Re: OT: Global warming strikes again.
Martin Riddle
"Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
>
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Earliest-Snowfall-For-17-Years-With-More-Predicted-In-The-Next-Few-Days/Article/201011415829484?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_4&lid=ARTICLE_15829484_Snow%3A_Parts_Of_Britain_See_Earliest_Snowfall_For_17_Years_With_More_Predicted_In_The_Next_Few_Days
>
Sharpen up those skates!!!
<http://www.youtube.com/user/ijszeilen#p/u/41/0BNlTPdmsRI>
Cheers
Bill Sloman
> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> >http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Ea...
>
> Sharpen up those skates!!!
It happens every winter, and will keep on happening for at least
another few decades if anthropogenic global warming continues at it's
current pace.
Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
areas. If all the melting ice in the Arctic and on top of Greenland
manages to swamp the thermo-haline
circulation that is currently driving the Gulf Stream it could get
quite a lot colder in the U.K. for a few centuries.
The Younger Dryas cold snap between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago is
blamed on a similar effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
It is suspected that this was caused by the draining of Lake Assagiz
(which - roughly speaking - covered what are now the Great Lakes in
Canada) which would have dumped a lot of fresh water in the North
Atlantic.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
We had record lows up here in the Sierras this week, -8F sort of
temps, and 8 feet of fresh snow on the peaks from a single storm.
Sugar Bowl was glorious the last few days, perfect snow and temps in
the mid-20s during the day. The tourists don't reserve for
Thanksgiving, because the snow isn't dependable this early; skiing
this weekend is unusual. Empty chairs!
The AGW people have been predicting drought for the West Coast, and
the rain/snow have, if anything, been above average the last 10 years.
There was snow on the ground here in July. More official studies show
no long-term trend in Sierra snowfall since 1916. Much of the central
valley and the coast gets is water supply from Sierra snow.
John
Rich Grise
>
> Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
> areas.
Ah, now I get it! Warming causes cooling!
Why has it taken me so long to reach enlightenment?
Thanks!!
Rich
Glenn Gundlach
Because we're dumb Americans rather than enlightened Europeans.
G²
Michael A. Terrell
The propblem is that they all burnt out, long ago. Like cheap
Chinese CFLs.
--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!
Bill Sloman
> BillSlomanwrote:
>
> > Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
> > areas.
>
> Ah, now I get it! Warming causes cooling!
>
> Why has it taken me so long to reach enlightenment?
Stupidity provides a necessary and sufficinet explanation.
Somebody less stupid might have carried over the relevant information
that *global* warming could cause *local* cooling, but Rich's life-
long enthusiasm for recreational chemicals hasn't left him enough
functioning brain cells to grasp such subtle distinctions.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:48:08 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
>
>
>
>
> >"Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> >>http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Ea...
>
> >Sharpen up those skates!!!
>
> ><http://www.youtube.com/user/ijszeilen#p/u/41/0BNlTPdmsRI>
>
> >Cheers
>
> We had record lows up here in the Sierras this week, -8F sort of
> temps, and 8 feet of fresh snow on the peaks from a single storm.
> Sugar Bowl was glorious the last few days, perfect snow and temps in
> the mid-20s during the day. The tourists don't reserve for
> Thanksgiving, because the snow isn't dependable this early; skiing
> this weekend is unusual. Empty chairs!
>
> The AGW people have been predicting drought for the West Coast, and
> the rain/snow have, if anything, been above average the last 10 years.
> There was snow on the ground here in July. More official studies show
> no long-term trend in Sierra snowfall since 1916. Much of the central
> valley and the coast gets is water supply from Sierra snow.
Anthropogenic global warming people have indeed been predicting
drought for the West Coast for some time now, but not for a few
decades yet.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=forecast-us-southwest-drought
John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
How convenient. After a couple of hundred years of CO2 rise, the
effects are still a few decades in the future.
>
>John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
>myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
>reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.
I gave up SciAm a long time ago, when they gave up hard science for
preachy semipolitical trash.
The cool thing about snow depth is that it's been measured in the same
places in pretty much the same ways since the early 1900s. No heat
island effects, no moving weather stations, no data culling. And the
measurements are NOT tracking AGW predictions so far. So good skiing
and long, hot showers are still in my plans.
We have maybe a dozen reporting weather stations close by here, plus
my private RTD thing. It's not unusual for there to be a 10C spread at
any instant. The most extreme temps are at the "official" weather
station at the airport. -8F Friday morning, when it was +8 here. The
station at the airport is a fairly recent installation.
At this instant, reported temps in F are 9 (official, airport), 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 17.1 (me), 19, and 21 in a pretty small region.
So what IS the temperature in Truckee?
John
Raveninghorde
Easy. All of the above.
Unfortunately the ground based temperature indices are useless.
The Met Office is aboutto upwardly correct sea surface temperatures
for the last 10 years. IT is strange how all current corrections are
upwards and historic corrections are downwards. It is almost as if
they are trying to make the data proove AGW.
Note the last sentence in the quotes below. Which year was warmest
depends on "temperatures in parts of the world where there are no
monitoring stations. "
/quote
�It�s currently the second-warmest year on record,� Pope said, noting
that 1998 had a �strong� El Nino phenomenon, a cyclical warming of the
Pacific Ocean that typically raises the global average temperature.
/end quote
/quote
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration publish two other widely
used global average temperature series. They have 2005 as the warmest
year due to differences in the way they account for temperatures in
parts of the world where there are no monitoring stations.
/end quote
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 05:53:46 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
>
> How convenient. After a couple of hundred years of CO2 rise, the
> effects are still a few decades in the future.
The CO2 levels didn't rise much in the first few hundred years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
The pre-industrial CO2 levels seem to have been around 280ppm, and
started creeping up around 1750.
In the 210 years between then and the beginning of the Mauna Loa
observations in 1958 the level went up to 315 ppm, 12.5%. Since then
it has gone up to 37.5% above the pre-industrial level. The rate of
increase is increasing, and the projections for 2100 lie between 541
and 970 ppm.
Your observation is comparable with that of the guy who jumped of the
top of the Empire State Building, and announced that everything was
fine as he passed the 50th floor ...
> >John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
> >myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
> >reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.
>
> I gave up SciAm a long time ago, when they gave up hard science for
> preachy semipolitical trash.
>
> The cool thing about snow depth is that it's been measured in the same
> places in pretty much the same ways since the early 1900s. No heat
> island effects, no moving weather stations, no data culling. And the
> measurements are NOT tracking AGW predictions so far. So good skiing
> and long, hot showers are still in my plans.
Whose AGW predictions? Snow depth isn't so much a reflection of colder
winters as wetter autumns.
> We have maybe a dozen reporting weather stations close by here, plus
> my private RTD thing. It's not unusual for there to be a 10C spread at
> any instant. The most extreme temps are at the "official" weather
> station at the airport. -8F Friday morning, when it was +8 here. The
> station at the airport is a fairly recent installation.
But fully automated. The weather service went to the trouble of
automating all the airport weather stations around 2004, and put in a
few extra automated stations in useful locations - apparently there is
one in Central Park. The other reporting weather stations are
maintained more out of historical interest than for the instrinsic
value of the data they record.
> At this instant, reported temps in F are 9 (official, airport), 13,
> 14, 15, 16, 17, 17.1 (me), 19, and 21 in a pretty small region.
>
> So what IS the temperature in Truckee?
A weighed average, with the airport getting most of the weight.
Anthropogenic global warming refers to a weighed average of
temperatures spread right around the entire globe - 71% of which is
covered with water.
Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
of white paint. The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
global warming is going on at the moment. That doesn't stop the
denialist press from giving his quixotic opinions loads of column
inches.
A recent issue of the journal of the Royal Australian Chemical
Institute - of which I'm still a member - included nearly a page of
his rubbish which some denialist propagandist had managed to sneak in
after flying the nitwit out to Australia to sell some more doubt about
anthropogenic global warming.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:28:04 -0800, John Larkin
>
>
> >How convenient. After a couple of hundred years of CO2 rise, the
> >effects are still a few decades in the future.
>
> >>John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
> >>myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
> >>reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.
>
> >I gave up SciAm a long time ago, when they gave up hard science for
> >preachy semipolitical trash.
>
> >The cool thing about snow depth is that it's been measured in the same
> >places in pretty much the same ways since the early 1900s. No heat
> >island effects, no moving weather stations, no data culling. And the
> >measurements are NOT tracking AGW predictions so far. So good skiing
> >and long, hot showers are still in my plans.
>
> >We have maybe a dozen reporting weather stations close by here, plus
> >my private RTD thing. It's not unusual for there to be a 10C spread at
> >any instant. The most extreme temps are at the "official" weather
> >station at the airport. -8F Friday morning, when it was +8 here. The
> >station at the airport is a fairly recent installation.
>
> >At this instant, reported temps in F are 9 (official, airport), 13,
> >14, 15, 16, 17, 17.1 (me), 19, and 21 in a pretty small region.
>
> >So what IS the temperature in Truckee?
>
> >John
>
> Easy. All of the above.
>
> Unfortunately the ground based temperature indices are useless.
Not strictly true. They have to be used with care. Not a concept that
Ravinghorde has the wit - let alone the motivation - to appreciate.
> The Met Office is about to upwardly correct sea surface temperatures
> for the last 10 years. It is strange how all current corrections are
> upwards and historic corrections are downwards. It is almost as if
> they are trying to make the data proove AGW.
There are other hypotheses, but Ravinghorde isn't going to entertain
any of them.
> Note the last sentence in the quotes below. Which year was warmest
> depends on "temperatures in parts of the world where there are no
> monitoring stations. "
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-26/world-may-record-warmest-yea...
>
> /quote
>
> It s currently the second-warmest year on record, Pope said, noting
> that 1998 had a strong El Nino phenomenon, a cyclical warming of the
> Pacific Ocean that typically raises the global average temperature.
>
> /end quote
>
> /quote
>
> The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
> National Aeronautics and Space Administration publish two other widely
> used global average temperature series. They have 2005 as the warmest
> year due to differences in the way they account for temperatures in
> parts of the world where there are no monitoring stations.
>
> /end quote
Though Ravinghorde hasn't yet heard about it, there are now satellites
in orbit that can measure surface temperature in places where there
aren't any monitoring stations.
Their measurements of the surface of the ocean do monitor the actual
surface, where water is evaporating and cooling the top fraction of a
millimetre. None of the contact measurement techniques are influenced
by this effect.
No doubt he will remain ignorant as long as his ignorance leaves him
free to accuse the NASA and the British Met Office of cooking their
books.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
Cool, we'll give most of the weight to the obvious (official!)
outlier. Located in a place that is an absolute anomoly around here, a
bare airport runway in a rare meadow flat, surrounded by mountain
forests.
Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
stations, and see how they are sited?
>
>Anthropogenic global warming refers to a weighed average of
>temperatures spread right around the entire globe - 71% of which is
>covered with water.
>
>Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
>non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
>of white paint. The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
>of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
>globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
>represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
>global warming is going on at the moment. That doesn't stop the
>denialist press from giving his quixotic opinions loads of column
>inches.
>
>A recent issue of the journal of the Royal Australian Chemical
>Institute - of which I'm still a member - included nearly a page of
>his rubbish which some denialist propagandist had managed to sneak in
>after flying the nitwit out to Australia to sell some more doubt about
>anthropogenic global warming.
Most of the surface area of the planet had zero weather stations until
recent years, and some huge area still have none. And modern weather
stations can't be usefully compared to historical measurements. The
only "fair" data is satellite measurement, which is too recent to
discern longterm trends.
John
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:18:57 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
So what. Has it ever struck you the global warming is averaged over
the entire globe, not just the various micro-environments around your
holiday home. Professional meteorologists - as opposed to Anthony
Watts who was a weather announcer on TV who may have gone to Purdue
but never graduated - did look into the heat island question, and
worked out that there weren't enough of them to make any significant
difference to the global average.
> Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
> stations, and see how they are sited?
The nearest weather stations to Nijmegen for which once can find
tabulated data on the web are in Twente and Eindhoven. Both are about
an hour's drive away. What exactly is my examining them going to do
for me?
> >Anthropogenic global warming refers to a weighed average of
> >temperatures spread right around the entire globe - 71% of which is
> >covered with water.
>
> >Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
> >non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
> >of white paint. The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
> >of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
> >globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
> >represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
> >global warming is going on at the moment. That doesn't stop the
> >denialist press from giving his quixotic opinions loads of column
> >inches.
>
> >A recent issue of the journal of the Royal Australian Chemical
> >Institute - of which I'm still a member - included nearly a page of
> >his rubbish which some denialist propagandist had managed to sneak in
> >after flying the nitwit out to Australia to sell some more doubt about
> >anthropogenic global warming.
>
> Most of the surface area of the planet had zero weather stations until
> recent years,
But ships logs have been recording weather data on the oceans since
the 16th century. The data recorded was one of the first things
standardised by the International Meteorological Organization when it
was set up in 1873. That's 71% of the planet's surface.
Callender in the late 1930's was able to put together enough data to
show that world was in fact warming - though, as it turned out - not
due to the small rise in CO2 level that had taken place since the
start of the industrial revolution.
> and some huge area still have none. And modern weather
> stations can't be usefully compared to historical measurements. The
> only "fair" data is satellite measurement, which is too recent to
> discern longterm trends.
I'm sure that the world's meteorologists will be glad that you have
your opinion on the subject. It doesn't seem to be one that they
share, and since they did the undergraduate courses that you seem to
have skipped, and went on to graduate school to learn a little more,
their opinions do carry a little more weight.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
Averaging bad data makes it good data? Graphing trends acquired over
100 years, by different instruments in different places, is good
enough to overturn the world's economy? I'm sure glad you don't design
electronics.
>
>> Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
>> stations, and see how they are sited?
>
>The nearest weather stations to Nijmegen for which once can find
>tabulated data on the web are in Twente and Eindhoven. Both are about
>an hour's drive away. What exactly is my examining them going to do
>for me?
Help you think?
John
Jamie
You're a prize package!
Bill Sloman
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
> BillSlomanwrote:
Says Jamie, whose performance in various threads over the past few
days has been rather less than stellar, not that he's likely to be
able to remember the finer points of his several pratfalls.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:55:51 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
Two points - the first that the data isn't bad data, merely local
data, and second that the evidence from that kind of temperature
measurement isn't the whole case for anthropogenic global warming, or
anything like it. You have fallen the "merchants of doubt" tactic of
casting doubt on a small portion (urban areas) of a minor part (the
land area of the United States) of a minor line of evidence (the
global historical records of weather observations), and allowed them
to fool you into neglecting the bulk of the scientific evidence.
The problem with your head-in-the-sand scepticism is that
anthropogenic global warming will - if allowed to proceed unchecked,
overturn the world economy in a century or so. The "overturning" of
the economy required to slow down CO2 emissions would be a planned and
gradual process, and is unlikely to to be accompanied by any
population crashes. The consequences of continueing global warming are
less predictable - we don't know which particular bit of shit is going
to hit the fan first - and won't be under anybody's control. There's
an increasing amount of geological evidence (from the end of the last
ice age) that suggests that ice caps tend break up suddenly, rather
than sedately melting in situ, and some rather older evidence that
that methane hydrates deposits - when provoked - tend to release a lot
of methane in geologically brief periods - less than a thousand years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
> >> Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
> >> stations, and see how they are sited?
>
> >The nearest weather stations to Nijmegen for which once can find
> >tabulated data on the web are in Twente and Eindhoven. Both are about
> >an hour's drive away. What exactly is my examining them going to do
> >for me?
>
> Help you think?
Not a subject where your advice is all that persuasive.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:55:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
SNIP
>>So what. Has it ever struck you the global warming is averaged over
>>the entire globe, not just the various micro-environments around your
>>holiday home. Professional meteorologists - as opposed to Anthony
>>Watts who was a weather announcer on TV who may have gone to Purdue
>>but never graduated - did look into the heat island question, and
>>worked out that there weren't enough of them to make any significant
>>difference to the global average.
>
>Averaging bad data makes it good data? Graphing trends acquired over
>100 years, by different instruments in different places, is good
>enough to overturn the world's economy? I'm sure glad you don't design
>electronics.
>
Exactly.
A common mistake I see in new engineers is using a DC meter and
noticing a small error. They puzzle over the circuit until they give
up unable to find the cause. I then put a scope on the signal and
show them the oscillation. The meter's average reading had too little
information to see what was going on.
It seems to me a lot of the AGW case is based on using a DC meter to
examine the climate. Trying to reduce the globe to a single annual
measurement is absurd.
What alarmists miss is that good engineers know how to measure things.
In the end it doesn't matter if it is volts and amps, or feet and
inches or temeprature and humidity.
SNIP
Bill Sloman
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:09:07 -0800, John Larkin
>
> >On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:55:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
> ><bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >>So what. Has it ever struck you the global warming is averaged over
> >>the entire globe, not just the various micro-environments around your
> >>holiday home. Professional meteorologists - as opposed to Anthony
> >>Watts who was a weather announcer on TV who may have gone to Purdue
> >>but never graduated - did look into the heat island question, and
> >>worked out that there weren't enough of them to make any significant
> >>difference to the global average.
>
> >Averaging bad data makes it good data? Graphing trends acquired over
> >100 years, by different instruments in different places, is good
> >enough to overturn the world's economy? I'm sure glad you don't design
> >electronics.
>
> Exactly.
>
> A common mistake I see in new engineers is using a DC meter and
> noticing a small error. They puzzle over the circuit until they give
> up unable to find the cause. I then put a scope on the signal and
> show them the oscillation. The meter's average reading had too little
> information to see what was going on.
If you are worried about global temperature changes you are committed
to averaging individual temperature measurements right around the
globe.
The detailed modelling of of the heat transfer from the sun to the
surface of the earth and then back again to outer space is more
sophisticated, and does allow for non-linearities - and worse. Clouds
colder than zero Celcius can either consist of droplets of super-
cooled water - if there aren't many dust particles around to act as
nuclei for ice crystals - or ice particles, and these two different
sorts of clouds absorb and retransmit infra-red radiation in subtly
different ways. The models can now handle this - we do know which bits
of the atmosphere are dusty, and whch aren't.
Because the earth has a rather extensive surface, the individual cells
in the models are still quite a lot bigger than individual clouds, so
the cloud behaviour in each cell is modelled as a mix of cloud and
clear sky, which isn't ideal, but engineers are working on a special
purpose super-computer that can handle a lot more cells.
The data about the vertical temperature distribution within the
oceans, and the heat trasnfer by ocean currents at various depths
within the oceans is still coming in from the Argo project, so the
models are getting progressively betters they interate this -
relatively new - data.
If you actually knew anyhting about what you are talking about, you
wouldn't make the implicit claim that meteorologist can't handle non-
linear processes.
> It seems to me a lot of the AGW case is based on using a DC meter to
> examine the climate. Trying to reduce the globe to a single annual
> measurement is absurd.
It seems to me - not for the first time - that you haven't got a clue
about the details of the case for anthropogenic global warming.
Reducing the temperature of the earth to a single annual measurment is
indeed an over-simplification, but it does make the point that
anthropogenic global warming is a global phenomena. Any detailed
discussion of the subject will point out that global warming is
currently affecting the arctic regions much more dramatically than the
rest of the globe - one of the well-known positive feedbacks that
amplifiy the relatively small direct greenhouse warming we get from
rising CO2 levels is the decrease in the albedo of previously snow-
and ice-covered regions as the snow and ice melt.
The albedo of the Arctic Ocean only matters in summer, when there is
some sun falling on it, and in summer the area of the Arctic Ocean
covered by sea ice falls to a new low every year or so nowadays.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php
Non-ice-covered ocean absorbs about 94% of the incoming solar
radiation. Sea ice absorbs about 40% and snow-covered sea ice can
absorb as little as 10%
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php
One of the more worrying potential positive feedbacks is methane
release from methane hydrates as the local temperature around methane
hydrate deposits builds up. There's a lot of methane tied up in
hydrates in the Siberian permafrost around the Arctic Circle, and as
that area warms up, some of that methane is already being released.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
> What alarmists miss is that good engineers know how to measure things.
> In the end it doesn't matter if it is volts and amps, or feet and
> inches or temeprature and humidity.
Oddly enough, the meteorologists interested in global warming do know
how to measure meteorological data. It isn't particularly surprising
that certain elderly electronic engineers don't know much about what
they measure and how they measure it, but it is a bit surprising that
you are silly enough to think that because you don't know what they
are doing, they don't either.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Nial Stewart
> non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
> of white paint.
Jesus Bill you're full of it.
Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
Note from here...
http://www.surfacestations.org/
..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
< 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.
BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever actually
visited the site?
> The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
> of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
> globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
> represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
> global warming is going on at the moment.
No, but if this is the quality of the records from the USA, which you
would probably expect to be some of the highest quality in the world,
what does it imply about other sources?
What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
Nial
Ian Bell
> On Nov 27, 6:48 pm, "Martin Riddle"<martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Ian Field"<gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>>
>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Ea...
>>
>> Sharpen up those skates!!!
>
> It happens every winter, and will keep on happening for at least
> another few decades if anthropogenic global warming continues at it's
> current pace.
>
> Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
> areas. If all the melting ice in the Arctic and on top of Greenland
> manages to swamp the thermo-haline
> circulation that is currently driving the Gulf Stream it could get
> quite a lot colder in the U.K. for a few centuries.
>
> The Younger Dryas cold snap between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago is
> blamed on a similar effect
>
Really, and just how many people were contributing to this AGW 11 or 12 thousand
years ago??
Cheers
ian
Raveninghorde
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
SNIP
>Any detailed
>discussion of the subject will point out that global warming is
>currently affecting the arctic regions much more dramatically than the
>rest of the globe
And which areas of the planet are estimated not measured either on the
ground or by satellite?
1. The Arctic?
2. The tropics?
Ring BILL SLOWMAN, calls will cost $1 per minute
SNIP
Bill Sloman
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:49:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
>
> SNIP
>
> >Any detailed
> >discussion of the subject will point out that global warming is
> >currently affecting the arctic regions much more dramatically than the
> >rest of the globe
>
> And which areas of the planet are estimated not measured either on the
> ground or by satellite?
>
> 1. The Arctic?
>
> 2. The tropics?
The satellites doing the measurements seem to be in polar orbits, and
survey the entire planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
You could have found that out for yourself, rather than going to the
trouble of reminding the rest of us that you really don't know what
you are talking about.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
> > Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
> > non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
> > of white paint.
>
> Jesus Bill you're full of it.
>
> Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....
>
> http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
The surface area of the United States is some nine million square
kilometres. You presumably pulled out the worst example of a n urban
weather station that you could find. How many square kilometres worth
of the temperature record is it contaminating?
> Note from here...
>
> http://www.surfacestations.org/
>
> ..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
> < 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
> an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.
When Anthony Watts is estinating the errors.
> BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever actually
> visited the site?
Not recently. It is a typical "merchants of doubt" web site, strong on
horrible examples, and weak on their (neglible) quantitative
significance.
> > The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
> > of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
> > globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
> > represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
> > global warming is going on at the moment.
>
> No, but if this is the quality of the records from the USA, which you
> would probably expect to be some of the highest quality in the world,
> what does it imply about other sources?
Why would you expect US weather records - from the manual stations
that Anthony Watts concentrates his attention on - to be of
particularly high quality? The US doesn't have a public service
tradition, and one would expect the traditional weather stations to be
serviced by people who were cheap rather than good.
The US Meteorlogical Service got into bed with commercial aviation
very early in the history of commercial aviation, and the airport
weather monitoring stations delivered more frequent, more up-to-date,
and more detailed data than the traditional observation stations from
very early on. The airport observatories were eventually automated in
2004, and I would expect those records be as good as anything you
could get from ground observers
> What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
An appreciation, based on a fairly thorough education in the relevant
physics, that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is
comprehensive and convincing, and that the denialist propaganda
against it is misleading and superficial.
Anthony Watt s is a depressing example of the sort of pseudo-authority
used by the denialist propaganda machine to sow fear, doubt and
uncertainy about the remarkably solid scientific envidence for
anthropogenic global warming.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Do pay attention. The Younger Dryas event was part of the end of the
last ice age - as the ice sheet over northern Canada melted, a big
lake of fresh water formed over what is now the Great Lakes, and this
eventually drained into the North Atlantic, killing the thermohaline
circulation - and thus the Gulf Stream - for the next 1300 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
The Greenland ice sheet is unlikely to dump as much fresh water into
the northern atlantic in a single catastrophic event, but the
thermohaline circulation is already being slowed down by the extra
fresh water being injected by the current melting of ice on and around
Greenland.
Life could get more interesting if large chunks of the Greenland ice
cap slid off into the ocean - the geological evidence from the end of
the last ice age is suggesting that this happened quite often when the
atmosphere was warming up - and melted close to Greenland.
This is one of the hard-to-model effects of global warming that the
IPCC doesn't emphasise for fear of being called alarmist, but it is a
real - if not all that easily quantified - risk.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Mark
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>
> None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
> suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
> understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
>
Exactly....
yet based on similar "predictions" you want to enact taxes and laws
that will have major economic impacts.
Mark
Raveninghorde
The ground based measurements are almost completely missing in the
polar areas.
The RSS satellite measurements don't have data near the poles:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
/quote
We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees due to
difficulties in merging measurements in these regions, and because
these regions are not sampled by all central fields of view.
/end quote
Don Klipstein
Bill Sloman wrote:
The satellite coverage has a 7.5 degree radius "pole hole" at each pole.
In addition, the RSS lower troposphere index (one of the "big 5" global
temperature trend indices) excludes everything within 20 degrees of the
south pole and land areas having elevation above 3,000 meters. This
excludes most of the Plateau of Tibet, nearly all of Antarctica, some
glacier-harboring mountain ranges, and apparently to me a bit of
Greenland.
In polar icy areas and polar areas during winter, there tends to be a
lack of local convection, so correlation between surface temperature and
temperature of the lower troposphere (at least 1/3 of the atmosphere by
mass) is not as good as it is worldwide. Satellite measurements of lower
troposphere temperature are not as good an indication of surface
temperature in radiation-cooled polar areas in comparison to "world
average".
Meanwhile, what is being worried about is surface temperature,
best-measured on land as temperature of the air 2 meters above the
surface. Surface temperature is what changes the most when change in
greenhouse gases changes radiation balance - at tropopause level, the
temperature changes in the opposite direction, though to a reduced extent
if albedo feedbacks are major positive ones, and according to some not
bucking the surface temperature trend in specific areas where convection
is greatest (intertropical convergence zone).
Surface temperature measurements used for global temperature trend
indices are awfully few and far between in polar and far-south areas, as
in lacking in most of the Arctic Ocean and inland Greenland, and on most
surface within 25-30 degrees or so of the south pole, along with southern
ocean areas far from land having a staffed weather station and far from
coverage by ship traffic. Where AGW has greatest concern is in many of
these meaurement-lacking areas.
There are also the complaints of reduction of the "thermometer count"
for consideration by the land portions of the 3 major global surface
temperature indices, especially the GISS and NCDC ones. With the "culling
of thermometers" leaving the remaining ones disproportionately in urban
areas, disproportionately on lower elevation land (reducing consideration
of more constant temperature of higher elevation land), and remaining
Arctic and near-Arctic ones being where local surface albedo feedback is
greater than average of the large areas represented by them.
It appears to me that the GISS index has fairly good filtering for
growth of urban contamination of the disproportionately-urban surface
stations being considered, but in recent years has excessive weighting of
ocean areas to the determination by nearest surface station. HadCRUT3
appears to me likely not as good for filtering growth of urban
contamination, but appears to me better by giving due consideration to a
sea surface temperature index that satellites can do well (though not as
well for land, due to variable land surface thermal IR emissivity). And
time between 1850 and 1979 smooths errors by insufficiency of data while
the measurements are not affected by complaints specific to land. (GISS
index starts shortly after what appears to me to be an El Nino even
greater than the 1998 "century class" one.)
However, HadCRUT3 excludes some polar and far-south ocean areas that GISS
interpolates rather than excludes.
There is also the matter of low coverage by considered surface stations
in many areas that are often under the intertropical convergence zone,
where convection of air from surface level to upper troposphere is so
great that many models consider troposphere temperature, even upper
troposphere temperature, to be tied more closely to surface temperature
than to radiation effects related to greenhouse gases aloft.
Most convection in the ITCZ over land is in Africa, South America,
and seasonally in Indonesia and parts of South Asia. And when and where
ITCZ convection flares up over sea, satellites can't see the sea surface
temperature well through the clouds, and ships have some tendency to be
steering clear of such stormy areas.
As a result, I do not have full confidence in any of the surface
indices.
Since IPCC-considered models for future warming strike me as generally
including an excessively-positive cloud albedo feedback even greater than
surface albedo feedback, and lack of derating of water vapor feedback for
the reduction of global atmosphere average relative humidity needed to
make the cloud albedo feedback positive, I have strong expectation
that future warming will be significantly less than "IPCC center track",
closer to low end of their range of projections.
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Bill Sloman wrote:
>On Nov 29, 2:32 pm, "Nial Stewart"
><nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
>> > non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
>> > of white paint.
>>
>> Jesus Bill you're full of it.
>>
>> Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....
>>
>> http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
>
>The surface area of the United States is some nine million square
>kilometres. You presumably pulled out the worst example of a n urban
>weather station that you could find. How many square kilometres worth
>of the temperature record is it contaminating?
>
>> Note from here...
>>
>> http://www.surfacestations.org/
>>
>> ..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
>> < 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
>> an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.
>
>When Anthony Watts is estinating the errors.
>
>> BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever
>> actually visited the site?
>
>Not recently. It is a typical "merchants of doubt" web site, strong on
>horrible examples, and weak on their (neglible) quantitative
>significance.
I do agree that Anthony Watts is biased. However, it appears to me that
he does not lie, but "prints the news that he sees as fit to print".
Including many irregularities of surface temperature measurements
amounting to something like a few % of the globe, along with a small
number of greater bits such as how GISS lately has a lot of ocean area
represented by land measurements. This makes me see some
mostly-constantly-icy Arctic Ocean area represented by surface stations
in areas with even above-Arctic-average local surface albedo positive
feedback.
It appears to me ill-advised to outright dismiss sources due to bias,
since few lack bias. What appears to me better is to consider all
sources, including both those favoring one's bias and the ones biased
in the opposite direction. See what is significant where they are not
lying, but merely "printing the news they see fit to print". Give the
anecdotes relevant to very little of the world appropriately low weight,
but not completely zero or negative if well-supportable. Give the
accusations relevant to more of the world some weight if well-supported
with citations unless refutable on basis other than bias (such as GISS
index lumping significant ocean areas into land-measurement-based land
component of index representing a higher percentage of the world than is
actually covered by land, and Arctic surface stations representing a large
area having more constant surface albedo than the location doing the
representing has).
Don Klipstein
Bill Sloman wrote:
European cooling by disrupting of the Gulf Stream is a negative
feedback, due to increasing northern hemisphere snow cover. Please note
that the Younger Drias interrupted and slowed the warming trend from the
most recent Ice Age glaciation.
If the Gulf Stream is interrupted by AGW and major snowfall increase
befalls Europe, then complete melting down of Greenland can easily be
dragged out over many centures, maybe even for about as long a period of
time as the Younger Dryas lasted. Humans can easily adapt to agricultural
shifts and sea level changes taking place over a few centuries or a
millennium.
For that matter, the CO2 from burning the world's reserves of fossil
fuels only takes several centuries to be dissolved into deeper levels of
the ocean, where CO2 content changes only a few percent if even enough CO2
to make the atmosphere 1200 PPMV is evenly distributed that deep in the
ocean. If most of Greenland's ice sheet surface coverage survives until
then, AGW won't even prevent the next Ice Age glaciation.
It appears to me that Gulf Stream disruption is a weak argument in favor
of how much AGW will occur over this century and the next.
Richard Henry
And you, it apears, would reject sound science for short-term economic
gain.
Bill Sloman
> In <2ee8e9c6-bbe0-454c-ae61-8790eb003...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BillSlomanwrote:
Bill Sloman
> In <2ee8e9c6-bbe0-454c-ae61-8790eb003...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BillSlomanwrote:
> most recent Ice Age glaciation.
>
> If the Gulf Stream is interrupted by AGW and major snowfall increase
> befalls Europe, then complete melting down of Greenland can easily be
> dragged out over many centures, maybe even for about as long a period of
> time as the Younger Dryas lasted. Humans can easily adapt to agricultural
> shifts and sea level changes taking place over a few centuries or a
> millennium.
>
> For that matter, the CO2 from burning the world's reserves of fossil
> fuels only takes several centuries to be dissolved into deeper levels of
> the ocean, where CO2 content changes only a few percent if even enough CO2
> to make the atmosphere 1200 PPMV is evenly distributed that deep in the
> ocean. If most of Greenland's ice sheet surface coverage survives until
> then, AGW won't even prevent the next Ice Age glaciation.
>
> It appears to me that Gulf Stream disruption is a weak argument in favor
> of how much AGW will occur over this century and the next.
Gulf Stream disruption is not all that interesting as a contributor or
a non-contributor to anthropogenic global warming. The temperature
changes around around the North Atlantic at the start of the Younger
Dryas were fast - they took less than ten years - and dramatic. The
temperatures in Greenland dropped by 15C and in the UK by 5C.
They'd be enough - on their own - to disrupt civilisation around the
North Atlantic and probably enough - on thier own - to cause an abrupt
decline in population in these areas.
If we managed to turn off the Gulf Stream we wouldn't be worrying
about anthropogenic global warming anymore, we'd be scratching to stay
alive, and a lot of us wouldn't make it.
It is very unlikely that we could duplicate the sort of situation that
precipitated the Younger Dryas - we haven't got a huge lake of fresh
water like Lake Agassiz to dump into the North Atlantic - or a least
not one that we know about, though one could imagine that there could
be a load of fresh water hiding under the Greenland ice sheet - but we
do know that the current influx of fresh water from melting Arctic ice
is already slowing down the Gulf Stream, and we are starting to
realise that the Greenland ice sheet might not be kind enough to melt
in place. The Laurentian ice sheet didn't at the end of the last ice
age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
The imprecise predictions we have now are already worrying enough to
justify a certain amount of economic impact.
We can choose how much economic impact, and how fast it hits, if we
act now. If we wait until the predictions get more precise and
situation becomes more persuasive, we get less choice.
Some of the scenarios, like the Gulf Stream coming to a dead halt with
a couple of years, don't give us any choice at all. That did happen,
some 12,000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
It's pretty unlikely that we could set up a similar situation, but the
problem with imprecise predictions is that they can be too optimistic
as well as too pessimistic.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jamie
Bill Sloman
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:24:37 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Nov 29, 5:51 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:49:39 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >> SNIP
>
> >> >Any detailed
> >> >discussion of the subject will point out that global warming is
> >> >currently affecting the arctic regions much more dramatically than the
> >> >rest of the globe
>
> >> And which areas of the planet are estimated not measured either on the
> >> ground or by satellite?
>
> >> 1. The Arctic?
>
> >> 2. The tropics?
>
> >The satellites doing the measurements seem to be in polar orbits, and
> >survey the entire planet.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> >You could have found that out for yourself, rather than going to the
> >trouble of reminding the rest of us that you really don't know what
> >you are talking about.
>
> The ground based measurements are almost completely missing in the
> polar areas.
Obviously. There is a permantly manned station at the South Pole, but
for some odd reason nobody has set up anything permanent at the north
pole, through I understand some nuclear submarines pop up around there
from time to time.
http://www.athropolis.com/news/submarines.htm
> The RSS satellite measurements don't have data near the poles:
>
> http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
>
> /quote
>
> We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees due to
> difficulties in merging measurements in these regions, and because
> these regions are not sampled by all central fields of view.
>
> /end quote
They do have data - of a sort - for the poles but separate it from the
data from the rest of the globe because of the heat transfer up
through the air in those areas doesn't work quite the same way as it
does closer to the equator.
It's not terra incognito, but it is data that requires careful
handling, so they don't put it on the regular web-site.
Since I have managed to provoke you into finding out a little about
the subject of your pontifications, perhaps you could now enlighten us
about your concerns over temperature monitoring in the tropics, which
do seem to be adequately sampled by the satellites you obviously knew
nothing about?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> In <d28ab4a0-b6e7-46d4-8fbd-f824ae259...@29g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BillSlomanwrote:
> >On Nov 29, 5:51 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:49:39 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >> >Any detailed discussion of the subject will point out that global
> >> >warming is currently affecting the arctic regions much more
> >> >dramatically than the rest of the globe
>
> >> And which areas of the planet are estimated not measured either on the
> >> ground or by satellite?
>
> >> 1. The Arctic?
>
> >> 2. The tropics?
>
> >The satellites doing the measurements seem to be in polar orbits, and
> >survey the entire planet.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> >You could have found that out for yourself, rather than going to the
> >trouble of reminding the rest of us that you really don't know what
> >you are talking about.
>
> The satellite coverage has a 7.5 degree radius "pole hole" at each pole.
> In addition, the RSS lower troposphere index (one of the "big 5" global
> temperature trend indices) excludes everything within 20 degrees of the
> south pole and land areas having elevation above 3,000 meters. This
> excludes most of the Plateau of Tibet, nearly all of Antarctica, some
> glacier-harboring mountain ranges, and apparently to me a bit of
> Greenland.
That doesn't mean that they don't have data, merely that the regular
data analysis doesn't work well in these areas.
So the data we have is imperfect, like every other set of real data
that was ever assembled, but we do have enough to have a pretty good
idea of what is actually going on.
> Since IPCC-considered models for future warming strike me as generally
> including an excessively-positive cloud albedo feedback even greater than
> surface albedo feedback, and lack of derating of water vapor feedback for
> the reduction of global atmosphere average relative humidity needed to
> make the cloud albedo feedback positive, I have strong expectation
> that future warming will be significantly less than "IPCC center track",
> closer to low end of their range of projections.
There's nothing like reality for testing your models. On the whole a
I'd prefer a future where the climate didn't provide the kind of
feedback that the modellers really need, for seriously higher global
temperatures.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
TROLL
Bill Sloman
> In <fd802bd3-3627-41a4-80a8-455528dcd...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BillSlomanwrote:
> >On Nov 29, 2:32 pm, "Nial Stewart"
> ><nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
> >> > non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
> >> > of white paint.
>
I was recently quietly reading my monthly copy of "Chemistry in
Australia", published by the Royal Australian Chemical Institute in
much the same way - but with a lot less resources - as the AIP
publishes "Physics Today" when I came across a two column spread
covering three-quarters of an A4 page reporting Anthony Watts opinions
about global warming.
Some denialist propaganda group - Australia has several - had flown
the clown out to Australia to merchandise some doubt on global
warming, and had managed to sneak the highlights of one of his
lectures into "Chemistry in Australia". This guys quixotic concerns
about the quality of the traditional weather measuring stations on the
US - which covers 1.9% of the surfacr of the globe - are presented as
a casting serious doubts on the whole question of anthropogenic global
warming.
The serious US meteorological measurements, taken at airfields all
over the country with gear that the meteorological service went to the
trouble of automating back in 2004, were written off as being for use
at the airfield by the airfield.
This didn't strike me as entirely honest.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Richard Henry
The ice moves too fast.
Don Klipstein
Bill Sloman wrote in part:
>Gulf Stream disruption is not all that interesting as a contributor or
>a non-contributor to anthropogenic global warming. The temperature
>changes around around the North Atlantic at the start of the Younger
>Dryas were fast - they took less than ten years - and dramatic. The
>temperatures in Greenland dropped by 15C and in the UK by 5C.
>
>They'd be enough - on their own - to disrupt civilisation around the
>North Atlantic and probably enough - on thier own - to cause an abrupt
>decline in population in these areas.
>
>If we managed to turn off the Gulf Stream we wouldn't be worrying
>about anthropogenic global warming anymore, we'd be scratching to stay
>alive, and a lot of us wouldn't make it.
A 5 degree C temperature change from one year to another in a populated
area is not all that dramatic. A 3 degree C change from one year to
another is close to "business as usual" in USA's Midwest and middle and
upper Great Plains, and even more is common in nearby parts of Canada.
If a 5 degree C sustained change should occur, that can be handled by
planting crop breeds optimized for growing where that different
temperature is the current norm.
Don Klipstein
Bill Sloman wrote:
I give that one itself low weight, because he does harp on specific
questionable instruments in attempt to discredit most of them. However,
he does not limit his finding fault with instruments and correction
methods to USA. He has found fault with correction methods applied to
Australian data. He also finds fault with reduction of the "considered
thermometer count" in South America (to have slower-warming higher
elevations represented by low-elevation thermometers), and in the Canadian
Arctic (resulting in remaining considered thermometers being where the
surface albedo change is greater than average of the large areas that
these thermometers represent).
>The serious US meteorological measurements, taken at airfields all
>over the country with gear that the meteorological service went to the
>trouble of automating back in 2004, were written off as being for use
>at the airfield by the airfield.
>
>This didn't strike me as entirely honest.
I do agree that Watts is biased and stretches things. However, I see
him as doing no worse than printing the news that he sees fit to print.
On the other hand, I am not very happy with how well the official
temperature readings at Philadelphia International Airport represent
the regional atmosphere. Based on spreads between daily high and low
temperatures for any given temperature range, relative humidity (as of
high and as of low temperature), wind direction and cloud cover and type,
it appears to me that Philadelphia International Airport had about .2-.25
degree C more midsummer warming from urban effects this past July than
was the case in hotter Julies of the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Meanwhile, should one be able to refute with facts Watts' insinuation
that errors and irregularities in reporting and adjusting surface station
data have a trend of reporting more warming than is actually the case,
then such a refutation should be posted somewhere - maybe on
realclimate.org. Not that this is likely to make much difference in
global temperature trend, with a sea surface temperature index being
about 70% of HadCRUT3, and zero surface reading contribution to UAH and
RSS, with at least UAH not even considering surface or radiosonde
readings for calibration.
Don Klipstein
>
> On the other hand, I am not very happy with how well the official
>temperature readings at Philadelphia International Airport represent
>the regional atmosphere. Based on spreads between daily high and low
>temperatures for any given temperature range, relative humidity (as of
>high and as of low temperature), wind direction and cloud cover and type,
>it appears to me that Philadelphia International Airport had about .2-.25
>degree C more midsummer warming from urban effects this past July than
>was the case in hotter Julies of the late 1970's and early 1980's.
I did not mean that in the 1970's and 1980's Philly had hotter Julies
than that of 2010. I meant to say "most similar".
Rich Grise
> On Nov 29, 10:29 am, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>>
>> > None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
>> > suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
>> > understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
>>
>> Exactly....
>>
>> yet based on similar "predictions" you want to enact taxes and laws
>> that will have major economic impacts.
>
> gain.
There is no "sound science" in warmingism.
Thanks,
Rich
Bill Sloman
> In <35cc312a-6f88-41cc-9cf5-42814289f...@c39g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,BillSlomanwrote in part:
Always assuming that there's enough rain falling to grow a useful
amount of food with any breed.
The point about the Younger Dryas was that the change was fast - you
wouldn't have had time to select and propagate an optimised strain in
the sort of volume that you'd need to feed the whole population.
You are talking about rejigging farms to deal with new crops - and
moving whole farming areas - in the space of few years. I don't think
that I'd like to gurantee that agricultural production would be
sustained at current levels while the reorganisation was going on.
If the grain production that is now used to fatten cattle was
redirected to human consumption we might be able to get by, but if
Jared Diamond's "Collapse" has a single take-away message it is that
the people in charge will - mostly - chose to ignore impending
ecological disasters and continue playing their dominance games until
their subordinates start rioting because they have run out of food.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> Richard Henry wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 10:29 am, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>
> >> > None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
> >> > suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
> >> > understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
>
> >> Exactly....
>
> >> yet based on similar "predictions" you want to enact taxes and laws
> >> that will have major economic impacts.
>
> > And you, it apears, would reject sound science for short-term economic
> > gain.
>
> There is no "sound science" in warmingism.
Or none that Rich would have a clue about. Of course, if the IPCC
could get the endorsement of Rich's mother-goddess, he'd rapidly
change what mind he's got left.
--
Bill Sloman,
Nial Stewart
> > Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....
> > http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
> The surface area of the United States is some nine million square
> kilometres. You presumably pulled out the worst example of a n urban
> weather station that you could find.
> How many square kilometres worth
> of the temperature record is it contaminating?
_All of it_.
If you don't have any confidence in your _most_reliable_ records, how
can you have any confidence in the rest of them?
> > Note from here...
> > http://www.surfacestations.org/
> > ..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
> > < 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
> > an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.
> When Anthony Watts is estinating the errors.
_NO_, these are ratings and error determinations against the NOAA's own
guidelines for siting climate stations.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf
Note _69%_ with an error or >= 2 Deg C (61% >= 2 Deg C, 8% >= 5 Deg C)
> > BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever actually
> > visited the site?
> Not recently. It is a typical "merchants of doubt" web site, strong on
> horrible examples, and weak on their (neglible) quantitative
> significance.
That's a no then?
> The US Meteorlogical Service got into bed with commercial aviation
> very early in the history of commercial aviation, and the airport
> weather monitoring stations delivered more frequent, more up-to-date,
> and more detailed data than the traditional observation stations from
> very early on. The airport observatories were eventually automated in
> 2004, and I would expect those records be as good as anything you
> could get from ground observers
Airports have large areas of tarmac, buildings, urbanisation, air conditioning,
_jet_engines_ etc.
Hardly unlikely to affect the temperature readings.
For comparative purposes they can probably be used since their installation
as long as their surroundings, number of flights at the airport etc don't
change etc. (Ie since 2004 ?).
Of course they'll be spliced into existing records, and hey presto instant
warming!
> > What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
> An appreciation, based on a fairly thorough education in the relevant
> physics, that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is
> comprehensive and convincing, and that the denialist propaganda
> against it is misleading and superficial.
Oh right, so you're not a member of the IETA, an organisation of companies
that are set to make big money out of AGW....
http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1249
(Note the big oil and energy companies).
What about (from 2000)...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
"However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less
cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist
at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years
winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
Laughing my arse off.
Funny that fires in Russia are one off events that confirm global warming,
3 cold UK winters are 'just weather'.
> Anthony Watt s is a depressing example of the sort of pseudo-authority
> used by the denialist propaganda machine to sow fear, doubt and
> uncertainy about the remarkably solid scientific envidence for
> anthropogenic global warming.
Aye it is remarkable, but not for the reason you think.
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
As I've said before anything that uses a George Monbiot blog post as a source
can't be relied upon.
BTW I hope you're not too cut up about the Chicago Carbon Exchange collapsing!
Nial.
Bill Sloman
<nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
> > > JesusBillyou're full of it.
> > > Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....
> > >http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
> > The surface area of the United States is some nine million square
> > kilometres. You presumably pulled out the worst example of a n urban
> > weather station that you could find.
> > How many square kilometres worth
> > of the temperature record is it contaminating?
>
> _All of it_.
>
> If you don't have any confidence in your _most_reliable_ records, how
> can you have any confidence in the rest of them?
How accurate do you expect the best of this kind of data to be?
> > > Note from here...
> > >http://www.surfacestations.org/
> > > ..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
> > > < 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
> > > an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.
> > When Anthony Watts is estinating the errors.
>
> _NO_, these are ratings and error determinations against the NOAA's own
> guidelines for siting climate stations.
>
> http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030Fu...
>
> Note _69%_ with an error or >= 2 Deg C (61% >= 2 Deg C, 8% >= 5 Deg C)
Presumably randomly distributed about the mean. To what extent do the
"errors" represent correct measurment of an "incorrect" microclimate?
> > > BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever actually
> > > visited the site?
> > Not recently. It is a typical "merchants of doubt" web site, strong on
> > horrible examples, and weak on their (neglible) quantitative
> > significance.
>
> That's a no then?
"Not recently" isn't "no" it's just "not recently". I did visit it
once and I was less than impressed.
> > The US Meteorlogical Service got into bed with commercial aviation
> > very early in the history of commercial aviation, and the airport
> > weather monitoring stations delivered more frequent, more up-to-date,
> > and more detailed data than the traditional observation stations from
> > very early on. The airport observatories were eventually automated in
> > 2004, and I would expect those records be as good as anything you
> > could get from ground observers
>
> Airports have large areas of tarmac, buildings, urbanisation, air conditioning,
> _jet_engines_ etc.
>
> Hardly unlikely to affect the temperature readings.
They are also large, and finding an uncontamintated spot isn't beyond
the wit of man. Anthony Watts clearly can't imagine that it is
possible, since his imagination is fully committed to supporting the
denialist propaganda machine, but the Meterological Service wouldn't
have gone to the trouble of automating measurments that weren't worth
taking.
> For comparative purposes they can probably be used since their installation
> as long as their surroundings, number of flights at the airport etc don't
> change etc. (Ie since 2004 ?).
>
> Of course they'll be spliced into existing records, and hey presto instant
> warming!
Don't be stupid. The airport recordings go back to the start of
commerical aviation - presumably before 1930.
> > > What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
> > An appreciation, based on a fairly thorough education in the relevant
> > physics, that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is
> > comprehensive and convincing, and that the denialist propaganda
> > against it is misleading and superficial.
>
> Oh right, so you're not a member of the IETA, an organisation of companies
> that are set to make big money out of AGW....
>
> http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1249
>
> (Note the big oil and energy companies).
So what? Greedy capitalists will exploit anything. It is supposed to
be a virtue of the capitalist system.
> What about (from 2000)...http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thi...
>
> "However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less
> cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist
> at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years
> winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
> "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
>
> Laughing my arse off.
Enjoy the joke while you can.
> Funny that fires in Russia are one off events that confirm global warming,
> 3 cold UK winters are 'just weather'.
The fires in Russia were exceptional, cold winters in the UK aren't. I
don't happen to think that the fires are worth much as evidnece for
global warming, but I'm not a reporter trying to dress up a story.
> > Anthony Watt s is a depressing example of the sort of pseudo-authority
> > used by the denialist propaganda machine to sow fear, doubt and
> > uncertainy about the remarkably solid scientific envidence for
> > anthropogenic global warming.
>
> Aye it is remarkable, but not for the reason you think.
You clearly don't understand my reasoning. If you were equipped to
follow my thought processes on the subject, you'd understand enough
physics to find the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global
warming tolerably persuasive, rather feeling free than writing it off
as some kind of improbable conspiracy dreamed up by greedy
meteorologists.
> >http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
>
> As I've said before anything that uses a George Monbiot blog post as a source
> can't be relied upon.
More fool you.
> BTW I hope you're not too cut up about the Chicago Carbon Exchange collapsing!
Why should I be?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
JW
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote in Message id:
<5f439bee-74ce-48b9...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
>More fool you.
Rod? Is that you?
Bill Sloman
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:27:30 -0800 (PST)BillSloman
> <5f439bee-74ce-48b9-b87b-823df44dd...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
Restoring the snipped context
> > > As I've said before anything that uses a George Monbiot blog post as a source
> > > can't be relied upon.
>
> >More fool you.
>
> Rod? Is that you?
Nial Stewart doesn't like George Monbiot - a Guardian journalist who
happens to think that anthropogenic global warming is real.
As far as I can work out, George Monbiot is an honest journalist, and
what he reports as facts do seem to be confirmed by other journalists.
Nial Stewart wants to reject the whole of SourceWatch because it
quoted an item from George Monbiot's blog (which happens to be part of
the Guardian newspaper's web-site).
This strikes me as unreasonably partisan, even for a denialist nitwit.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
Surely, the presence of Man must have some sort of impact on global
temperature, be it warming or cooling. And, whether that impact be
warming or cooling or neutral, more taxes, more edicts, and shared
sacrifices will necessary to solve it, the more the better.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
<nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
> > The US Meteorlogical Service got into bed with commercial aviation
> > very early in the history of commercial aviation, and the airport
> > weather monitoring stations delivered more frequent, more up-to-date,
> > and more detailed data than the traditional observation stations from
> > very early on. The airport observatories were eventually automated in
> > 2004, and I would expect those records be as good as anything you
> > could get from ground observers
>
> Airports have large areas of tarmac, buildings, urbanisation, air conditioning,
> _jet_engines_ etc.
>
> Hardly unlikely to affect the temperature readings.
Jane, you ignorant slut, climate is all about 'air'. Besides mounting
stations inside, say, hot-air balloons, where better to find air than
at an air-port?
You really don't have a clue about sound science. 267 out of 300
experts being paid to say so agree.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Raveninghorde
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:48:08 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
><marti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>>>
>>>
>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Earliest-Snowfall-For-17-Years-With-More-Predicted-In-The-Next-Few-Days/Article/201011415829484?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_4&lid=ARTICLE_15829484_Snow%3A_Parts_Of_Britain_See_Earliest_Snowfall_For_17_Years_With_More_Predicted_In_The_Next_Few_Days
>>>
>>
>>Sharpen up those skates!!!
>>
>><http://www.youtube.com/user/ijszeilen#p/u/41/0BNlTPdmsRI>
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>
>
>We had record lows up here in the Sierras this week, -8F sort of
>temps, and 8 feet of fresh snow on the peaks from a single storm.
>Sugar Bowl was glorious the last few days, perfect snow and temps in
>the mid-20s during the day. The tourists don't reserve for
>Thanksgiving, because the snow isn't dependable this early; skiing
>this weekend is unusual. Empty chairs!
>
>The AGW people have been predicting drought for the West Coast, and
>the rain/snow have, if anything, been above average the last 10 years.
>There was snow on the ground here in July. More official studies show
>no long-term trend in Sierra snowfall since 1916. Much of the central
>valley and the coast gets is water supply from Sierra snow.
>
>John
Robert Baer
are obviously incorrect (2 reasons here) - being based on (1) measuring
radiation from parking lots using (2) uncalibrated instrumentation.
Rich Grise
because the IPCC is an agent of the God of Power, who is in opposition to
Free Will:
http://www.godchannel.com
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Rich Grise
> Rich Grise wrote:
>> Richard Henry wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 10:29 am, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>>>>> None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
>>>>> suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
>>>>> understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
>>>> Exactly....
>>>>
>>>> yet based on similar "predictions" you want to enact taxes and laws
>>>> that will have major economic impacts.
>>> And you, it apears, would reject sound science for short-term economic
>>> gain.
>>
>> There is no "sound science" in warmingism.
>>
> are obviously incorrect (2 reasons here) - being based on (1) measuring
> radiation from parking lots using (2) uncalibrated instrumentation.
Everybody knows garbage in, garbage out. So when you send garbage data into
a garbage model, you get garbage squared. ;-)
I do have a passing familiarity with computer programming, and I know how
easy it is to write a "computer model" that will tell you anything you want
it to.
Of course, the sheeple fall for it because "The Computer said so!"
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
sacrifices?"
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
>
Cheers!
Rich
Bill Sloman
Rich lacks the wit to imagine any other basis for belief, though in
fact what I've got isn't so much belief as a judgement that
anthropogenic global warming is a better supported hypothesis than
anything else available.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> Robert Baer wrote:
> > Rich Grise wrote:
> >> Richard Henry wrote:
> >>> On Nov 29, 10:29 am, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
> >>>>> None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
> >>>>> suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
> >>>>> understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
> >>>> Exactly....
>
> >>>> yet based on similar "predictions" you want to enact taxes and laws
> >>>> that will have major economic impacts.
> >>> And you, it apears, would reject sound science for short-term economic
> >>> gain.
>
> >> There is no "sound science" in warmingism.
>
> > Most definitely, especially when it is known that the measurements
> > are obviously incorrect (2 reasons here) - being based on (1) measuring
> > radiation from parking lots using (2) uncalibrated instrumentation.
>
> Everybody knows garbage in, garbage out. So when you send garbage data into
> a garbage model, you get garbage squared. ;-)
>
> I do have a passing familiarity with computer programming, and I know how
> easy it is to write a "computer model" that will tell you anything you want
> it to.
>
> Of course, the sheeple fall for it because "The Computer said so!"
Rich may indeed have a passing familiarity with computer programming.
but he doesn't know enough to realise that he has been programmed by
the denialist propaganda machine.
He takes their garbage in, unprocessed by any informed scepticism, and
spouts it out again, as a classical zombie processor - an unwitting
member of the denialist botnet.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
"Anything else"? Better than F=M*A? Better than the Standard Model?
Better than Maxwell's equations?
I've seen this claim before, that the AGW climate models are the best
science around. It's perfectly insane.
John
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
No, even dumber.
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:38:17 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
> >On Nov 30, 10:29 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> Nial Stewart wrote:
>
> >> > What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
>
> >> He's got The Faith.
>
> >Rich lacks the wit to imagine any other basis for belief, though in
> >fact what I've got isn't so much belief as a judgement that
> >anthropogenic global warming is a better supported hypothesis than
> >anything else available.
A better supported hypothesis that anything else that purports to to
explaim the warming we've seen over the last century.
> "Anything else"? Better than F=M*A? Better than the Standard Model?
> Better than Maxwell's equations?
I think you should have paid a litte more attention to the context.
> I've seen this claim before, that the AGW climate models are the best
> science around. It's perfectly insane.
Your interpretation of what I posted is perfectly insane. The current
batch of climate models are perfectly respectable science, but they
are coarse-grained models of a complicated situation. If someone puts
together a super-computer big enough to allow the modellers to divide
their cells down into cloud-sized or smaller elements, they will be
able to simulate discrete clouds rather than some cloud smeared out
over cells that measure 50km by 50km.
And it will be nice when the Argo buoys serve up enough data on heat
transfer through the oceans to allow the modellers to get that right.
Despite your ill-informed reservations, the climate models we have now
are perfectly adequate to tell us that we've got anthropogenic global
warming going on at the moment and that it would be a very good idea
to take action to slow - ideally to reverse - this warming. This is
going to make some energy intensive processes more expensive - in the
short term - but it doesn't involve going back to the stone age, and
in fact shouldn't need to produce any perceptible cuts in our
standards of living, unless of course you are a heavy user of
commericial aviation.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
If you restrict yourself to higher ranked climate experts, the
proportion who are convinced by the evidence for anthropogenic global
warming does rise - 195 of the top 200 are convinced.
See "Expert credibility in climate change" by William R L Anderegg,
James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider . PNAS volume
107, issue 27 from the 6th July 2010 on pages 12107-12109.
The remuneration of climate experts doesn't directly depend on what
they say - most of them are academics with tenure, and while the
denialist lobby has claimed that some sceptics have been fired for
their opinions, the only example of this that I've come across was
Henk Tennekes, who retired as head of the Dutch Meteorological Service
in 2001, when he turned 65. Considering the Dutch attitude to elderly
people working, it is surprisng that he didn't chose to retire
earlier.
This isn't the way he presented his story to the right-wing Dutch
newspaper, De Telegraaf on the 13th February this year, but he does
have his own way of looking at things.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/6024018/__HET_GELIJK_VAN_HENK_TENNEKES__.html
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
Since it's not going to happen, concern over the quality of the
science is sort of moot.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2033320,00.html
This is COP16.... SIXTEEN!
So, why don't you relax about AGW and do something useful?
John
John Larkin
You lack the wit to design electronics.
John
Bill Bowden
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:38:17 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
> >On Nov 30, 10:29 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> Nial Stewart wrote:
>
> >> > What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
>
> >> He's got The Faith.
>
> >Rich lacks the wit to imagine any other basis for belief, though in
> >fact what I've got isn't so much belief as a judgement that
> >anthropogenic global warming is a better supported hypothesis than
> >anything else available.
>
> You lack the wit to design electronics.
>
> John
I was listening to George Noory last night with some guest speaker
explaining how exotic electronics may be the doom of our civilization.
Just one EMP event would knock out all the computers, internet and
cell phones. The military may be ok with mil-spec (EMP hardened) stuff
in metal boxes. But most of us would be helpless with no electricity,
broken ATM machines, gas pumps not working, banks in collapse, broken
Satellites, communications, etc. And nobody knows how to write a
receipt anymore if the machine doesn't do it.
Scary huh?
-Bill
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
Why right away evil Comrade of the evil Rich--did you not hear? No
pay raises for two years for our beloved civil
maste^H^H^H^H^Hservants, the President said so.
Never mind that their ranks have swollen, or that they make double the
private average.[1]
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On Nov 30, 4:28 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
>> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Nov 29, 1:29 pm, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>>
>> >> > None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
>> >> > suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
>> >> > understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
>>
>> >> Exactly....
>>
>> >> yet based on similar "predictions" you want to enact taxes and laws
>> >> that will have major economic impacts.
>>
>> > Surely, the presence of Man must have some sort of impact on global
>> > temperature, be it warming or cooling. And, whether that impact be
>> > warming or cooling or neutral, more taxes, more edicts, and shared
>> > sacrifices will necessary to solve it, the more the better.
>>
>> When are the bureaucrats going to do their share of "shar[ing] [the]
>> sacrifices?"
>
>Why right away evil Comrade of the evil Rich--did you not hear? No
>pay raises for two years for our beloved civil
>maste^H^H^H^H^Hservants, the President said so.
BTW, that does not apply to the pay grades (time in service, etc.),
promotions, or COLAs. All it does is freeze the "grid". Wow! That's severe!
>Never mind that their ranks have swollen, or that they make double the
>private average.[1]
>
>[1] http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm
Yep. Their retirement is far more than twice the average.
Robert Baer
709, 7090, etc) where all kinds of engineering homework and class calcs
were done...to 15 digits.
And the idiots believed every digit "because the computer said so"!
Usually, slide-rule (remember them?) accuracy was the best one could do.
But use the wrong numbers, the wrong formula, an inappropriate
algorithm, and the results (ALL 15 digits) were still believed!
Almost nobody did any slide-rule or BOE checking.
Aren't we modern now?
We can f** up a million times faster!
Lemme see now, sum all fractions of the form 2^-n from n=0 to
infinity and get the sum of 3 plus E^(pi*i) on a -->computer<-- and
discover that it is impossible.
"But the book said so!"...
If it is printed, it MUST be true....
Robert Baer
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:46:17 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Dec 1, 12:00 am, John Larkin
> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:38:17 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 30, 10:29 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> Nial Stewart wrote:
<snip>
> >Despite your ill-informed reservations, the climate models we have now
> >are perfectly adequate to tell us that we've got anthropogenic global
> >warming going on at the moment and that it would be a very good idea
> >to take action to slow - ideally to reverse - this warming. This is
> >going to make some energy intensive processes more expensive - in the
> >short term - but it doesn't involve going back to the stone age, and
> >in fact shouldn't need to produce any perceptible cuts in our
> >standards of living, unless of course you are a heavy user of
> >commericial aviation.
>
> Since it's not going to happen, concern over the quality of the
> science is sort of moot.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2033320,00.html
>
> This is COP16.... SIXTEEN!
Concern over the quality of the science that is making it possible for
it not to happen is not inappropriate. If you had any sense, you
should be worried by a state of affairs where Exxon=Mobil and their
friends can discredit sound science by paying for a few million
dollars worth of anti-scientific propaganda.
> So, why don't you relax about AGW and do something useful?
In the not all that long term, anything useful that I do will be
washed away by the consequences of continuing anthropogenic global
warming.
Exxon-Mobil and its friends have now set up a situation where it seems
that we will need some kind of climate catastrophe killing a couple of
million people before the population will be again minded to take
anthropogenic global warming seriously.
We will then be scrambling to do what we should be doing now to slow
down anthropogenic global warming, but without the time to do it
gradually and pianlessly. We'll probably be too busy to set up
Nuremberg-style "climate war crimes" tribunals to hang every last
survivor of the Exxon-Mobil board, and the surviving staff of the
Heartlands Institute and the rest of the lying propaganda machine.
Your grandchildren may be able to take the time out to spit on your
grave, unless it is under water by then.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:38:17 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
>
> >On Nov 30, 10:29 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> Nial Stewart wrote:
>
> >> > What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
>
> >> He's got The Faith.
>
> >Rich lacks the wit to imagine any other basis for belief, though in
> >fact what I've got isn't so much belief as a judgement that
> >anthropogenic global warming is a better supported hypothesis than
> >anything else available.
>
> You lack the wit to design electronics.
I certainly lack the opportunity. Your judgement is coloured by the
fact that I don't take your ignorant pontifications as seriously as
you'd like.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Rich Grise
Ho hum.
Bill Sloman
> BillSlomanwrote:
This from a guy who attributes my rational - and argued in detail -
support for anthropogenic global warming to "faith".
Rich, the reason that I can't attack your comments on the basis of the
facts adduced, is that your comment is - itself - pure ad hominem. You
are hoist by your own petard.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Rich Grise
Thanks,
Rich
Bill Sloman
> BillSlomanwrote:
Show you what? Enough of a physics education that you can understand
the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
Our house is 365 feet above sea level. The cabin is at 6400. Whoever
inherits them will do fine.
John
Nial Stewart
> > experts being paid to say so agree.
> If you restrict yourself to higher ranked climate experts, the
> proportion who are convinced by the evidence for anthropogenic global
> warming does rise - 195 of the top 200 are convinced.
You mean the more that people rely on AGW for funding the more they
are likely to 'believe' in it?
Nial.
Nial Stewart
> are perfectly adequate to tell us that we've got anthropogenic global
> warming going on at the moment
Climate Prognoses “Not Worth The Paper They’re Printed On”
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/20/climate-models-not-worth-the-paper-theyre-printed-on/
Whoa! Germany’s got a new enfant-terrible. Someone has just bolted though the Climate Berlin
Wall, big time. Climatologists are dissenting, and it’s even being reported. The normally quite
alarmist Austrian online Der Standard published a shocking article yesterday headlined:
Vienna – Climate protectors and experts in Cancun will be forced to increasingly defend
their earth-warming models against mounting criticism. ‘We just know way too little about the
various factors that influence climate and cannot possibly make any reliable prognoses”, says
the managing director of Donnerwetter.de and climatologist Karsten Brandt.”
"For example, measurement stations in the Antarctic, or also in the Atlantic, have recorded
falling temperatures over the last 10 years. Those with the greatest interest are the politicians,
and their scientists who are funded by billions. If they ever admitted there is no climate
change, they would make themselves redundant."
"The latest NASA measurements show significantly colder sea surface temperatures than seen in the
past years."
Nial
Nial Stewart
> once and I was less than impressed.
You seem remarkably well primed about Watts and his output for someone who
(almost) never visits the site.
I am a fairly regular reader at Real Climate and occaisionally at Tamino's
Open Mind.
Having looked at both sides of the argument I'm not convinced (as you might
have guessed).
Nial.
John Larkin
Sloman has no interest in facts, or in ever actually doing anything.
He just hangs out here to generate ritual insults and puff up his
useless ego. All his arguments are secondhand at best.
He'd better-spend his time panhandling downtown to scrape up enough
money to buy a decent DVM. I assume his wife won't fund it.
John
tm
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:sdqcf6l19emgjff3a...@4ax.com...
I tend to believe he really does work. For one of George Soros's spin
factories.
Where else would he keep getting funds to pay his internet bill?
Bill Sloman
I've got no evidence that the top-ranked climate scientists are funded
from a pot labelled "anthropogenic global warming" and I doubt that
any such pot exists. I presume these people apply for research grant
money in the usual way, and the grants are assessed by the usual
funding agencies, who probably fund all phsyical science grants out of
one not-all-that-large pot.
Quality of research does matter, but it is assessed by the quality of
the papers written, the impact factors of the journals they get
published in and the citation numbers that the papers eventually
accumulate.
Me-too research is hard to publish and doesn't get cited much. New
points of view and unexpected results are much more profitable, so the
researchers aren't interested in confirming anthropogenic global
warming as such, but rather in finding new ways of looking at the
processes involved.
This isn't "believing" in anthropogenic global warming, but rather
more trying to take it to bits to find out how the - hypothetical -
processes involved fit together and influence one another.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:24:53 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
The house is a bit too close to the coast for comfort. It won't go
under - unless the Antarctic ice sheet decides to slide off into the
ocean - but its access roads, its connection to main drainage and its
fresh water supply may all need work from time to time. If your local
shopping centre is closer to sea level, the house might become less
desirable with a sea level rise of only 36.5 feet, which is roughly
what the Greenland ice sheet with deliver when it decides to slide off
into the sea.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
> > Despite your ill-informed reservations, the climate models we have now
> > are perfectly adequate to tell us that we've got anthropogenic global
> > warming going on at the moment
>
>
> Whoa! Germany s got a new enfant-terrible. Someone has just bolted though the Climate Berlin
> Wall, big time. Climatologists are dissenting, and it s even being reported. The normally quite
> alarmist Austrian online Der Standard published a shocking article yesterday headlined:
>
>
> Vienna Climate protectors and experts in Cancun will be forced to increasingly defend
> their earth-warming models against mounting criticism. We just know way too little about the
> various factors that influence climate and cannot possibly make any reliable prognoses , says
> the managing director of Donnerwetter.de and climatologist Karsten Brandt.
>
> "For example, measurement stations in the Antarctic, or also in the Atlantic, have recorded
> falling temperatures over the last 10 years. Those with the greatest interest are the politicians,
> and their scientists who are funded by billions. If they ever admitted there is no climate
> change, they would make themselves redundant."
>
> "The latest NASA measurements show significantly colder sea surface temperatures than seen in > the past years."
The managing direct of the forecasting service sounds as if he knows
as much about climate science as you'd expect from a management clown.
He says
"modellers just do not take lots of factors like solar activity and
ocean currents into account, and overestimate CO2′s impact"
If he knew what he was talking about he'd be aware that the latest
climate models do figure in the - small - contribution from variations
in solar activity (which correlates with sun-spot number) and that the
climate models are starting to incorporate the cocean current data
that we have been getting from the Argo buoy project over the past few
years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_%28oceanography%29
Newpapers do pay more attention to management clowns than they
deserve, and you've demonstrated your ignorance - once again - by
serving up a contentless newspaper report as if it meant something.
--
Bill Sloman,Nijmegen
John Larkin
About 5 miles. How is the ocean going to get me? Earthquakes are a
serious hazard, high water ain't.
It won't go
>under - unless the Antarctic ice sheet decides to slide off into the
>ocean -
Are you now projecting a sea level rise of 365 feet?
but its access roads, its connection to main drainage and its
>fresh water supply may all need work from time to time. If your local
>shopping centre is closer to sea level, the house might become less
>desirable with a sea level rise of only 36.5 feet, which is roughly
>what the Greenland ice sheet with deliver when it decides to slide off
>into the sea.
Safeway is uphill from here, with a nice, scenic network of stairways
on the way [1]. Or I can hike through the canyon, a little awkward
with bags of groceries. The company building is at +19 feet, so it
might be in trouble in a few hundred years. Now you really, really
have me worried.
Do any fun electronics lately?
John
[1] San Francisco is full of stairways, some of them famous.
http://www.sisterbetty.org/stairways/
http://www.amazon.com/Stairway-Walks-Francisco-Adah-Bakalinsky/dp/0899972756
Michael A. Terrell
tm wrote:
>
> I tend to believe he really does work. For one of George Soros's spin
> factories.
> Where else would he keep getting funds to pay his internet bill?
His wife pays for it so she doesn't have to sleep with him.
--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!
Raveninghorde
>ocean currents into account, and overestimate CO2?s impact"
>
>If he knew what he was talking about he'd be aware that the latest
>climate models do figure in the - small - contribution from variations
>in solar activity (which correlates with sun-spot number) and that the
>climate models are starting to incorporate the cocean current data
>that we have been getting from the Argo buoy project over the past few
>years.
Someone suspects there is more solar involvement in climate:
/quote
The University of Colorado Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space
Physics (LASP) and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center announced the
formation of a new collaborative research center dedicated to the
study of the Sun’s effect on Earth’s climate.
/end quote
/quote
Pilewskie said, “The exciting thing about this collaboration is that
we believe it will promote studies to help answer a key question about
the climate system: how does Earth’s atmosphere respond to the sun’s
variability, and how does that affect climate? This question is
particularly important now, as we seek to quantify the human-induced
impact on Earth’s climate.”
/end quote
Rich Grise
Of course. Nobody's going to get a multi-million dollar research grant
for discovering that there was never anything to worry about in the first
place.
Science by Consensus: "Hey, let's all vote on what the speed of light is!"
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
> On Dec 1, 3:37 pm, John Larkin
>>
>> inherits them will do fine.
>
> The house is a bit too close to the coast for comfort. It won't go
> under - unless the Antarctic ice sheet decides to slide off into the
> ocean - but its access roads, its connection to main drainage and its
> fresh water supply may all need work from time to time. If your local
> shopping centre is closer to sea level, the house might become less
> desirable with a sea level rise of only 36.5 feet, which is roughly
> what the Greenland ice sheet with deliver when it decides to slide off
> into the sea.
>
haven't won the lottery yet?
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> Are you now projecting a sea level rise of 365 feet?
>
documentary. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
Good Luck!
Rich
Richard Henry
Actually, if a scientist could prove such a thing he would win the
Nobel Prize for Phyics.
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:34:09 -0800, Rich Grise
>
> <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> >BillSlomanwrote:
> >> On Nov 30, 10:29 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> >>> Nial Stewart wrote:
>
> >>> > What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist
> >>> > agenda?
>
> >>> He's got The Faith.
>
> >> Rich lacks the wit to imagine any other basis for belief, though in
> >> fact what I've got isn't so much belief as a judgement that
> >> anthropogenic global warming is a better supported hypothesis than
> >> anything else available.
>
> >Well, there you go. No facts, so resort to ad hominem.
>
> >Ho hum.
>
> Sloman has no interest in facts, or in ever actually doing anything.
This is a rather odd post. Rich makes an ad hominem attack, to which I
make a reasoned response, pointing out the logical error in his claim
- which Rich then dismisses as an ad hominem attack on him, as if any
other kind of response to dumb ad hominem attack would be appropriate
John then comes to support Rich's claim, with an equally nonsensical
attack, claiming that I'm not interested in facts, when I adduce them
regularly to point out the holes in John's more bizarre pontification
He then goes on to point out that I'm not doing anything, apart - of
course - from collecting the f facts that he finds it necessary to
ignore. I'd much prefer to be doing something more practical, but I've
spent some years trying to find work in Dutch electronics, and it
doesn't seem likely that there is any way left that promises me any
ghost of a chance of success.
> He just hangs out here to generate ritual insults and puff up his
> useless ego. All his arguments are secondhand at best.
John' idea of a ritual insult is my repeatedly pointing out that John
is pontificating about something where he doesn't actually have a
clue. John does know stuff about electronics, but he seems to think
that his hard-won knowledge in this important but limited area means
that his half-baked opionions about a wide range of other subjects are
equally worthy of respect.
So he makes any number of basically similar pratfalls, and resents the
repeated injuries to the same part of his already over-sensitive ego
whenever I point this out.
He claims I do this to puff up my own useless ego. He may be right. I
think I do it because I have a low tolerance for nonsense, but one's
insight into one's own motives are never that trustworthy.
> He'd better-spend his time panhandling downtown to scrape up enough
> money to buy a decent DVM. I assume his wife won't fund it.
This may tell us something about John's domestic arrangements. He -
predictably - doesn't know anything about mine. I've already got a DVM
which is good enough for my needs. If I needed something appreciably
better, I'd buy myself a Thurlby-Thandar 1906 from Farnell tomorrow
(order code 724-026). I've bought several at various places where I've
worked and the price/performance ratio is pretty good. My wife might
wonder why I'd bought a laboratory-grade DVM, but she wouldn't get
excited - I have spent this kind of money before on projects that
didn't eventually take off.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
And one of the worst movies of all time. Then he made "Robin Hood,
Prince of Thieves" aka "Mudworld". But that inspired Mel Brooks' "Men
in Tights", so it was all worth it.
>
>Cheers!
>Rich
I'll change my name to Gil.
John
John Larkin
No physics education helps predict the states of a chaotic system with
unknown forcings and unmeasurable parameters.
John
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
>Bill Sloman wrote:
He doesn't believe in the lottery, yet, because they haven't figured out a way
to force everyone to buy tickets.
Bill Sloman
> "John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>
> news:sdqcf6l19emgjff3a...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:34:09 -0800, Rich Grise
> > <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>BillSlomanwrote:
> >>> On Nov 30, 10:29 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> Nial Stewart wrote:
>
> >>>> > What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist
> >>>> > agenda?
>
> >>>> He's got The Faith.
>
> >>> Rich lacks the wit to imagine any other basis for belief, though in
> >>> fact what I've got isn't so much belief as a judgement that
> >>> anthropogenic global warming is a better supported hypothesis than
> >>> anything else available.
>
> >>Well, there you go. No facts, so resort to ad hominem.
>
> >>Ho hum.
>
> > He just hangs out here to generate ritual insults and puff up his
> > useless ego. All his arguments are secondhand at best.
>
> > He'd better-spend his time panhandling downtown to scrape up enough
> > money to buy a decent DVM. I assume his wife won't fund it.
>
> I tend to believe he really does work. For one of George Soros's spin
> factories.
> Where else would he keep getting funds to pay his internetbill?
The internet bill is about 50 euro per month, which is small change. I
spend more on books every month. Like Rich, I'd be delighted if I got
paid for my advocacy, but anthropogenic global warming doesn't
actually need advocacy - good scientific evidence is pretty persuasive
- and nobody has come up with any evidence of pro-anthropogenic-global-
warming propaganda machines.
Despite the claims of the denialist press, the IPCC isn't any kind of
propaganda machine - their job is just to report the scientific data
in a form that the politicians can understand. As with all
organisations that advise politicians, some of the politicians being
advised have a clear idea of the advice they would like to hear, and
some them try to put pressure on the IPCC and the scientists whose
work is being reported. Chris Mooney's book "The Republican War on
Science" ISBN 0-465-04675-4 reports a few US examples.
If George Soros has a pro-AGW "spin factory" anywhere, Sourcewatch
hasn't found it yet. Their entry on him concentrates on his campaign
against Dubbya and the neo-cons
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Soros
Since Chris Mooney clearly shows that Dubbya and the neo-cons were
denialists, the fact that Soros doesn't like them might be seen by
some as some kind of implicit endorsement of anthropogenic global
warming, but it would be a long stretch from there to some imagined
"spin factory". By contrast, the links between Exxon-Mobil and the
Heartlands Institute are clear and well-documented.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen