. They'd much rather they, and their
grad students, do the stuff that gets them published - and that
excludes 3 to 5 years of real detailed field work that will get
someone else published.
>
>> And presumably the politically impartial IPCC will take on board such
>> research like, for example, the Mann hockey stick curve.
>
>The problem with Mann's hockey stick curve wasn't the result - which has
>been confirmed repeatedly since Steve McIntyre found the error in Mann's
>technique - but Mann's data reduction scheme.
>
>It's not easy to detect the existence of a fault in the data analysis when
>the
>analysis happens to produce the right answer.
Not the right answer, the required answer.
>
>> Which comes to why I distrust the IPCC.
>
>Actually, you distrust the IPCC because Exxon-Mobil and a bunch of
>other interested parties spent a load of money on anti-IPCC propaganda,
>and you are too stupid to realise that you have been manipulated.
I don't trust big business any more than I trust academics. I'm all
for genuine fossil fuel replacements - fossil fuel won't last for
ever. Exxon can go they way of GM for all I care.
>
>>They made such a fuss about
>> the hockey stick graph which was obviously wrong. No little ice age?
>> No medieval warm period?
>
>Both of which figure largely in Northern European history. Asian and
>Southern Hemisphere data tell rather different stories.
>
>> First time I saw it I knew it was suspect
>> and no one on the IPCC knew enough to know that the curve was
>> defective?
>
>Actually, they knew enough to know that neither the little ice age or
>medieval warm period were global phenomena - your suspicions were
>merely parochial prejudice.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/ncc/clivar/pastclimate
They note similarities to the medieval warm period and little ice age
but say more work required.
Seems to make it global for me.
Or are you going to say again that " Climatologists clearly
think differently".
Eeyore
Bill Sloman wrote:
> I've just got through Thomas L. Friedman's book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" ISBN
> 978-1-846-14129-4.
>
> Eeyore wouldn't like it. Friedman - correctly - takes anthropogenic global
> warming as an established fact, though he does say enough about it to make
> it clear that he has done his homework on the subject, and proceeds to
> discuss what we've got to do to adapt our society to deal with this and
> related problems.
I've read many time Paul and Anne Ehrlich's Book Population Resources and
Environment. ISBN 0716706806
It made many warnings of the catastrophism type including that the world
wouldn't be able to feed itself by ~ 1980 or so IIRC. It all seemed quite
credible and well reseached too.
It was wrong, as history proved, on every SINGLE point.
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> You've got to be very dumb to believe that sunspot numbers explain the
> recent warming
Are you suggesting there's no relationship, recent or otherwise ?
Graham
Eeyore
Raveninghorde wrote:
> Give it a couple of years of cooling and Jo Public won't bel;ieve in
> AGW either.
At a recent count, 60% of the UK population thought it was rubbish, about 10% didn't
know, leaving under 1/3 who did believe. Yet it still dominates policy.
Graham
Eeyore
Jim Thompson wrote:
> Jo Public with invest in public hangings in a few years when he
> finally realizes the fleecing he's been treated to.
I predict earlier than that with government we've got here. They only listen to
themselves.
Revolution is the only answer. The French had the right idea.
Graham
Eeyore
Bill Sloman wrote:
> Somehow I doubt that the people who take anthropogenic global warming
> seriously are going to have to fear for their necks.
I wouldn't like to be in Al Gore's shoes a few years from now.
Question is, will the Nobel Committee repeal his 'prize' ?
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
It is well known that at leat one wikipedia editor is heavily pro-AGW rendering most
of their source material on THIS subject highly suspect.
Graham
Eeyore
Raveninghorde wrote:
> Bill, do you insult everyone who doesn't agree with you?
Yes he does. It's an AGWist trait viz: "you must be stupid for not seeing it". It's a
religion you see.
Graham
Eeyore
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> The point being, we don't have to do anything *now*.
Even if we did it would takes many, many decades before it even started to have an
effect. I've seen figures for CO2 persistence in the atmosphere between 100 and 400
years. Not that CO2 has anything to do with it of course .....
Rather than spend money on tokenist windmills et al, spend money on energy use
reduction like ultra insulation and more efficient power generation. Proven
technology, cheap and very effective.
"MAN Diesel designs and builds turn-key power stations. On-shore or as power barges,
using modular designs. In this way, each power plant can be extended step-by-step to
keep pace with increasing power demand. In combined heat and power mode (CHP) they
generate both electrical power and thermal energy and so overall energy utilisation
levels as high as 95%."
http://www.mandiesel.com/category_000082.html
'New generation' diesel engines for cars are targetting 40% efficiency for example.
The work's already in progress. Ship engines with co-gen can achieve 70%.
"High-efficiency waste heat recovery
An important feature of the first ship installation of the 14RT-flex96C is the
high-efficiency waste heat recovery system. It contributes major savings in fuel
consumption and reductions in exhaust gas emissions.
Exhaust gases of the ship’s main engine pass through an exhaust-gas economiser to
generate steam for a turbine-driven generator. The turbogenerator set also includes
an exhaust-gas power turbine driven by a portion of the exhaust gases diverted from
the main flow through the engine’s turbochargers.
This high-efficiency waste heat recovery plant can provide an electrical output of
up to about 12% of the main engine power. The generated electricity is supplied to
the ship’s main switchboard and employed in a shaft motor to assist in ship
propulsion. A portion of the steam from the exhaust economiser is utilised in
shipboard heating services."
http://www.wartsila.com/,en,press,0,tradepressrelease,8F51527F-00A3-4C5F-ABEA-B543789ACA1B,26EE6684-06C9-48B3-920A-3B238B7C302A,,.htm
Even so, ships *WASTE* more oil than all aviation uses. What do the greens and Slow
Man target ? Aviation of course, so as to make us feel miserable about going on
holiday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS82323+24-Jun-2008+BW20080624
LONDON--(Business Wire)--
As Saudi Arabia announced a 200,000 barrel increase in oil
production and consumers grapple with record pump prices and fuel
shortages, the shipping industry today consumed 4.37 million barrels
of oil unnecessarily, new research has revealed.
The figures, from leading maritime technology company DK Group and
backed by United Nations-commissioned research, prove that ships are
wasting the equivalent of more than $140 billion of consumers and
investors money in fuel costs per year and emitting an extra 672
million tonnes of CO2 per year (more than the aviation industry's 600
million tonnes CO2).
Graham
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Bill Slomanwrote:
> > Somehow I doubt that the people who take anthropogenic global warming
> > seriously are going to have to fear for their necks.
>
> I wouldn't like to be in Al Gore's shoes a few years from now.
Dream on. Al Gore hasn't had a lot more scientific education than you
have, but he does have the advantage of access to people who do know
what they are talking about, and he has had the good judgement to
lsten to them, where you chose believe only people who've been paid to
lie to you by Exxon-Mobil and other interested parties.
> Question is, will the Nobel Committee repeal his 'prize' ?
It's highly unlikely. None of the Nobel Prize Committees have ever
admitted getting it wrong, and in Al Gore's case on-one in their right
mind is going to think he didn't deserve it. Your opinion - of course
- is rather differet, but then again you suffer from the insane
delusion that you know soemthing about science.
Tell us again what the GRACE satellite actually measures - slap-stick
really isn't dead.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
> > Jo Public with invest in public hangings in a few years when he
> > finally realizes the fleecing he's been treated to.
>
> I predict earlier than that with government we've got here. They only listen to
> themselves.
They'd be ill-advised to listen to you
> Revolution is the only answer. The French had the right idea.
And it got them Napoleon. No matter how bad the government you've got,
a revolution gives you a worse one.
Look at the American War of Independence.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:49:40 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
> >news:3lu0m4tg4jrtkjh0b...@4ax.com...
My mind is closed to your kind of idiocy.
> You think you know it all don't
> you?
More than you do at any rate.
> I now understand why Jim said to kill file you - but I haven't given
> up all hope for you yet.
Very kind of you.
> The reason I am skeptical is because " Climatologists clearly
> think differently". In my experience most academics aren't into
> boring work whatever their subject. They'd much rather they, and their
> grad students, do the stuff that gets them published - and that
> excludes 3 to 5 years of real detailed field work that will get
> someone else published.
My Ph.D. project took five years of solid work - including a fortnight
grinding and polishing two disk of cast silica to make UV-transparent
windows for my reaction vessel. I'm not sure why my supervisor didn't
let me just buy them, but it wouldn't have done me any good to argue
about the matter.
> >> And presumably the politically impartial IPCC will take on board such
> >> research like, for example, the Mann hockey stick curve.
>
> >The problem with Mann's hockey stick curve wasn't the result - which has
> >been confirmed repeatedly since Steve McIntyre found the error in Mann's
> >technique - but Mann's data reduction scheme.
>
> >It's not easy to detect the existence of a fault in the data analysis when
> >the analysis happens to produce the right answer.
>
> Not the right answer, the required answer.
Or so you'd like to think.
> >> Which comes to why I distrust the IPCC.
>
> >Actually, you distrust the IPCC because Exxon-Mobil and a bunch of
> >other interested parties spent a load of money on anti-IPCC propaganda,
> >and you are too stupid to realise that you have been manipulated.
>
> I don't trust big business any more than I trust academics. I'm all
> for genuine fossil fuel replacements - fossil fuel won't last for
> ever. Exxon can go they way of GM for all I care.
>
> >>They made such a fuss about
> >> the hockey stick graph which was obviously wrong. No little ice age?
> >> No medieval warm period?
>
> >Both of which figure largely in Northern European history. Asian and
> >Southern Hemisphere data tell rather different stories.
>
> >> First time I saw it I knew it was suspect
> >> and no one on the IPCC knew enough to know that the curve was
> >> defective?
>
> >Actually, they knew enough to know that neither the little ice age or
> >medieval warm period were global phenomena - your suspicions were
> >merely parochial prejudice.
>
> http://www.niwa.co.nz/ncc/clivar/pastclimate
>
> They note similarities to the medieval warm period and little ice age
> but say more work required.
In fact what they say is that other authors (Cook, E.R., Palmer, J.G.
and D Arrigo, R.D. 2002. Evidence for a Medieval Warm Period in a
1,100 Year Tree-Ring Reconstruction of Past Austral Summer
Temperatures in New Zealand. Geophysical Research Letters 29(14):
10.1029/2001GL014580.)
have claimed a similarity but they can't really see it in their data.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/tasmania/tasmania_recon.txt
The Tasmanian tree ring record doesn't include anything looks much
like either event.
> Seems to make it global for me.
Wishful thinking
> Or are you going to say again that " Climatologists clearly
> think differently.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
This isn't surprising. The conclusion contains one obviously
nonsensical claim, and nobody is going to take it seriously.
> In summary the author gives an error band of 0.7K which is greater
> than the claimed temeprature increase and also shows that the change
> in the last 50 years is within the expected fluctuation range.
The nonsensical claim is
"3. The observed increase of the carbon dioxide
content in the atmosphere is not a cause, but a
consequence of stochastic temperature fluctuations."
and the reason that it is nonsense is that the authors have ignored
the progressive decrease in the carbon-14 content of atmospheric
carbon dioxide - the Suess effect - which demonstates that the
increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is a direct
consequence of our burning fossil carbon, which doesn't contain any of
the short lived (half-life of 5568 years) carbon-14 isotope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
The paper's introduction does suggest that it was politically
inspired, and the politician who inspired it doesn't seem to have been
able to influence any of the competent researchers in the field.
Once again you seem to have but your faith in a less than reliable
source.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
The point about witch hunts is that the victims didn't actually do
anything to provoke their persecution.
The more energetic of the climate change deniers - Christopher
Monckton comes to mind - are lying to the public about a matter of
serious public interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
He published an article in a non-refereed publication of the Ameircan
Institute of Phsyics
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
which is - to put it kindly - misleading
http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
He has also claimed that the world's glacier are advancing, not
receding, which happens to be a lie.
This sort of activity is protected by the general right to freedom of
speech, but as Judge Learned Hand famously pointed out, freedom of
speech doesn't extend to crying "fire" in a crowded theatre.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Graham doesn't understand science and can't see the difference between
science and religion.
Here's an example of his scientific insight
Richard Henry posted this URL which mentions that Greenland is losing
ice at a great rate
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/38992
to which Graham responded
"But ice is *supposed* to melt when it gets to the sea ! The sea's
warmer than
ice's melting point you see ! Have *they* measured how much NEW ice
has been
formed in the interior ? You bet not. But NASA and ESA have been, and
it's
growing. Ditto Antartica. "
managing to ignore the point that measurments were being made by the
GRACE satellites which measure the actual mass of the Greenland ice
cap.
Richard Henry responded by posting this URL
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/5295
which spells out that while the centre of the Greenland ice cap had
accumulated some extra ice (54 gigatons) the periphery had lost a lot
more (155 gigatons).
Graham doesn't seem to appreciate how thoroughly idiotic this kind of
thing makes him look.
Telling him explicitly is - of course - insulting him, but his fatuous
self-confidence doesn't leave us any alternatives.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> Bill Slomanwrote:
> > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
That may depend on how quickly the earth warms up. A couple of the
global extinction events show an interesting dip in the carbon isotope
ratios for fossil carbon deposited at the time, which seems to
correspond to a large injection of methane, such as we might provoke
by thawing the Arctic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
Once the methane - a very potent greenhouse gas - starts getting ito
the atmosphere, the process is likely to run away. Nobody is in any
position to promise a global extinction, but it has happened before.
> > in the atmosphere, and we've got no idea of the way the climate will
> > change when we've - say - melted all the artic ice and watched the
> > Greenland ice cap slide off into the ocean.
>
> In a few hundred years.
> Time to move North.
>
> > It might be prudent to try and arrange things so that we never get to find
> > out.
>
> Not if it costs too much.
Your descendants may have a slightly different take on the cost-
benefits analysis. Global extinction events tend to kill off any land
animal that is bigger than a rabbit and doesn't breed as as fast,
which does happen to include us.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
> > The point being, we don't have to do anything *now*.
<snipped plea for energy efficiency, which - fine though it is - isn't
going to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions enough to save our bacon>
> Exhaust gases of the ship’s main engine pass through an exhaust-gas economiser to
> generate steam for a turbine-driven generator. The turbogenerator set also includes
> an exhaust-gas power turbine driven by a portion of the exhaust gases diverted from
> the main flow through the engine’s turbochargers.
>
> This high-efficiency waste heat recovery plant can provide an electrical output of
> up to about 12% of the main engine power. The generated electricity is supplied to
> the ship’s main switchboard and employed in a shaft motor to assist in ship
> propulsion. A portion of the steam from the exhaust economiser is utilised in
> shipboard heating services."http://www.wartsila.com/,en,press,0,tradepressrelease,8F51527F-00A3-4...
>
> Even so, ships *WASTE* more oil than all aviation uses. What do the greens and Slow
> Man target ? Aviation of course, so as to make us feel miserable about going on
> holiday.
Eeyore - donkey that he is - hasn't noticed that it would relatively
straight-forward to replace the oil bunkers on a ship with hydrogen
storage, or any one of a number of other climate neutral fuels.
The tanks would to have to be bigger and heavier than you'd need to
store the equivalent amount of energy with a carbon-based fuel, but
this is not a problem on a ship.
Aircraft are less forgiving. Hydrogen powered airships would work
fine, but they are a bit slow. Twenty or thirty years of development
would probably solve the problem, but hanging around this long
doesn't look like a good idea to people who understand that
anthropogenic global warming is a real problem
Since Graham doesn't understand much, he feel free to be
irresponsible.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jon Kirwan
>On 4 jan, 20:57, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>><snip>
>> I think the fact that the Earth has in the past been a lot hotter with
>> more CO2 means that we will be OK
>
>That may depend on how quickly the earth warms up.
><snip>
Probably another cut at the answer would be to have Dirk read a few
science papers on what is developing about those times when it was "a
lot hotter." Only one example of very many here:
http://www.physorg.com/news3130.html
Jon
Don Klipstein
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:24:24 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
>>On the other hand, the source of the problem is the accumulation of
>>green-house gases in the atmosphere, which is remarkably homogenous
>>around the world, and the problems that this is creating - and will
>>continue to creat for the next few hundred years - affect temperatures
>>all over the world, so the rise in the global average temperature is a
>>useful proxy.
>
>Does CO2 lead or lag temperature rise?
During the few hundred thousand years before the Industrial Revolution,
when environmental carbon content was constant, atmospheric CO2 content on
average lagged temperature by 800 years - according to "best
determinations so far". Atmosphere/ocean ratio of CO2 varying directly
with temperature was one of the feedback mechanisms that allowed periodic
minor changes of insolation at a key range of latitudes to cause the Ice
Ages to come and go. Two other positive feedback mechanisms have been
water vapor (notably a greenhouse gas whose degree of presence varies
greatly directly with surface temperature) and surface albedo.
The surface albedo one appears to be both very strong even globally and
concentrated to Arctic and near-Arctic latitudes - the "Milankovitch
Cycles" are mainly noted to periodic variations in insolation at 65
degrees north latitude, though one that apears to me not latitude-specific
does appear to have more effect than ones that appear to me
latitude-specific. The latitude-specific ones have some effect despite
lacking variation in global insolation and lacking variation in insolation
of specifically the northern or southern hemispheres.
Since the Industrial Revolution, temperature has lagged atmospheric CO2
concentration by a few years on the whole if anything.
The most recent center year of a 5 year period for which I saw smoothed
HadCRUT global surface temperature was 2005. Atmospheric CO2 content went
halfway from the 280 ppmv best-determination-of-pre-industrial-revolution
to the 379.6 ppmv of 2005 in 1973.
Smoothed HadCRUT-3 and smoothed HadCRUT-3v have global surface
temperature around .32-.33 degree C cooler than the 1961-1990 average from
1850 to 1900. The post-2000 stretch has smoothed global surface
temperature around .42 degree C warmer than the 1961-1990 average.
Halfway up is .045-.05 degree C warmer than the 1961-1990 average.
Smoothed global surface temperature rose through that in 1980. If
since-1850-periodic-so-far effects that I would blame on the Multidecadal
Oscillation (period 60-65 years) are accounted for, the year that would
have happened would not be 1980 but 1978 or 1977 - still lagging by 4-5
years.
And if freezing atmospheric CO2 at 2005 level fails to halt warming past
the temperature level of the 2001-2008 stretch, then the lag turns out to
be much greater.
I am reluctant to buy any notion that current atmospheric CO2 rise is
from 800 year lag from MWP, because nature has been removing CO2 from the
atmosphere rather than adding during the times when there have been good
figures for global fossil fuel burning and good measurements of
atmospheric CO2 content at Mauna Loa Observatory.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:15:54 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>>"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
>>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:24:24 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>On the other hand, the source of the problem is the accumulation of
>>>>green-house gases in the atmosphere, which is remarkably homogenous
>>>>around the world, and the problems that this is creating - and will
>>>>continue to creat for the next few hundred years - affect temperatures
>>>>all over the world, so the rise in the global average temperature is a
>>>>useful proxy.
>>>
>>> Does CO2 lead or lag temperature rise?
>>
>>thermal forcing from the Milankovitch orbital changes, the CO2 lags (and
>>amplifies) the intial forcing.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
>
>So CO2 lags temperature rise.
>
>The little ice age hit minimum around 1650 (wikipedia). CO2 started
>rising soon after. Global temperature has been rising since then as
>has CO2.
>
>So of the 100ppm CO2 rise at least some is natural.
Except that nature is removing CO2 from the atmosphere rather than
adding (so far since the Mauna Loa Observatory started good monitoring of
atmospheric CO2 content). Recent-decades fossil fuel combustion accounts
for a greater increase in atmospheric CO2 content than has actually
occurred.
Beware of global warming reducing ability of oceans to retain CO2 that
they absorbed in response to increase of atmospheric concentration of CO2.
Oceans' ability to hold CO2 varying inversely with temperature was one of
the positive feedback mechanisms that allowed minor variations of
insolation either globally or at a key range of latitudes to cause the Ice
Ages to come and go. The lag that existed before the Industrial
Revolution indicated that before then atmospheric CO2 content was result
more than cause of global surface temperature variation (it was a positive
feedback mechanism and not the only one).
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:24:24 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>> So how accurate is the temperature record?
>>>
>>> http://surfacestations.org
>>
>>Accurate enough. And these days NASA has got a bunch of satellites
>>backing up the surface stations, which do survery the entire planet.
>
>The source for the wikipedia graph you keep posting seems to be here:
>
>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
My impression is that it is:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg
Not from NASA's GISS, but HadCRUT-3. A derivative thereof, HadCRUT-3v,
is good enough for The Register to use to argue against NASA's GISS in The
Register's "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article.
Or maybe it was:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Meanwhile, direct link to a graph of global HadCRUT-3v that I obtained
from The Register's "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article is:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
>Note a lot of the source data comes from the measurement sites
>investigated in my link:
>
>http://surfacestations.org
>
>So how accurate is the temperature record you like to quote?
>
>It's pretty dumb to quote data based on appalling measurements. If an
>engineer of mine did measurements like that he would be out of a job.
And as noted, The Register's "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article says
that determination from satellite data for great global coverage is "more
reliable". They even refer to 2 determinations both in links to text file
determination results and both of them in line graph form over a time
period selected to support their case against existence of AGW.
One of those is "channel temperature lower troposphere" by RSS. And,
with words from the notably conservative Paul Harvey, "For the rest of the
story"...
Atmospheric temperature trends, at least specifically by
altitude-layer-level-discernably-alone as well as also discerned by both
altitude and latitude, maybe even more such as color-coded maps of the
globe, from one of the 2 satellite data interpretation sources cited by
The Register in their "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Frank Buss
> The tanks would to have to be bigger and heavier than you'd need to
> store the equivalent amount of energy with a carbon-based fuel, but
> this is not a problem on a ship.
Maybe a better idea would be using sand to transport energy, because it has
a higher energy density and is not as dangerous as hydrogen:
http://www.wikipatents.com/apps/20040063052.html
Background article in German:
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~gerbrehm/nw/sand.pdf
--
Frank Buss, f...@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Don Klipstein
>On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:23:20 -0800 (PST), bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
>>On 3 jan, 21:13, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 20:40:06 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
>>>
>>> >> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:24:24 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> So how accurate is the temperature record?
>>>
>>> >>>>http://surfacestations.org
>>>
>>> >>>Accurate enough. And these days NASA has got a bunch of satellites
>>> >>>backing up the surface stations, which do survery the entire planet.
>>>
>>> >> The source for the wikipedia graph you keep posting seems to be here:
>>>
>>> >>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
>>>
>>> >> investigated in my link:
>>>
>>> >>http://surfacestations.org
>>>
>>> >> So how accurate is the temperature record you like to quote?
>>>
>>> >> It's pretty dumb to quote data based on appalling measurements. If an
>>> >> engineer of mine did measurements like that he would be out of a job.
>>>
>than the claimed temeprature increase and also shows that the change
>in the last 50 years is within the expected fluctuation range.
I suspect reluctance (that I myself indulge upon) to order web browsers
to go into Russia and nearby Eastern Europe with "modern-Mafia"
hacking/spyware and lacking-and-or-corrupted law enforcement.
Meanwhile, I do say that global-HadCRUT-3v as well as "lower
troposphere determinations from satellite data" by both RSS (RSS/MSU ?)
and UAH are good enough for The Register in their "A Tale of Two
Thermometers" article.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
<With great snippage by me to edit for space>
>>Wait until gasoline is back up above $4/gallon, natural gas is out of
>>sight, oil and coal heat are forbidden, and coal-generated electricity
>>is banned... oh, goody! I can hardly wait ;-)
>
>Household stoves and fireplaces burning anything will also be banned.
>I can cope with all but the last, then my utility bills would exceed
>my mortgage payment. How high will yours go?
So far in my experience since my parents first became mortgage-paying
homeowners around 1968 or maybe late 1967, all the homeowners I ever knew
well enough to know mortgage payments and and energy bills thereof paid
more for mortgage payments than for energy bills for the home.
Also, it appears to me that in the few to maybe several years ahead of
latter half of 2008, "average mortgage payment" was awfully low in
comparison to amount borrowed, with awful reliance on home values
inflating faster than the incomes of the families residing in a majority
of mortgaged homes.
On a longer time horizon, on average value of a homeowner-owned-occupied
home has tracked impressively closely with family income to pay for it.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
As the records well indicate now, post-1979 changes in solar activity do
not explain post-1979 warming.
Meanwhile, post-industrial-revolution, we did have a solar activity dip
around or a little after WWII - maybe assisting the
otherwise-suspected-60-65-year-period "Multidecadal Oscillation", that
cooled the globe from as early as the late 1940's to as late as the
mid-1970's.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
That one is HadCRUT-3, global.
How does that compare to global HadCRUT-3v, cited so favorably as to be
linked to (with citation being favorable) by The Register in their "A Tale
of Two Thermometers" article?
Global HadCRUT-3v, using the link from The Register in that article is:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
bill....@ieee.org
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > The tanks would to have to be bigger and heavier than you'd need to
> > store the equivalent amount of energy with a carbon-based fuel, but
> > this is not a problem on a ship.
>
> Maybe a better idea would be using sand to transport energy, because it has
> a higher energy density and is not as dangerous as hydrogen:
>
> http://www.wikipatents.com/apps/20040063052.html
>
> Background article in German:
>
> http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~gerbrehm/nw/sand.pdf
Silanes tend to be pyrophoric, which hydrogen is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silane
This does mean that a leak can't build up a huge cloud of combustible
gas - which is where hydrogen can be really dangerous - but back when
I was chemist silanes were usually regarded as a fairly serious safety
risk.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Bill Slomanwrote:
> > I've just got through Thomas L. Friedman's book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" ISBN
> > 978-1-846-14129-4.
>
> > Eeyore wouldn't like it. Friedman - correctly - takes anthropogenic global
> > warming as an established fact, though he does say enough about it to make
> > it clear that he has done his homework on the subject, and proceeds to
> > discuss what we've got to do to adapt our society to deal with this and
> > related problems.
>
> Environment. ISBN 0716706806
>
> It made many warnings of the catastrophism type including that the world
> wouldn't be able to feed itself by ~ 1980 or so IIRC. It all seemed quite
> credible and well reseached too.
>
> It was wrong, as history proved, on every SINGLE point.
In fact it warned that the world might not be able to feed itself by
the 1980s, which isn't quite the same thing.
It was published in 1970 and didn't have the extensive scientific base
that supports the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is
giving us problems now and has the potential to give us much worse
problems if we let it get worse.
Nobody put up any satellites to validate Paul and Anne Ehrlich's
research, and the Club of Rome wasn't funded the way NASA is now. If
you'd like to remember the computer power available before 1970
(integrated circuit based computers were rare and expensive) you might
understand why their computer models were grossly over-simplified, and
their worst case predictions ended up suggesting that the world might
collapse in the 1980s.
At the time it was known that if you ran their models backwards, the
world appeared to have been created in 1900.
As usual, your ignorance is leading you to equate apples and pears.
Why don't you use your claimed intelligence to find out a bit more
about the subjects you pontificate about?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Frank Buss
> Silanes tend to be pyrophoric, which hydrogen is not.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silane
I have no idea about the chemistry details, but the patent description
highlights this as an invention, that it is not pyrophoric:
http://www.wikipatents.com/apps/20040063052.html
| 1951 the silane research started in Cologne with Prof. Franz Fehr. At the
| beginning of the seventies his assistant Peter Plichta succeeded in
| producing the so-called higher silanes of the pentasilane Si.sub.5H.sub.12
| to the decasilane Si.sub.10R.sub.22 for the first time which were unknown
| until this date (German patent 21 39 155 (1976)). One came to know that--in
| contrast to the opinion up to this date higher silanes do not become
| instable with increasing chain length but, in contrast, become more stable
| so that, for instance, already the heptasilane (n-Si.sub.7H.sub.16) is no
| more self-ingniting at ambient temperature. Higher silanes are handle-safe,
| non-toxid liquids similar to diesel oil and thus pumpable.
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> Raveninghorde wrote:
> > Give it a couple of years of cooling and Jo Public won't bel;ieve in
> > AGW either.
>
> At a recent count, 60% of the UK population thought it was rubbish, about 10% didn't
> know, leaving under 1/3 who did believe. Yet it still dominates policy.
Policy makers are less susceptible to denialist propaganda. They get
to see more tenditious arguments, and have a better nose for
fraudulent rubbish than the general public.
You, on the other hand, think that the sun shines out of Christopher
Monckton's backside, despite the fact that the twit doesn't know what
he is talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Raveninghorde wrote:
> > > Bill, do you insult everyone who doesn't agree with you?
> >
> > Yes he does. It's an AGWist trait viz: "you must be stupid for not seeing it". It's a
> > religion you see.
>
> Graham doesn't understand science
My qualifications say otherwise.
> and can't see the difference between science and religion.
Bwahahahahahahahahaaa !
You're going to look so STOOPID in a couple of years time when the balloon bursts.
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> >
> > > The point being, we don't have to do anything *now*.
>
> <snipped plea for energy efficiency, which - fine though it is - isn't
> going to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions enough to save our bacon>
It is the MOST EFFECTIVE and inexpensive method and should be compulsory anyway. But since it wouldn't
make us feel bad, guilty or raise new taxes, the greens won't promote these simple measures.
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore - donkey that he is - hasn't noticed that it would relatively
> straight-forward to replace the oil bunkers on a ship with hydrogen
> storage, or any one of a number of other climate neutral fuels.
HYDROGEN ?
You're a hydrogen nutcase AS WELL ? Lord Above help us. Hydrogen uses MORE energy than conventional
propulsion.
Graham
Eeyore
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> Eeyore - donkey that he is - hasn't noticed that it would relatively
> straight-forward to replace the oil bunkers on a ship with hydrogen
> storage, or any one of a number of other climate neutral fuels.
>
> The tanks would to have to be bigger and heavier than you'd need to
> store the equivalent amount of energy with a carbon-based fuel, but
> this is not a problem on a ship.
>
> Aircraft are less forgiving. Hydrogen powered airships would work
> fine, but they are a bit slow. Twenty or thirty years of development
> would probably solve the problem, but hanging around this long
> doesn't look like a good idea to people who understand that
> anthropogenic global warming
Doesn't exist.
> is a real problem
>
> Since Graham doesn't understand much, he feel free to be
> irresponsible.
You have just shown yourself to be about the biggest FOOL on the planet.
Go find those hydrogen wells eh ?
Graham
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Raveninghorde wrote:
> > > > Bill, do you insult everyone who doesn't agree with you?
>
> > > Yes he does. It's an AGWist trait viz: "you must be stupid for not seeing it". It's a
> > > religion you see.
>
> > Graham doesn't understand science
>
> My qualifications say otherwise.
Dream on. It isn't your qualifications that post fatuous drivel as if
it had some scientific validity, and your asinine assertions happen to
be a little more relevant than the qualifications that you might have
acquired when you were somewhat younger.
> > and can't see the difference between science and religion.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahaaa !
>
> You're going to look so STOOPID in a couple of years time when the balloon bursts.
But you look stupid now, and you are going to sit there looking
progressively stupider as the balloon fails to burst.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> Graham
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
>
> It is well known that at leat one wikipedia editor is heavily pro-AGW rendering most
> of their source material on THIS subject highly suspect.
Being pro-AGW gives him an unfair advantage - all he has to do to
enforce his prejudices is to make sure that the data that is presented
comes from reliable sources who know what they are talking about.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
Oddly enough, Friedman's book does. but he does point out that - on
their own - improved energy efficiency isn't going to get the CO2
emissions down far enough to get us out of trouble.
But then again, Friedman isn't a card-carrying green, any more than I
am - I beleive I've made it clear here that I don't like or trust
Greenpeace.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
I really don't like hydrogen. It forms explosive mixtures with air
over a wide range of concentrations, and carrying lumps of it around
in moving vehicles is a great way of creating dramatic fuel-air
explosives, but the hydrogen nut-cases have done a fair amount of the
intellectual spade-work on plausible hydrogen economies.
I agree that you have to use energy to prepare hydrogen for use as a
fuel, and that this process can't be 100% efficient, but since we
really can't afford to continue to pump our energy out of the ground,
this isn't a valid objection to its use as a fuel for transportation.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > Eeyore - donkey that he is - hasn't noticed that it would relatively
> > straight-forward to replace the oil bunkers on a ship with hydrogen
> > storage, or any one of a number of other climate neutral fuels.
>
> > The tanks would to have to be bigger and heavier than you'd need to
> > store the equivalent amount of energy with a carbon-based fuel, but
> > this is not a problem on a ship.
>
> > Aircraft are less forgiving. Hydrogen powered airships would work
> > fine, but they are a bit slow. Twenty or thirty years of development
> > would probably solve the problem, but hanging around this long
> > doesn't look like a good idea to people who understand that
> > anthropogenic global warming
>
> Doesn't exist.
Or so Graham would like to believe
> > is a real problem.
>
> > Since Graham doesn't understand much, he feel free to be
> > irresponsible.
>
> You have just shown yourself to be about the biggest FOOL on the planet.
Nice of you to abandon your own claim to the position, but
unfortunately I happen to know how GRACE satellites work, and you
don't. so I'm disqualified from the competition.
> Go find those hydrogen wells eh ?
That doesn't happen to be a viable source of hydrogen - if you had the
wit you might be able to use Google to find out how a hydrogen economy
might work, but granting your disabilities, it would be pointless to
point to out a website.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
Klipstein) wrote:
>>Back to my question how accurate is the temperature record?
>>
>>http://www.cao-rhms.ru/krut/OAO2007_12E_03.pdf
>>
>>A quick google shows no critcal comment on the article.
>>
>>In summary the author gives an error band of 0.7K which is greater
>>than the claimed temeprature increase and also shows that the change
>>in the last 50 years is within the expected fluctuation range.
>
> I suspect reluctance (that I myself indulge upon) to order web browsers
>to go into Russia and nearby Eastern Europe with "modern-Mafia"
>hacking/spyware and lacking-and-or-corrupted law enforcement.
>
> Meanwhile, I do say that global-HadCRUT-3v as well as "lower
>troposphere determinations from satellite data" by both RSS (RSS/MSU ?)
>and UAH are good enough for The Register in their "A Tale of Two
>Thermometers" article.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
I've read the register article at last. Seams fair to me.
To summarise: NASA are fudging their data and it is out of line with
hadcrut. Hadcrut and the satellite data basically agree.
The satellite data originally did not show global warming. Reasons
were found, circa 1998, to increase the satellite readings in line
with the ground based measurements. Presumably this explains the
close correlation between the two records.
So we have hadcrut which uses measurements of dubious accuracy. These
stations have generic "correction" factors applied to the readings.
These corrected readings agree with the satellite readings which also
have correction factors applied.
So we are ment to have confidence in a global temperature rise which
is less than the value of the correction factors?
Raveninghorde
>>
>> Back to my question how accurate is the temperature record?
>>
>> http://www.cao-rhms.ru/krut/OAO2007_12E_03.pdf
>>
>> A quick google shows no critcal comment on the article.
>
>nonsensical claim, and nobody is going to take it seriously.
>
>> In summary the author gives an error band of 0.7K which is greater
>> than the claimed temeprature increase and also shows that the change
>> in the last 50 years is within the expected fluctuation range.
>
>
>"3. The observed increase of the carbon dioxide
>content in the atmosphere is not a cause, but a
>consequence of stochastic temperature fluctuations."
>
>and the reason that it is nonsense is that the authors have ignored
>the progressive decrease in the carbon-14 content of atmospheric
>carbon dioxide - the Suess effect - which demonstates that the
>increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is a direct
>consequence of our burning fossil carbon, which doesn't contain any of
>the short lived (half-life of 5568 years) carbon-14 isotope.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
>
>The paper's introduction does suggest that it was politically
>inspired, and the politician who inspired it doesn't seem to have been
>able to influence any of the competent researchers in the field.
>
>Once again you seem to have but your faith in a less than reliable
>source.
And the IPCC is non political?
And again you are happy to ignore any report not from someone who
agrees with you.
Raveninghorde
And hadcrut uses duff data from stations around the world including
those surveyed at surfacestaions.org.
Don Klipstein
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Hydrogen is lighter than air, and would float away.
Not that I think hydrogen has a good chance of being a good way to go,
but it appears to me safer than gasoline and propane.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Jim Thompson
Slowman will burn in Global Warming Hell ;-)
...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!
Don Klipstein
Funny how determinations of global lower troposphere temperature trends
from satellite data (notably the determinations by UAH and RSS/MSU, also
good enough for The Register to cite in their "A Tale of Two Thermometers"
article) agreed fairly well with HadCRUT-3 and HadCRUT-3v since these
determinations from satellite data started in 1979.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
krw
Use-The-En...@My-Web-Site.com says...>
His Hell will be coal fired.