Global warming?
Michael A. Terrell
No damn way!
It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Bitrex
> No damn way!
>
> It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
> forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
> spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
>
>
I made 3 three-point shots while playing basketball today out of the 4 I
attempted. With a three point shot percentage of 75% I am therefore the
greatest basketball player who ever lived.
One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
points.
Hammy
One should also be careful of making predictions on climate based on
data such as tree rings.
The life span of a tree is hardly equivalent to an eye blink when
compared to the time the earth has existed. Yet they are using this to
determine so called climate patterns. As far as geological data its
hardly precise usually its plus or minus a couple thousand years.
Given the amount of time they have started taken accurate measurements
sub 100 years I fail to see how any credible scientist can come to any
conclusion on climate. How do they know what is normal?
Some events that could skew there data just off the top of my head the
eruption of Mt St.Helens, EL Nina, EL Nino etc�
The climate will change whether we are here or not as it always has.
All this paranoid shit does is make some people rich by taking
advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.
For the record its regularly minus 30C here over night so I hope it
does get warmer or at least another el nino would be nice.
mpm
wrote:
Yikes!!! - Not much better here though.
Our high today is only 61 (42 out now).
Just ignore all those other guys.
Afterall, they're not used to tee-shirts, cut-offs and flip-flops in
the middle of a Florida "winter"!
Were you in Florida for the 1989 ice storm. What a mess!!
At least it's 21 and no ice in Ocala.
I heard on the news we have at least another week of this unusual
weather....
- mpm
Bill Sloman
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex
>
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >> No damn way!
>
> >> It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
> >> forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
> >> spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
>
> >I made 3 three-point shots while playing basketball today out of the 4 I
> >attempted. With a three point shot percentage of 75% I am therefore the
> >greatest basketball player who ever lived.
>
> >One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
> >points.
>
> One should also be careful of making predictions on climate based on
> data such as tree rings.
>
> The life span of a tree is hardly equivalent to an eye blink when
> compared to the time the earth has existed. Yet they are using this to
> determine so called climate patterns. As far as geological data its
> hardly precise usually its plus or minus a couple thousand years.
Since the interesting perturbation to the climate is the 100pmm rise
in atmospheric CO2 level over the past century (from around 280ppm to
around 385ppm), tree ring data does have about the right time scale to
allow us to compare curent climate changes to the climate changes that
were taking place immediately before the Industrial Revolution.
> Given the amount of time they have started taken accurate measurements
> sub 100 years I fail to see how any credible scientist can come to any
> conclusion on climate. How do they know what is normal?
That is why they have been looking at the tree ring data, data from
Artic lake sediments, and - most informative so far - the ice core
data from the Greenland and Antarctic (Vostok) ice caps.
> Some events that could skew there data just off the top of my head the
> eruption of Mt St.Helens, EL Nina, EL Nino etc…
Mere short term perturbations.
> The climate will change whether we are here or not as it always has.
To some extent, but injecting 37.5% more of a greenhouse gas into the
atmosphere adds a new and apparently significant perturbation.
> All this paranoid shit does is make some people rich by taking
> advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.
It isn't actually paranoid shit, though Exxon-Mobil and like-minded
organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and
selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible
idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
> For the record its regularly minus 30C here over night so I hope it
> does get warmer or at least another el nino would be nice.
Wait until summer.
Until then, it might be worth your while to learn a little bit more
about the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming.
The American Institute of Physics has a useful web-site which lays out
the history of the development of the idea.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
You'd be better off spending you spare time reading that than
adverising that you haven't got a clue about the subject.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
Well, the alarmists weren't shy about blaming every storm, beach
erosion, hot spell, change in butterfly population, or the weigh of a
herd of sheep on Global Warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm
John
Bill Sloman
That wasn't the serous proponenets of anthropogenic global warming,
but merely idle journalists, looking for a hook on which to hang their
latest weather story. Only the the feather-brained would take them
seriously.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Mark
>
> All this paranoid shit does is make some people rich by taking
> advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.
>
>
Yes.. lets talk about that..it's more interesting..
how to get rich from AGW ......weather (pun) or not it is true...
Mark
Joerg
Piece of cake, it is very easy. Here's how to do that:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article6945991.ece
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Michael A. Terrell
mpm wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 5:58 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > No damn way!
> >
> > It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
> > forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
> > spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
> >
> > --
> > Greed is the root of all eBay.
>
> Yikes!!! - Not much better here though.
> Our high today is only 61 (42 out now).
>
> Just ignore all those other guys.
> Afterall, they're not used to tee-shirts, cut-offs and flip-flops in
> the middle of a Florida "winter"!
>
> Were you in Florida for the 1989 ice storm.
The one, right before that huge sale of hail damaged cars? ;-)
> What a mess!! At least it's 21 and no ice in Ocala.
>
> I heard on the news we have at least another week of this unusual
> weather....
Yeah, and now I have to dig a 45 foot trench for a new water line,
thanks to 'Global Warming'.
Hammy
Hey Slowman for a man of such conviction I see little action.
Your PC runs on electricity which is generated likely using OMG coal.
Everything in your house somehow according to you and other paranoids
contributed to emissions that cause the climate change you are so
terrified of. Even the flatulent you expel regularly contributes to it
as well as breathing.
I think you know what you have to do; be a martyr.
You missed my whole point paranoids are always narrowed minded.
Raveninghorde
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>No damn way!
>
>It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
>forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
>spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
Joe Bastardi says this is a repeat of 1977 weather patterns.
John Larkin
You mean peer-reviewed journals?
Cold kills:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6979830.ece
I've seen serious estimates that suggest that in the US and Europe,
cool snaps kill about four times as many people as heat waves.
Plants like warmth and CO2, too.
John
Bill Sloman
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:15:17 -0500, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Slowman for a man of such conviction I see little action.
>
> Your PC runs on electricity which is generated likely using OMG coal.
According to our energy supplier - Nuon - our electricity is green.
> Everything in your house somehow according to you and other paranoids
> contributed to emissions that cause the climate change you are so
> terrified of. Even the flatulent you expel regularly contributes to it
> as well as breathing.
Methane is a greenhouse gas, but humans don't do much fermentation in
their guts - you need to be a ruminant to make a significant
contribution.
> I think you know what you have to do; be a martyr.
Unfortunately, I've got to continue metabolising until I've persuaded
you and Ravinghorde and Eeyore of the strength of the scientific case
for anthropogenic global warming.
> You missed my whole point paranoids are always narrowed minded.
Since you failed to punctuate the above sentence, you are in no
position to complain that I missed a point.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:52:31 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Jan 7, 5:53 pm, John Larkin
> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex
>
> >> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >> >> No damn way!
>
> >> >> It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
> >> >> forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
> >> >> spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
>
> >> >I made 3 three-point shots while playing basketball today out of the 4 I
> >> >attempted. With a three point shot percentage of 75% I am therefore the
> >> >greatest basketball player who ever lived.
>
> >> >One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
> >> >points.
>
> >> Well, the alarmists weren't shy about blaming every storm, beach
> >> erosion, hot spell, change in butterfly population, or the weigh of a
> >> herd of sheep on Global Warming.
>
> >but merely idle journalists, looking for a hook on which to hang their
> >latest weather story. Only the the feather-brained would take them
> >seriously.
>
> You mean peer-reviewed journals?
No. Journalists write newspaper articles, articles in peer-reviewd
journals are witten by scientists. If you want your opinions about
anthropogenic global warming to be taken seriously, this is one of the
bits of information that you will need to master. There are others.
> Cold kills:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6979830.ece
>
> I've seen serious estimates that suggest that in the US and Europe,
> cool snaps kill about four times as many people as heat waves.
But you can't actually cite any such estimate.
> Plants like warmth and CO2, too.
Up to a point. Few plants have to good fortune to be exposed to enough
of every other nutient to allow them to take advantage of higher CO2
levels - the geological record tells us that plants mainly take
advantage of higher CO2 levels by reducing the number of stoma on the
underside of their leaves so that they can collect the same amount of
CO2 while losing less water.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
Not to worry, we're still doomed:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9495864
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Raveninghorde
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
SNIP
.
>
>> Cold kills:
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6979830.ece
>>
>> I've seen serious estimates that suggest that in the US and Europe,
>> cool snaps kill about four times as many people as heat waves.
>
>But you can't actually cite any such estimate.
One estimate of winter deaths here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/
/quote
108,500 Deaths in the US in 2008; 36,700 in England and Wales Last
Winter; 5,600 in Canada (2006); 7,000 in Australia (1997-2006
Average); Thousands in Other Developed Countries
/end quote
SNIP
krw
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>No damn way!
>
>It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
>forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
>spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
It's been 16F the last two days when I went to work. My heat pumps
are barely keeping up (-2F from setting). We're supposed to get
freezing rain and snow tonight. It'll be fun watching the idiots
driving tomorrow. Staying out of their way won't be so much, though.
:-(
John Larkin
If you want your opinions about electronic design to be taken
seriously, you should actually do some once in a while. Master that!
AGW is not the topic here.
>
>> Cold kills:
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6979830.ece
>>
>> I've seen serious estimates that suggest that in the US and Europe,
>> cool snaps kill about four times as many people as heat waves.
>
>But you can't actually cite any such estimate.
>
>> Plants like warmth and CO2, too.
>
>Up to a point. Few plants have to good fortune to be exposed to enough
>of every other nutient to allow them to take advantage of higher CO2
>levels - the geological record tells us that plants mainly take
>advantage of higher CO2 levels by reducing the number of stoma on the
>underside of their leaves so that they can collect the same amount of
>CO2 while losing less water.
That's the way multivariate optimization works.
John
John Larkin
Sloman apparently doesn't know how to google.
John
John Larkin
wrote:
Another Ice Age would be "just a blip in the long-term heating trend."
Just keep extending the definition of "weather" and "climate" as suits
your political needs.
John
mpm
>
> - Show quoted text -
A frined of mine is a research scientist on the ESA's SMOS mission.
Link: http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMDGULX82G_index_0.html
It's a pretty cool instrument; an L-band interferrometer with 69
polarizations (66 discrete antennas). 2.4 GHz.
It launched in November and can measure global soil moisture and sea
surface temps & salinity. - The first instrument to do so on a global
scale.
Last I heard, there was some glitch in the A-Arm local oscillator, so
I haven't seen any recent data.
This is a very complex instrument - I hope they get it working.
Then we might confirm for sure (or not) that GW/AGW is something to
worry about.
who where
which is still a drop in the timescale bucket compared to the ice-age
period.
How can so-called credible scientists put forward their AGW arguments
with 100-odd years of data in a cycle of - what - 25,000 years?
That's like looking at about 1.44 degrees of a signal cycle and saying
what the rest of the cycle is.
>> Given the amount of time they have started taken accurate measurements
>> sub 100 years I fail to see how any credible scientist can come to any
>> conclusion on climate. How do they know what is normal?
>
>That is why they have been looking at the tree ring data, data from
>Artic lake sediments, and - most informative so far - the ice core
>data from the Greenland and Antarctic (Vostok) ice caps.
and below the ice-cap they have found remnants of temperate climate
forests. That terra firma under the ice has previously seen the light
of day for an extended period.
>> Some events that could skew there data just off the top of my head the
>> eruption of Mt St.Helens, EL Nina, EL Nino etc�
>
>Mere short term perturbations.
and you think/believe that ramping over say 100 years ISN'T short
term?
>> The climate will change whether we are here or not as it always has.
>
>To some extent, but injecting 37.5% more of a greenhouse gas into the
>atmosphere adds a new and apparently significant perturbation.
We - and certainly you - don't know what it was like at the same point
of the previous ice-age cycle. Again, short-term samples don't tell
the story, any more than two or three brush strokes let you describe
what the finished canvas will look like.
>> All this paranoid shit does is make some people rich by taking
>> advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.
>
>It isn't actually paranoid shit
There are a LOT of intellignet thinking peiople who disagree with that
view. You may have made up your mind, but the jury really is still
out when it comes to the doom and destruction bit.
>though Exxon-Mobil and like-minded
>organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and
>selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible
>idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.
>
>http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
>
>> For the record its regularly minus 30C here over night so I hope it
>> does get warmer or at least another el nino �would be nice.
>
>Wait until summer.
>
>Until then, it might be worth your while to learn a little bit more
>about the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming.
>
>The American Institute of Physics has a useful web-site which lays out
>the history of the development of the idea.
>
>http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
>
>You'd be better off spending you spare time reading that than
>adverising that you haven't got a clue about the subject.
You need to go back to Statistics 101 and look at what constitutes
sufficent data to validate forecasts.
mpm
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oops.
Clearly I meant 1.4 GHz. (Hydrogen line).
Reconstruction at 2.4 would be problematic given PCS phones.
Bill Sloman
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:11:31 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
The 100-odd years isn't the period that the scientists have been
studying, it is the period over which engineering has been introducing
a significant perturbation into the greenhouse effect that has kept
the earth warm enough to suit us over the past fifty thousand years
for which we've been around.
> >> Given the amount of time they have started taken accurate measurements
> >> sub 100 years I fail to see how any credible scientist can come to any
> >> conclusion on climate. How do they know what is normal?
>
> >That is why they have been looking at the tree ring data, data from
> >Artic lake sediments, and - most informative so far - the ice core
> >data from the Greenland and Antarctic (Vostok) ice caps.
>
> and below the ice-cap they have found remnants of temperate climate
> forests. That terra firma under the ice has previously seen the light
> of day for an extended period.
So what?
> >> Some events that could skew there data just off the top of my head the
> >> eruption of Mt St.Helens, EL Nina, EL Nino etc…
>
> >Mere short term perturbations.
>
> and you think/believe that ramping over say 100 years ISN'T short
> term?
>
> >> The climate will change whether we are here or not as it always has.
>
> >To some extent, but injecting 37.5% more of a greenhouse gas into the
> >atmosphere adds a new and apparently significant perturbation.
>
> We - and certainly you - don't know what it was like at the same point
> of the previous ice-age cycle. Again, short-term samples don't tell
> the story, any more than two or three brush strokes let you describe
> what the finished canvas will look like.
We do have a pretty good idea. The ice core data does give us a
reasonable handle on temeprature and CO2 levels, and the arctic lake
sediments are also informative.
>
> >> All this paranoid shit does is make some people rich by taking
> >> advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.
>
> >It isn't actually paranoid shit
>
> There are a LOT of intellignet thinking people who disagree with that
> view. You may have made up your mind, but the jury really is still
> out when it comes to the doom and destruction bit.
There are a lot of people who claim to be intelligent who still
haven't got the wit to recognise denialist propaganda for what it is.
You would seem to be one of them.
> >though Exxon-Mobil and like-minded
> >organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and
> >selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible
> >idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.
>
> >http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
>
> >> For the record its regularly minus 30C here over night so I hope it
> >> does get warmer or at least another el nino would be nice.
>
> >Wait until summer.
>
> >Until then, it might be worth your while to learn a little bit more
> >about the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming.
>
> >The American Institute of Physics has a useful web-site which lays out
> >the history of the development of the idea.
>
> >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
>
> >You'd be better off spending you spare time reading that than
> >adverising that you haven't got a clue about the subject.
>
> You need to go back to Statistics 101 and look at what constitutes
> sufficient data to validate forecasts.
You'd like to think so. Since my Ph.D. thesis involved wrestling with
that kind of question, I'd probably find that exposure to Statistics
101 wouldn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:25:25 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
>
> SNIP
>
> .
>
>
>
> >> Cold kills:
>
> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6979830.ece
>
> >> I've seen serious estimates that suggest that in the US and Europe,
> >> cool snaps kill about four times as many people as heat waves.
>
> >But you can't actually cite any such estimate.
>
> One estimate of winter deaths here:
>
>
> /quote
>
> 108,500 Deaths in the US in 2008; 36,700 in England and Wales Last
> Winter; 5,600 in Canada (2006); 7,000 in Australia (1997-2006
> Average); Thousands in Other Developed Countries
>
> /end quote
As you'd expect from a denialist web-site, they don't mention that hot
summers also generate excess deaths, and haven't cited any numbers
from tropical countries where excess deaths peak in summer, rather
than winter - human beings did evolve in tropical Africa, and rarely
run into excessive heat in temperate countries, though it does happen
from time to time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:25:25 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
>
>
>
>
Been there, done that, despite your equally ill-informed opinion on
that subject.
> AGW is not the topic here.
Or so you claim, whenever someone points out that your opinions about
AGW are ill-informed.
> >> Cold kills:
>
> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6979830.ece
>
> >> I've seen serious estimates that suggest that in the US and Europe,
> >> cool snaps kill about four times as many people as heat waves.
>
> >But you can't actually cite any such estimate.
>
> >> Plants like warmth and CO2, too.
>
> >Up to a point. Few plants have to good fortune to be exposed to enough
> >of every other nutrient to allow them to take advantage of higher CO2
> >levels - the geological record tells us that plants mainly take
> >advantage of higher CO2 levels by reducing the number of stoma on the
> >underside of their leaves so that they can collect the same amount of
> >CO2 while losing less water.
>
> That's the way multivariate optimization works.
That the way multivariate optimisation works when most plants don't
suffer from any shortage of CO2 - it is their most easily available
nutrient, after all. Other plants can steal their sunlight (by growing
taller) but CO2 is always available.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:25:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 7, 11:53 am, John Larkin
> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex
>
> >> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >> >> No damn way!
>
> >> >> It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
> >> >> forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
> >> >> spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
>
> >> >I made 3 three-point shots while playing basketball today out of the 4 I
> >> >attempted. With a three point shot percentage of 75% I am therefore the
> >> >greatest basketball player who ever lived.
>
> >> >One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
> >> >points.
>
> >> Well, the alarmists weren't shy about blaming every storm, beach
> >> erosion, hot spell, change in butterfly population, or the weigh of a
> >> herd of sheep on Global Warming.
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm
>
> >> John
>
> >Not to worry, we're still doomed:
> > http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9495864
>
> Another Ice Age would be "just a blip in the long-term heating trend."
I think you are letting your over-fertile imagination run away here.
> Just keep extending the definition of "weather" and "climate" as suits
> your political needs.
The way you do? You and James Arthur do seem enthusiastic about
confusing weather models (which are susceptible to the butterfly
effect) and climate models (which are deliberately onstructed so that
they aren't).
In your case it seems to be simple ignorance, but James Arthur
pretends - not all that successfully - to greater expertise.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:55:18 +0000, Raveninghorde
>
>
>
>
>
> <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:25:25 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
> ><bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >SNIP
>
> >.
>
> >>> Cold kills:
>
> >>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6979830.ece
>
> >>> I've seen serious estimates that suggest that in the US and Europe,
> >>> cool snaps kill about four times as many people as heat waves.
>
> >>But you can't actually cite any such estimate.
>
> >One estimate of winter deaths here:
>
>
> >/quote
>
> >108,500 Deaths in the US in 2008; 36,700 in England and Wales Last
> >Winter; 5,600 in Canada (2006); 7,000 in Australia (1997-2006
> >Average); Thousands in Other Developed Countries
>
> >/end quote
>
> >SNIP
>
> Sloman apparently doesn't know how to google.
You were putting forward the claim; I was pointing out that you didn't
seem to have been able to google up any decent support for your claim.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
Once again you are proving yourself an inumerate idiot.
Since the article is dealing with excess winter deaths normal summers
are accounted for.
As for your wiki article 14802 people died on France due to the summer
heatwave of 2003. The figure in the article for France for excess
winter deaths is 24938 on average. So a simple sum shows that a hot
summer killed 10,000 fewer people than an average winter in France.
As far as the tropics are concerned this seems to be a red herring
from an alarmist perspective. I thought the normal claim was that
anthropogenic global warming would have much more impact on the non
tropics compared to the tropics. But hey AGW explains everything
including the common cold.
Hammy
>There are a LOT of intellignet thinking peiople who disagree with that
>view. You may have made up your mind, but the jury really is still
>out when it comes to the doom and destruction bit.
>
>>though Exxon-Mobil and like-minded
>>organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and
>>selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible
>>idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.
>>
>>http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
According to the "intelligent people" as you put it we should all be
dead now anyways. Remember how the rain forest was being harvested at
1000's of hectares a day or minute?
The catastrophe all the geniuses said would happen funny we are all
still here. I guess all these "intelligent people "milked the rain
forest cash cow and are now sucking on the climate change tit.
Oh lets not forget the latest media fad 1000's dead millions ill with
H1N1 you must get vaccinated take these vitamins etc�� Did this
actually materialise anywhere near what all the hype? What did happen
is a bunch of people got rich by manipulating the press and
politicians so I guess these are the "Intelligent people " your
speaking of.
Exxon and other oil giants have the most to gain from the climate
paranoia it drives the price of there product up. It always comes down
to dollars and cents.
Oh and the climate change hero Al Gore he's not doing to bad
financially either. There is always a lot of sheep to fleece.
Do you maybe see a pattern developing ?
John Larkin
The only way to construct a climate simulation that isn't chaotic is
to get it entirely wrong.
John
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:15:32 +0800, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
> >There are a LOT of intellignet thinking peiople who disagree with that
> >view. You may have made up your mind, but the jury really is still
> >out when it comes to the doom and destruction bit.
>
> >>though Exxon-Mobil and like-minded
> >>organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and
> >>selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible
> >>idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.
>
> >>http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
>
> According to the "intelligent people" as you put it we should all be
> dead now anyways. Remember how the rain forest was being harvested at
> 1000's of hectares a day or minute?
Frankly, no. See if you can construct a more convincing strw man.
> The catastrophe all the geniuses said would happen funny we are all
> still here. I guess all these "intelligent people "milked the rain
> forest cash cow and are now sucking on the climate change tit.
Which predicted catastrophe are you referring to? Is it one you just
invented, or can you point out a reference to this "prediction"?
> Oh lets not forget the latest media fad 1000's dead millions ill with
> H1N1 you must get vaccinated take these vitamins etc…… Did this
> actually materialise anywhere near what all the hype? What did happen
> is a bunch of people got rich by manipulating the press and
> politicians so I guess these are the "Intelligent people " your
> speaking of.
The last H1N1 virus was the Spanish flu, and this particular example
did kill a few people in exactly the same way - happily not as many as
in 1918 and 1919.
Predicting the virulence of a virus in advance is even trickier than
predicting the speed and severity of anthropogenic global warming;
your failure to grasp the nature of either kind of warning is
depressing.
> Exxon and other oil giants have the most to gain from the climate
> paranoia it drives the price of their product up.
It might drive up the price, but it needs to drive down the turnover.
Exxon-Mobil is lying in the hope of being able to keep on selling huge
quantities of fossil carbon for a few years more.
> It always comes down
> to dollars and cents.
Or euros or renminbi, if you want a currency which can still buy
something.
> Oh and the climate change hero Al Gore he's not doing to bad
> financially either. There is always a lot of sheep to fleece.
And you seem to be one of them.
> Do you maybe see a pattern developing?
You've been visiting denialist web-sites?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:46:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Jan 8, 12:55 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >> SNIP
>
> >> .
>
> >> >> Cold kills:
>
> >> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6979830.ece
>
> >> >> I've seen serious estimates that suggest that in the US and Europe,
> >> >> cool snaps kill about four times as many people as heat waves.
>
> >> >But you can't actually cite any such estimate.
>
> >> One estimate of winter deaths here:
>
> >>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-t...
>
> >> /quote
>
> >> 108,500 Deaths in the US in 2008; 36,700 in England and Wales Last
> >> Winter; 5,600 in Canada (2006); 7,000 in Australia (1997-2006
> >> Average); Thousands in Other Developed Countries
>
> >> /end quote
>
> >As you'd expect from a denialist web-site, they don't mention that hot
> >summers also generate excess deaths, and haven't cited any numbers
> >from tropical countries where excess deaths peak in summer, rather
> >than winter - human beings did evolve in tropical Africa, and rarely
> >run into excessive heat in temperate countries, though it does happen
> >from time to time
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
>
> Once again you are proving yourself an inumerate idiot.
Ravinghorde fails joined up logic again.
> Since the article is dealing with excess winter deaths normal summers
> are accounted for.
Normal summer don't seem to produce excess deaths in temperate
countries. Abnormally warm summers do.
> As for your wiki article 14802 people died on France due to the summer
> heatwave of 2003. The figure in the article for France for excess
> winter deaths is 24938 on average. So a simple sum shows that a hot
> summer killed 10,000 fewer people than an average winter in France.
In a temperate country.
> As far as the tropics are concerned this seems to be a red herring
> from an alarmist perspective. I thought the normal claim was that
> anthropogenic global warming would have much more impact on the non
> tropics compared to the tropics. But hey AGW explains everything
> including the common cold.
Anthropogenic global warming is expected to have more impact at the
poles than at the equator, but summer in tropical countries will get
warmer and generate even more excess deaths than they do at the
moment, while as you get further from the equator, the winters will
become milder and the summers warmer, decreasing the excess deaths in
winter and making excess deaths in summer more likely.
As I said, you can't do joined-up logic.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
In your ever-so-expert opinion.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
I simulate and design dynamic systems for a living, and sometimes for
fun too. You don't earn a living, and apparently don't have fun.
John
Raveninghorde
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
SNIP
Tilting at windmills here. I didn't disagree with this point.
>
>> As for your wiki article 14802 people died on France due to the summer
>> heatwave of 2003. The figure in the article for France for excess
>> winter deaths is 24938 on average. So a simple sum shows that a hot
>> summer killed 10,000 fewer people than an average winter in France.
>
>In a temperate country.
You are the one who tried to use France, a temperate country, as a
counter to the proposal that cold kills and as I demonstrated you were
an inumerate idiot and wrong.
>
>> As far as the tropics are concerned this seems to be a red herring
>> from an alarmist perspective. I thought the normal claim was that
>> anthropogenic global warming would have much more impact on the non
>> tropics compared to the tropics. But hey AGW explains everything
>> including the common cold.
>
>Anthropogenic global warming is expected to have more impact at the
>poles than at the equator, but summer in tropical countries will get
>warmer and generate even more excess deaths than they do at the
>moment, while as you get further from the equator, the winters will
>become milder and the summers warmer, decreasing the excess deaths in
>winter and making excess deaths in summer more likely.
Do you have any facts? Or is this the normal there is no evidence so
Bill is wright argument you so love?
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:28:47 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple,
isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required
to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me.
Thanks for the entertainment.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Hammy
Bill Sloman said
>Predicting the virulence of a virus in advance is even trickier than
>predicting the speed and severity of anthropogenic global warming;
>your failure to grasp the nature of either kind of warning is
>depressing.
So you admit that extreme climate change based on human behaviour
could be wrong?
>Which predicted catastrophe are you referring to? Is it one you just
>invented, or can you point out a reference to this "prediction"?
Did you live in a cave in the late 80's early 90's ?
You don't recall being bombarded with massive ad campaigns to stop
deforestation in the Amazon. Western governments putting pressure on
the rain forest governments to curb land development.
There were scientist back then who said this could lead to climate
change.
>It might drive up the price, but it needs to drive down the turnover.
>Exxon-Mobil is lying in the hope of being able to keep on selling huge
>quantities of fossil carbon for a few years more.
Are you so na�ve to believe we will stop using fossil fuels in a few
years? The world economy would collapse. Exxon and others will be
selling oil long after both of us are dead and gone. The polar ice
caps will still be there as well. It is depressing how you fail to
grasp basic economics.
I think climate change paranoids are mainly people who feel the need
to think they live in times of great significance. Its normal human
behaviour we all want to feel important.
If it makes you feel good to use so called green energy good; me I
would prefer all electricity were generated via nuclear reactors.
If you are truly convinced that the world is coming to an end or major
disruption based on climate change due to human behaviour, then alter
your lifestyle.
Some ways in which you could reduce your carbon footprint is to
dispose of all your assets and live in a cave eating only natural
foods. If you aren't willing to take drastic action how can you expect
to be believed.
This behaviour kind of reminds me of those evangelical priests who
think there flock should live in poverty while he lives in a mansion
with a harem and flys all over the world in his jet. I think this is
what is called a hypocrite or maybe Al Gore.
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:27:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
< SNIP >
> >In a temperate country.
>
> You are the one who tried to use France, a temperate country, as a
> counter to the proposal that cold kills and as I demonstrated you were
> an inumerate idiot and wrong.
In fact I don't disagree that cold kills. What John Larkin left out
was that heat also kills;
mortality is at a minimum at temperatures around 20C, and starts
climbing as the temperature moves away from this point.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2002/temperature.html
so the correct formulation is that extreme temperatures kill, and John
Larkin's proposition - which you seem to have espoused - that global
warming, if it were to happen, wouldn't be such a bad thing, is
unfortuately ill-informed.
> >> As far as the tropics are concerned this seems to be a red herring
> >> from an alarmist perspective. I thought the normal claim was that
> >> anthropogenic global warming would have much more impact on the non
> >> tropics compared to the tropics. But hey AGW explains everything
> >> including the common cold.
>
> >Anthropogenic global warming is expected to have more impact at the
> >poles than at the equator, but summer in tropical countries will get
> >warmer and generate even more excess deaths than they do at the
> >moment, while as you get further from the equator, the winters will
> >become milder and the summers warmer, decreasing the excess deaths in
> >winter and making excess deaths in summer more likely.
>
> Do you have any facts? Or is this the normal there is no evidence so
> Bill is wright argument you so love?
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/190
There's plenty of evidence - so much in fact that I'd assumed any
educated adult would be aware of it. John Larkin isn't really an
educated adult - he seems to have passed through the American
University system acquiring only information relevant to electronic
design.
I would have thought that you'd know better than to bother to ask, but
I don't suppose this is the sort of thing that gets posted on the
denialist web-sites that you browse.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Hammy
>
>
>Bill Sloman said
>
Bill Sloman said
>Or euros or renminbi, if you want a currency which can still buy
>something.
Your exhibiting your lack of understanding of basic economics yet
again.
I'm Canadian and it is in our interest to keep our dollar 10 to 15
cents below the US dollar they are our largest trading partner.
Anytime our dollar approaches parity with the US dollar are government
is pressured from the business sector to act by saying things like
"the rising Canadian dollar is hampering Canada's recovery" or by
buying selling or dollar whatever it takes. Can you understand why
it's desirable to be below the US dollar?
We do minimal trade with the EU so the value of or dollar relative to
Euros is irrelevant.
For the record our banks didn't collapse and or economy was not
severely depressed just a recession not a depression.
Also my Grandfather fought through Europe in WW2 including Holland
and he never mentioned a thing about the Dutch turning there nose up
at his money. I also lived at CFB Baden in Germany for eight years
traveled all through Europe nobody turned my money away.
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 8, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:25:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> > wrote:
>
> > >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex wrote:
> > >> >One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
> > >> >points.
>
> > >> Well, the alarmists weren't shy about blaming every storm, beach
> > >> erosion, hot spell, change in butterfly population, or the weigh of a
> > >> herd of sheep on Global Warming.
>
> > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm
>
> > >> John
>
> > >Not to worry, we're still doomed:
> > > http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9495864
>
> > Another Ice Age would be "just a blip in the long-term heating trend."
>
> I think you are letting your over-fertile imagination run away here.
>
> > Just keep extending the definition of "weather" and "climate" as suits
> > your political needs.
>
> The way you do? You and James Arthur do seem enthusiastic about
> confusing weather models
You're confused--you invented that.
> (which are susceptible to the butterfly
> effect) and climate models (which are deliberately onstructed so that
> they aren't).
What construction, and how does it guarantee that? Diagrams, please.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Raveninghorde
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>On Jan 8, 8:25�pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:27:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>< SNIP >
>
>> >In a temperate country.
>>
>> You are the one who tried to use France, a temperate country, as a
>> counter to the proposal that cold kills and as I demonstrated you were
>> an inumerate idiot and wrong.
>
>In fact I don't disagree that cold kills. What John Larkin left out
>was that heat also kills;
>mortality is at a minimum at temperatures around 20C, and starts
>climbing as the temperature moves away from this point.
>
>http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2002/temperature.html
>
>so the correct formulation is that extreme temperatures kill, and John
>Larkin's proposition - which you seem to have espoused - that global
>warming, if it were to happen, wouldn't be such a bad thing, is
>unfortuately ill-informed.
The highest temperatures normally found in inhabited areas is about
45C. A cold of -40C is not uncommon. It has been seen in the last few
days in Norway and Sweden for example.
So the bias is to extreme cold. You have about 60C below your optimum
temeprature and 25C above.
>
>> >> As far as the tropics are concerned this seems to be a red herring
>> >> from an alarmist perspective. I thought the normal claim was that
>> >> anthropogenic global warming would have much more impact on the non
>> >> tropics compared to the tropics. But hey AGW explains everything
>> >> including the common cold.
>>
>> >Anthropogenic global warming is expected to have more impact at the
>> >poles than at the equator, but summer in tropical countries will get
>> >warmer and generate even more excess deaths than they do at the
>> >moment, while as you get further from the equator, the winters will
>> >become milder and the summers warmer, decreasing the excess deaths in
>> >winter and making excess deaths in summer more likely.
>>
>> Do you have any facts? Or is this the normal there is no evidence so
>> Bill is wright argument you so love?
>
>http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2008/11001/Determinants_Characterizing_Vulnerability_for.1029.aspx
>
>http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/190
>
>There's plenty of evidence - so much in fact that I'd assumed any
>educated adult would be aware of it. John Larkin isn't really an
>educated adult - he seems to have passed through the American
>University system acquiring only information relevant to electronic
>design.
>
>I would have thought that you'd know better than to bother to ask, but
>I don't suppose this is the sort of thing that gets posted on the
>denialist web-sites that you browse.
Tilting at windmills again.
The point is extreme cold is much more common than extreme heat. The
UK is currently in an extended period of temperatures below 0C. We had
-18C just 30 miles from here in Southern England. 38C below your 20C
optimum. We will never see temperatures 38C above, 58C.
And with extreme cold in Southern England thousands of homes were
without power. Which of course means no heating. And gas supplies are
now being cut off to industry to protect domestic users.
The UK government has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker. So now
the use of salt and grit to make the roads safe is being cut by 25%. B
all gas reserves. Hey we don't need to plan for cold the planet is
getting warmer. Bloody alarmist socialist idiots. This government
needs to be treated like their idols such as Mussolini or Ceausescu.
John Larkin
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
Do you think they actually cut back on gas and grit reserves because
they expected warmer winters?
I'd really not like to think that anyone could be that stupid.
John
Mark
> And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple,
> isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required
> to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me.
>
> Thanks for the entertainment.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Yes, as a matter of fact...
my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough
knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the
global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that
the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions.
Mark
John Larkin
wrote:
Agreed. The planet's climate is a massively complex nonlinear system
whose dynamics and forcings are only guessed at [1]. We know that
"weather" is chaotic over all time scales that it's been observed
over. It's absurd to think that "climate" is predictable. merely
because the time horizon exceeds observability.
Weather does couple into climate. One can't just wave hands and mumble
about lowpass filtering. This ain't a linear system.
Que more ponderous Sloman insults:
John
[1] and mostly guessed at by people with agendas.
Raveninghorde
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:54:49 +0000, Raveninghorde
><raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
SNIP
>>
>>The point is extreme cold is much more common than extreme heat. The
>>UK is currently in an extended period of temperatures below 0C. We had
>>-18C just 30 miles from here in Southern England. 38C below your 20C
>>optimum. We will never see temperatures 38C above, 58C.
>>
>>And with extreme cold in Southern England thousands of homes were
>>without power. Which of course means no heating. And gas supplies are
>>now being cut off to industry to protect domestic users.
>>
>>The UK government has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker. So now
>>the use of salt and grit to make the roads safe is being cut by 25%. B
>>all gas reserves. Hey we don't need to plan for cold the planet is
>>getting warmer. Bloody alarmist socialist idiots. This government
>>needs to be treated like their idols such as Mussolini or Ceausescu.
>
>Do you think they actually cut back on gas and grit reserves because
>they expected warmer winters?
>
>I'd really not like to think that anyone could be that stupid.
>
>John
>
If it wasn't a belief in AGW they are even stupider.
Last year, in the UK, it was a colder and snowier winter than the
rest of the decade. After problems with salt and grit for the roads a
comitteee reported in August on supplies. It was 15th December before
the government department responded, less than a week before this cold
snap started.
Keep in mind the Met Office, a major promoter of AGW, forecast a mild
winter.
/quote
Preliminary indications continue to suggest that winter temperatures
are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including
the UK. Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year for the
UK, but there is still a 1 in 7 chance of a cold winter.
What do we mean by average temperature?
As you would expect, temperatures can vary quite widely over the
winter. So we take an average for the whole season and measure against
that. The UK average for December to February from 1971-2000 is 3.7
�C.
/end quote
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm
At the end of December a Met Office spokeman defended the forecast
saying that with 2 months to go temperatures could well average above
3.7C. Idiot. This is after forecasting a BBQ summer which didn't stop
raining.
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >Or euros or renminbi, if you want a currency which can still buy
> >something.
>
> Your exhibiting your lack of understanding of basic economics yet
> again.
>
> I'm Canadian and it is in our interest to keep our dollar 10 to 15
> cents below the US dollar they are our largest trading partner.
>
> Anytime our dollar approaches parity with the US dollar are government
> is pressured from the business sector to act by saying things like
> "the rising Canadian dollar is hampering Canada's recovery" or by
> buying selling or dollar whatever it takes. Can you understand why
> it's desirable to be below the US dollar?
I can understand why your exporters don't want the Candaian dollar to
appreciate against the US dollar. The absolute rate of exchange
doesn't actually matter, but any change does make a difference.
> We do minimal trade with the EU so the value of or dollar relative to
> Euros is irrelevant.
Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange
rate is truly irrelevant.
> For the record our banks didn't collapse and or economy was not
> severely depressed just a recession not a depression.
Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was
unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality.
> Also my Grandfather fought through Europe in WW2 including Holland
> and he never mentioned a thing about the Dutch turning there nose up
> at his money. I also lived at CFB Baden in Germany for eight years
> traveled all through Europe nobody turned my money away.
That was then. This is now. The USA - your major trading partner - has
been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was
president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything,
and most of the assets that could be made to look as if they were
worth something, and it now takes 1.4441 US dollars to buy a euro, so
its worth about two thirds of what it was a few years ago. This is a
signficant devaluation, but the US is still running a massive balance
of trade deficit, so presumably there's more to come.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
who where
comments for someone else? If not, you misunderstood my post big
time.
Hammy
>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
Bill Sloman said
>Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange
>rate is truly irrelevant.
I would consider anything less then 10% GDP irrelevant.
>Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was
>unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality.
You seem to be a cherry picker as well as blind I said we had a
recession not that we were unaffected the whole world was. In
comparison to most developed Countries we got off lightly considering.
>That was then. This is now. The USA - your major trading partner - has
>been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was
>president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything,
{snip}
In a nut shell we could easily live without the EU the EU couldn't
live without us. As a matter of fact the EU wouldn't even exist
without us. I notice a few people here seem to hold a grudge against
North Americans is it because you know you owe us something you know
you could never repay. I can see how someone might harbour resentment
under the circumstances.
who where
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>On Jan 8, 7:15嚙窮m, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:11:31 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>>
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Jan 7, 2:15嚙緘m, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex
>>
>> >> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> >> >> No damn way!
>>
>> >> >> It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
>> >> >> forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
>> >> >> spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
>>
>> >> >I made 3 three-point shots while playing basketball today out of the 4 I
>> >> >attempted. 嚙磕ith a three point shot percentage of 75% I am therefore the
>> >> >greatest basketball player who ever lived.
>>
>> >> >One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
>> >> >points.
>>
>> >> One should also be careful of making predictions on climate based on
>> >> data such as tree rings.
>>
>> >> The life span of a tree is hardly equivalent to an eye blink when
>> >> compared to the time the earth has existed. Yet they are using this to
>> >> determine so called climate patterns. As far as geological data its
>> >> hardly precise usually its plus or minus a couple thousand years.
>>
>> >Since the interesting perturbation to the climate is the 100pmm rise
>> >in atmospheric CO2 level over the past century (from around 280ppm to
>> >around 385ppm), tree ring data does have about the right time scale to
>> >allow us to compare curent climate changes to the climate changes that
>> >were taking place immediately before the Industrial Revolution.
>>
>> which is still a drop in the timescale bucket compared to the ice-age
>> period.
>>
>> How can so-called credible scientists put forward their AGW arguments
>> with 100-odd years of data in a cycle of - what - 25,000 years?
>> That's like looking at about 1.44 degrees of a signal cycle and saying
>> what the rest of the cycle is.
>
>The 100-odd years isn't the period that the scientists have been
>studying, it is the period over which engineering has been introducing
>a significant perturbation into the greenhouse effect that has kept
>the earth warm enough to suit us over the past fifty thousand years
>for which we've been around.
Ah, righto, you would have been comfortable through the last ice age
then?
>> >> Given the amount of time they have started taken accurate measurements
>> >> sub 100 years I fail to see how any credible scientist can come to any
>> >> conclusion on climate. How do they know what is normal?
>>
>> >That is why they have been looking at the tree ring data, data from
>> >Artic lake sediments, and - most informative so far - the ice core
>> >data from the Greenland and Antarctic (Vostok) ice caps.
>>
>> and below the ice-cap they have found remnants of temperate climate
>> forests. 嚙確hat terra firma under the ice has previously seen the light
>> of day for an extended period.
>
>So what?
So the ice cap there has disappeared before. Why so melodramatic
about it this time around?
>> >> Some events that could skew there data just off the top of my head the
>> >> eruption of Mt St.Helens, EL Nina, EL Nino etc嚙�>>
>> >Mere short term perturbations.
>>
>> and you think/believe that ramping over say 100 years ISN'T short
>> term?
>>
>> >> The climate will change whether we are here or not as it always has.
>>
>> >To some extent, but injecting 37.5% more of a greenhouse gas into the
>> >atmosphere adds a new and apparently significant perturbation.
>>
>> We - and certainly you - don't know what it was like at the same point
>> of the previous ice-age cycle. 嚙璀gain, short-term samples don't tell
>> the story, any more than two or three brush strokes let you describe
>> what the finished canvas will look like.
>
>We do have a pretty good idea. The ice core data does give us a
>reasonable handle on temeprature and CO2 levels, and the arctic lake
>sediments are also informative.
Do they indicate to you that ice ages come and go, and that the polar
ice caps do likewise?
>> >> All this paranoid shit does is make some people rich by taking
>> >> advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.
>>
>> >It isn't actually paranoid shit
>>
>> There are a LOT of intellignet thinking people who disagree with that
>> view. 嚙磐ou may have made up your mind, but the jury really is still
>> out when it comes to the doom and destruction bit.
>
>There are a lot of people who claim to be intelligent who still
>haven't got the wit to recognise denialist propaganda for what it is.
>You would seem to be one of them.
Denial of a false claim doesn't make one stupid or wrong. You and
many like you can't see the forest for the trees.
>> >though Exxon-Mobil and like-minded
>> >organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and
>> >selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible
>> >idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.
>>
>> >http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
>>
>> >> For the record its regularly minus 30C here over night so I hope it
>> >> does get warmer or at least another el nino 嚙緩ould be nice.
>>
>> >Wait until summer.
>>
>> >Until then, it might be worth your while to learn a little bit more
>> >about the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming.
>>
>> >The American Institute of Physics has a useful web-site which lays out
>> >the history of the development of the idea.
>>
>> >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
>>
>> >You'd be better off spending you spare time reading that than
>> >adverising that you haven't got a clue about the subject.
>>
>> You need to go back to Statistics 101 and look at what constitutes
>> sufficient data to validate forecasts.
>
>You'd like to think so. Since my Ph.D. thesis involved wrestling with
>that kind of question, I'd probably find that exposure to Statistics
>101 wouldn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
It might tell you things that you seem to choose to ignore when it
suits your AGW argument.
Artist
Actually climatologists are predicting the paradoxical cooling of Europe
due to global warming. This is because of the effects on the
Thermohaline Circulation:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/thermohaline.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
So it appears we do not have to worry about global warming very much.
After the Thermohaline Circulation is reduced or shut down entirely a
new ice age will appear. Its added ice will reflect more sunlight and
cool the earth again. Of course Europe, North America, and Siberia will
all be buried in a mile of ice for a while, maybe even as far South as
New York, San Francisco, London, or Munich.
So if Europe is in the deep freeze don't worry. Its just the early signs
the global warming induced new ice age is on its way and the Earth will
be cool again.
--
To reply directly remove the sj. from my email address. This is a spam
jammer.
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:54:49 +0000, Raveninghorde
>
>
>
>
>
> <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:10:53 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> ><bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >>On Jan 8, 8:25 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:27:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> >>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >>< SNIP >
>
> >>> >In a temperate country.
>
> >>> You are the one who tried to use France, a temperate country, as a
> >>> counter to the proposal that cold kills and as I demonstrated you were
> >>> an inumerate idiot and wrong.
>
> >>In fact I don't disagree that cold kills. What John Larkin left out
> >>was that heat also kills;
> >>mortality is at a minimum at temperatures around 20C, and starts
> >>climbing as the temperature moves away from this point.
>
>
> >>so the correct formulation is that extreme temperatures kill, and John
> >>Larkin's proposition - which you seem to have espoused - that global
> >>warming, if it were to happen, wouldn't be such a bad thing, is
> >>unfortuately ill-informed.
>
> >The highest temperatures normally found in inhabited areas is about
> >45C. A cold of -40C is not uncommon. It has been seen in the last few
> >days in Norway and Sweden for example.
>
> >So the bias is to extreme cold. You have about 60C below your optimum
> >temeprature and 25C above.
>
> >>> >> As far as the tropics are concerned this seems to be a red herring
> >>> >> from an alarmist perspective. I thought the normal claim was that
> >>> >> anthropogenic global warming would have much more impact on the non
> >>> >> tropics compared to the tropics. But hey AGW explains everything
> >>> >> including the common cold.
>
> >>> >Anthropogenic global warming is expected to have more impact at the
> >>> >poles than at the equator, but summer in tropical countries will get
> >>> >warmer and generate even more excess deaths than they do at the
> >>> >moment, while as you get further from the equator, the winters will
> >>> >become milder and the summers warmer, decreasing the excess deaths in
> >>> >winter and making excess deaths in summer more likely.
>
> >>> Do you have any facts? Or is this the normal there is no evidence so
> >>> Bill is wright argument you so love?
>
It seems unlikely. My expectation is that the stocks of salt and grit
are close to running out - as they are in the Netherlands - and the
authorities are cutting back on the number of roads being gritted to
stretch the supplies.
Ravinghorde is prone to misunderstanding what he reads - what he
quotes from a document does tend to give a rather different impression
than the one you get by reading the whole document.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:10:53 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Jan 8, 8:25 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:27:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >< SNIP >
>
> >> >In a temperate country.
>
> >> You are the one who tried to use France, a temperate country, as a
> >> counter to the proposal that cold kills and as I demonstrated you were
> >> an inumerate idiot and wrong.
>
> >In fact I don't disagree that cold kills. What John Larkin left out
> >was that heat also kills;
> >mortality is at a minimum at temperatures around 20C, and starts
> >climbing as the temperature moves away from this point.
>
>
> >so the correct formulation is that extreme temperatures kill, and John
> >Larkin's proposition - which you seem to have espoused - that global
> >warming, if it were to happen, wouldn't be such a bad thing, is
> >unfortuately ill-informed.
>
> The highest temperatures normally found in inhabited areas is about
> 45C. A cold of -40C is not uncommon. It has been seen in the last few
> days in Norway and Sweden for example.
>
> So the bias is to extreme cold. You have about 60C below your optimum
In places a long way from the equator. There aren't as many of them as
the Mercator projection might lead you to believe.
> >> >> As far as the tropics are concerned this seems to be a red herring
> >> >> from an alarmist perspective. I thought the normal claim was that
> >> >> anthropogenic global warming would have much more impact on the non
> >> >> tropics compared to the tropics. But hey AGW explains everything
> >> >> including the common cold.
>
> >> >Anthropogenic global warming is expected to have more impact at the
> >> >poles than at the equator, but summer in tropical countries will get
> >> >warmer and generate even more excess deaths than they do at the
> >> >moment, while as you get further from the equator, the winters will
> >> >become milder and the summers warmer, decreasing the excess deaths in
> >> >winter and making excess deaths in summer more likely.
>
> >> Do you have any facts? Or is this the normal there is no evidence so
> >> Bill is wright argument you so love?
>
> >http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2008/11001/Determinants_Chara...
>
> >http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/190
>
> >There's plenty of evidence - so much in fact that I'd assumed any
> >educated adult would be aware of it. John Larkin isn't really an
> >educated adult - he seems to have passed through the American
> >University system acquiring only information relevant to electronic
> >design.
>
> >I would have thought that you'd know better than to bother to ask, but
> >I don't suppose this is the sort of thing that gets posted on the
> >denialist web-sites that you browse.
>
> Tilting at windmills again.
>
> The point is extreme cold is much more common than extreme heat.
When you get close to the Arctic circle. There's not a lot of land
close to the Antarctic circle.
Btween the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn - where rather
more people live - the situation is reversed.
> The
> UK is currently in an extended period of temperatures below 0C. We had
> -18C just 30 miles from here in Southern England. 38C below your 20C
> optimum. We will never see temperatures 38C above, 58C.
Not unless anthropogenic global warming really runs away. The average
temperature in England over the whole year is 13.1C. The Paleocene-
Eocene Thermal Maximum was good for a 6C temperature rise - about the
the same as the IPCC's worst case for the end of this century, which
would bring that average up to 19.1C, and give you roughly equal
chances of positive and negative excursions into life-threatening
regions.
> And with extreme cold in Southern England thousands of homes were
> without power. Which of course means no heating. And gas supplies are
> now being cut off to industry to protect domestic users.
In hot weather, the power demand from air-conditioning systems can
also sky-rocket.
> The UK government has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker. So now
> the use of salt and grit to make the roads safe is being cut by 25%. B
> all gas reserves. Hey we don't need to plan for cold the planet is
> getting warmer. Bloody alarmist socialist idiots. This government
> needs to be treated like their idols such as Mussolini or Ceausescu.
If the UK is like the Netherlands, the use of salt and grit on the
roads has been cut because the unexpected cold spell used up most of a
stock that had been expected to last the winter.
Gas reserves will have been calculated on the basis of the same
statistical model. Any time now, some statisticians is going to tell
us that this has been a once in 10,000 year fluke.
Statistics doesn't tell you which year in the 10,000 is going to win
the national lottery.
The statistician won't have figured in any anthropogenic global
warming - statisticians don't think like that. And the socialist
government you dislike so much won't have argued with his statistics.
The conservative idiots who hope to replace them won't do any better.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:16:07 -0800 (PST), Mark <makol...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple,
> >> isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required
> >> to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me.
>
> >> Thanks for the entertainment.
>
> >> --
> >>Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> >Yes, as a matter of fact...
>
> >my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough
> >knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the
> >global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that
> >the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions.
>
> >Mark
>
> Agreed. The planet's climate is a massively complex nonlinear system
> whose dynamics and forcings are only guessed at [1]. We know that
> "weather" is chaotic over all time scales that it's been observed
> over. It's absurd to think that "climate" is predictable. merely
> because the time horizon exceeds observability.
Since the time horizon doesn't exceed observability, I don't need to
point out the other absurdities of your claim.
> Weather does couple into climate. One can't just wave hands and mumble
> about lowpass filtering. This ain't a linear system.
You've got your opinion, and von Neumann had his
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
My money is on von Neumann. The US governement has spent - and is
still spending - a lot of money on backing his opinion. They may be
wrong, and you may be right, but I wouldn't bet on it.
> Que more ponderous Sloman insults:
John Larkin holds forth on a subject he knows little about, and feels
insulted when it is pointed out that he does happen to be talking
nonsense. If he's such a sensitive fellow, why does he persist in
producing opinions about subjects that he knows very little about?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Ask your own tame expert. You won't understand her answer, but if she
is any good she should be able to give you a better answer than I
could, and with a lot less effort.
Or do some reading here - searching on the name von Neumann will get
you to the interesting bits fairly quickly.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Right. And you'd take a climatologist's word on the effectiveness of
Spice in simulating electronic circuits.
--
Bil Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
One doesn't do the things I've done and be "sensitive." When the
stakes are high, the thing to do is think.
I've seen enough scientists be dead wrong that I respect experiment,
not opinions, not simulations.
Why do you keep posting off-topic crap to a newsgroup about electronic
design, when you don't do electronic design?
John
Hammy
[Disclaimer]
All of my comments were directed towards Sloman and his kind and
weren't meant to insult any sane EU people.;)
Goodnight
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:37:59 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Jan 8, 7:15 am, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:11:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 7, 2:15 pm, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex
>
> >> >> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> >Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >> >> >> No damn way!
>
> >> >> >> It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
> >> >> >> forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
> >> >> >> spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
>
> >> >> >I made 3 three-point shots while playing basketball today out of the 4 I
Your ancestors and mine stuck relatively close to the equator when it
got really cold; they were comfortable enough to breed and survive.
> >> >> Given the amount of time they have started taken accurate measurements
> >> >> sub 100 years I fail to see how any credible scientist can come to any
> >> >> conclusion on climate. How do they know what is normal?
>
> >> >That is why they have been looking at the tree ring data, data from
> >> >Artic lake sediments, and - most informative so far - the ice core
> >> >data from the Greenland and Antarctic (Vostok) ice caps.
>
> >> and below the ice-cap they have found remnants of temperate climate
> >> forests. That terra firma under the ice has previously seen the light
> >> of day for an extended period.
>
> >So what?
>
> So the ice cap there has disappeared before. Why so melodramatic
> about it this time around?
If the Greenland ice cap disappears, the sea level rises by 7.2
metres. If you live in a coastal city, this woukd be rather
melodramatic.
> >> >> Some events that could skew there data just off the top of my head the
> >> >> eruption of Mt St.Helens, EL Nina, EL Nino etc…
>
> >> >Mere short term perturbations.
>
> >> and you think/believe that ramping over say 100 years ISN'T short
> >> term?
Mount St. Helens and the El Nino/ La Nina alternation are good for a
couple of years at most - even shorter term.
> >> >> The climate will change whether we are here or not as it always has.
>
> >> >To some extent, but injecting 37.5% more of a greenhouse gas into the
> >> >atmosphere adds a new and apparently significant perturbation.
>
> >> We - and certainly you - don't know what it was like at the same point
> >> of the previous ice-age cycle. Again, short-term samples don't tell
> >> the story, any more than two or three brush strokes let you describe
> >> what the finished canvas will look like.
>
> >We do have a pretty good idea. The ice core data does give us a
> >reasonable handle on temperature and CO2 levels, and the arctic lake
> >sediments are also informative.
>
> Do they indicate to you that ice ages come and go, and that the polar
> ice caps do likewise?
The polar caps have been tolerably stable for the last couple of
million years. The alternation of ice ages and interglacials is
explained by the Milankovitch cycles, and a fair bit of positive
feedback; some of the same positive feedbacks that make adding extra
CO2 to the atmosphere are rather bad idea.
> >> >> All this paranoid shit does is make some people rich by taking
> >> >> advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.
>
> >> >It isn't actually paranoid shit
>
> >> There are a LOT of intellignet thinking people who disagree with that
> >> view. You may have made up your mind, but the jury really is still
> >> out when it comes to the doom and destruction bit.
>
> >There are a lot of people who claim to be intelligent who still
> >haven't got the wit to recognise denialist propaganda for what it is.
> >You would seem to be one of them.
>
> Denial of a false claim doesn't make one stupid or wrong. You and
> many like you can't see the forest for the trees.
Sure. But denying a well-established scientific case because some
greedy fossil-carbon extraction company has paid money to the
propaganda machine that the tobacco industry set up to cast doubt on
another well-established scientific case is evidence that you don't
have a particularly firm grasp of reality.
> >> >though Exxon-Mobil and like-minded
> >> >organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and
> >> >selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible
> >> >idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.
>
> >> >http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
>
> >> >> For the record its regularly minus 30C here over night so I hope it
> >> >> does get warmer or at least another el nino would be nice.
>
> >> >Wait until summer.
>
> >> >Until then, it might be worth your while to learn a little bit more
> >> >about the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming.
>
> >> >The American Institute of Physics has a useful web-site which lays out
> >> >the history of the development of the idea.
>
> >> >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
>
> >> >You'd be better off spending you spare time reading that than
> >> >adverising that you haven't got a clue about the subject.
>
> >> You need to go back to Statistics 101 and look at what constitutes
> >> sufficient data to validate forecasts.
>
> >You'd like to think so. Since my Ph.D. thesis involved wrestling with
> >that kind of question, I'd probably find that exposure to Statistics
> >101 wouldn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
>
> It might tell you things that you seem to choose to ignore when it
> suits your AGW argument.
Such as?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:27:45 -0500, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> Bill Slomansaid
>
> >Except that international trade links every country, so no exchange
> >rate is truly irrelevant.
>
> I would consider anything less then 10% GDP irrelevant.
That claim is silly enough that you could be an economist.
> >Your major trading partner caught a cold and your economy was
> >unaffected? You do seem to have a strange grasp of reality.
>
> You seem to be a cherry picker as well as blind I said we had a
> recession not that we were unaffected the whole world was. In
> comparison to most developed countries we got off lightly considering.
So what?
> >That was then. This is now. The USA - your major trading partner - has
> >been running a massive balance of trade deficit since Regan was
> >president. They've sold off all the assets that were worth anything,
>
> {snip}
>
> In a nut shell we could easily live without the EU the EU couldn't
> live without us. As a matter of fact the EU wouldn't even exist
> without us. I notice a few people here seem to hold a grudge against
> North Americans is it because you know you owe us something you know
> you could never repay. I can see how someone might harbour resentment
> under the circumstances.
Since Canada started off as French and British colonies, it wouldn't
exist without the EU. I can see how some Canadians might harbour
resentment under the circumstances.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Michael A. Terrell
krw wrote:
>
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >No damn way!
> >
> >It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
> >forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
> >spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
>
> are barely keeping up (-2F from setting). We're supposed to get
> freezing rain and snow tonight. It'll be fun watching the idiots
> driving tomorrow. Staying out of their way won't be so much, though.
> :-(
It's supposed to snow in Ocala tonight.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Michael A. Terrell
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> On Jan 8, 7:02 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:25:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >On Jan 7, 11:53 am, John Larkin wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:12:35 -0500, Bitrex wrote:
>
> > > >> >One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
> > > >> >points.
> >
> > > >> Well, the alarmists weren't shy about blaming every storm, beach
> > > >> erosion, hot spell, change in butterfly population, or the weigh of a
> > > >> herd of sheep on Global Warming.
> >
> > > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445613.stm
> >
> > > >> John
> >
> > > >Not to worry, we're still doomed:
> > > > http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9495864
> >
> > > Another Ice Age would be "just a blip in the long-term heating trend."
> >
> > I think you are letting your over-fertile imagination run away here.
> >
> > > Just keep extending the definition of "weather" and "climate" as suits
> > > your political needs.
> >
> > The way you do? You and James Arthur do seem enthusiastic about
> > confusing weather models
>
> You're confused--you invented that.
Credit where credit is due. Sloman invented stupid, and has worked
60+ years to perfect it.
ehsjr
> No damn way!
>
> It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
> forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
> spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
>
>
There was a small segment on the late news last nite here in
NY about, get this, iguanas falling out of trees down your way,
due to the cold. Apparently they pass out in the cold temperatures.
The announcer said iguanas aren't native to Florida, but have
established themselves there, having been bought as pets and
then escaped or been released.
Obviously, the iguanas didn't know that "global warming" was
gonna make them freeze their asses off.
Ed
Michael A. Terrell
The Manatees and Green Turtles are suffering from the cold, as well
and they have both been in Florida for a long time.
Tree Frogs are always falling out of trees, but they are tiny and
won't hurt as much as an Iguana if they hit you. :)
They are still calling for some snow in Ocala tonight which will be
interesting if it sticks. There isn't a snow plow within 500 miles, or
any road salt.
Raveninghorde
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
SNIP
>> And with extreme cold in Southern England thousands of homes were
>> without power. Which of course means no heating. And gas supplies are
>> now being cut off to industry to protect domestic users.
>
>In hot weather, the power demand from air-conditioning systems can
>also sky-rocket.
>
>> The UK government has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker. So now
>> the use of salt and grit to make the roads safe is being cut by 25%. B
>> all gas reserves. Hey we don't need to plan for cold the planet is
>> getting warmer. Bloody alarmist socialist idiots. This government
>> needs to be treated like their idols such as Mussolini or Ceausescu.
>
>If the UK is like the Netherlands, the use of salt and grit on the
>roads has been cut because the unexpected cold spell used up most of a
>stock that had been expected to last the winter.
>
>Gas reserves will have been calculated on the basis of the same
>statistical model. Any time now, some statisticians is going to tell
>us that this has been a once in 10,000 year fluke.
>
>Statistics doesn't tell you which year in the 10,000 is going to win
>the national lottery.
>
>The statistician won't have figured in any anthropogenic global
>warming - statisticians don't think like that. And the socialist
>government you dislike so much won't have argued with his statistics.
>The conservative idiots who hope to replace them won't do any better.
But some weather forecasters predicted this well in advance, Piers
Corbyn, for example.
What does he know that the Met Office doesn't? It's the sun stupid.
Other forecasters as well such as The Weather Outlook, Accuweather,
netweather.
Cold last year, cold this year and a solar minimum. Must be a Hale
winter. Funnily enough Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for this. They
happen every 2 solar cycles, and 1940, 1963, 1985 were cold winters.
1963 was the coldest in the UK for a 200 year period.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/05/coldest-winters-britain-snow
/quote
It was 1963 that had the distinction of being the coldest winter for
more than 200 years � cold enough, in fact, for the sea to freeze in
places such as Poole in Dorset. Blizzards buried parts of Wales and
south-west England in snow drifts 6 metres deep, blocked roads and
railways and turned villages into isolated islands. Animals died in
their fields because farmers could not reach them through the snow. In
mid-January, the temperature in Braemar, Scotland, plunged to -22.2C.
/end quote
Hammy
>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:27:45 -0500, Hammy <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
Bill Sloman said
>That claim is silly enough that you could be an economist.
Your right or GDP is currently 1.4 Trillion US dollars I doubt we even
do 100 billion dollars trade with the EU. In the scheme of things
chump change.
>Since Canada started off as French and British colonies, it wouldn't
>exist without the EU. I can see how some Canadians might harbour
>resentment under the circumstances.
Yes we did if you read your history we defeated the French and became
independent from the UK after WW1. The UK gave us independence as a
reward for bailing them out from the Kaiser in WW1 we would have took
it anyways. This trend continued for WW2. We had no reliance on either
though if that's what your insinuating quite the contrary they both
had dependence on us for our natural resources this continues to this
day. You have nothing we need but I guarantee we have things you need.
The EU never existed at this time so your point is moot.
Baron
> There was a small segment on the late news last nite here in
> NY about, get this, iguanas falling out of trees down your way,
> due to the cold. Apparently they pass out in the cold temperatures.
> The announcer said iguanas aren't native to Florida, but have
> established themselves there, having been bought as pets and
> then escaped or been released.
>
> Obviously, the iguanas didn't know that "global warming" was
> gonna make them freeze their asses off.
>
> Ed
Yes ! There was a short film clip on UK TV National News, showing one
about 2 feet long, loosing its grip on the branch it was hanging on to,
and somersaulting as it fell to the ground. Apparently they go into a
hibernation mode at low temperatures.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
who where
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>On Jan 9, 2:25嚙窮m, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:37:59 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Jan 8, 7:15嚙窮m, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:11:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>
>> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
(snip)
>> >> forests. 嚙確hat terra firma under the ice has previously seen the light
>> >> of day for an extended period.
>>
>> >So what?
>>
>> So the ice cap there has disappeared before. 嚙磕hy so melodramatic
>> about it this time around?
>
>If the Greenland ice cap disappears, the sea level rises by 7.2
>metres. If you live in a coastal city, this woukd be rather
>melodramatic.
I'm at 300m AMSL so I won't even be a beachside area. Sad, there's a
killing to be made in real estate.
>> >> >> Some events that could skew there data just off the top of my head the
>> >> >> eruption of Mt St.Helens, EL Nina, EL Nino etc嚙�>>
>> >> >Mere short term perturbations.
>>
>> >> and you think/believe that ramping over say 100 years ISN'T short
>> >> term?
>
>Mount St. Helens and the El Nino/ La Nina alternation are good for a
>couple of years at most - even shorter term.
>
>> >> >> The climate will change whether we are here or not as it always has.
>>
>> >> >To some extent, but injecting 37.5% more of a greenhouse gas into the
>> >> >atmosphere adds a new and apparently significant perturbation.
>>
>> >> We - and certainly you - don't know what it was like at the same point
>> >> of the previous ice-age cycle. 嚙璀gain, short-term samples don't tell
>> >> the story, any more than two or three brush strokes let you describe
>> >> what the finished canvas will look like.
>>
>> >We do have a pretty good idea. The ice core data does give us a
>> >reasonable handle on temperature and CO2 levels, and the arctic lake
>> >sediments are also informative.
>>
>> Do they indicate to you that ice ages come and go, and that the polar
>> ice caps do likewise?
>
>The polar caps have been tolerably stable for the last couple of
>million years. The alternation of ice ages and interglacials is
>explained by the Milankovitch cycles, and a fair bit of positive
>feedback; some of the same positive feedbacks that make adding extra
>CO2 to the atmosphere are rather bad idea.
>
>> >> >> All this paranoid shit does is make some people rich by taking
>> >> >> advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.
>>
>> >> >It isn't actually paranoid shit
>>
>> >> There are a LOT of intellignet thinking people who disagree with that
>> >> view. 嚙磐ou may have made up your mind, but the jury really is still
>> >> out when it comes to the doom and destruction bit.
>>
>> >There are a lot of people who claim to be intelligent who still
>> >haven't got the wit to recognise denialist propaganda for what it is.
>> >You would seem to be one of them.
>>
>> Denial of a false claim doesn't make one stupid or wrong. 嚙磐ou and
>> many like you can't see the forest for the trees.
>
>Sure. But denying a well-established scientific case because some
>greedy fossil-carbon extraction company has paid money to the
>propaganda machine that the tobacco industry set up to cast doubt on
>another well-established scientific case is evidence that you don't
>have a particularly firm grasp of reality.
You seem to have a fixation that anyone who doesn't agree with your
view has been hoodwinked by big oil. You really do need to get a
grip. Any "conspiracy" here is by the AGW alarmists, including Gore.
>> >> >though Exxon-Mobil and like-minded
>> >> >organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and
>> >> >selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible
>> >> >idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.
>>
>> >> >http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
>>
>> >> >> For the record its regularly minus 30C here over night so I hope it
>> >> >> does get warmer or at least another el nino 嚙緩ould be nice.
>>
>> >> >Wait until summer.
>>
>> >> >Until then, it might be worth your while to learn a little bit more
>> >> >about the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming.
>>
>> >> >The American Institute of Physics has a useful web-site which lays out
>> >> >the history of the development of the idea.
>>
>> >> >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
>>
>> >> >You'd be better off spending you spare time reading that than
>> >> >adverising that you haven't got a clue about the subject.
>>
>> >> You need to go back to Statistics 101 and look at what constitutes
>> >> sufficient data to validate forecasts.
>>
>> >You'd like to think so. Since my Ph.D. thesis involved wrestling with
>> >that kind of question, I'd probably find that exposure to Statistics
>> >101 wouldn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
>>
>> It might tell you things that you seem to choose to ignore when it
>> suits your AGW argument.
>
>Such as?
Quote: "You need to go back to Statistics 101 and look at what
constitutes sufficient data to validate forecasts." At risk of
repeating myself, 100 years of data - which is what most of your
fellow AGW alarmists are hanging their collective hats on - is pretty
much insignificant in relation to the natural ice age oscillation
period.
I don't think anyone with their head screwed on right would disagree
that AGW is real. The question is whether it is any more than man
accelerating the ramp to the next peak. The alarmists have decided
that this means the end of the world as we know it. Anyone to dares
to disagree with them is immediately labelled as in denial or having
been conned by big oil. Ain't so.
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:36:07 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
And some didn't. The ones that happened to be right get the publicity.
Has Corbyn made a habit of being right, or is this just a lucky
coincidence?
> What does he know that the Met Office doesn't? It's the sun stupid.
An attractive theory. Serious scientific investigation suggests that
there is less there than meets the eye.
> Other forecasters as well such as The Weather Outlook, Accuweather,
> netweather.
Out of how many?
> Cold last year, cold this year and a solar minimum. Must be a Hale
> winter. Funnily enough Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for this. They
> happen every 2 solar cycles, and 1940, 1963, 1985 were cold winters.
> 1963 was the coldest in the UK for a 200 year period.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/05/coldest-winters-britain-snow
The Independent had the story you want to tell us, back in 2007
It's a pity that the Solar cyces are sufficiently irregular that the
correlation is only obvious after the event. And it is still just a
correlation - attempts to postulate causation don't seem to do well.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:52:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
In the observation sciences, like astronomy and climatology, you also
need to respect observations. Simulations are a useful technique for
elucidating observations, if used sensibly, despite your ill-informed
prejudice.
> Why do you keep posting off-topic crap to a newsgroup about electronic
> design, when you don't do electronic design?
Why do you keep posting off-topic crap to a newsgroup about electronic
design, when you do do electronic design, and have a subject that you
can talk about where you do know the difference between sense and
nonsense?
I keep reacting to the off-topic nonsense posted by you and
Ravinghorde and Eeyore, as we've discussed before.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
When engineers simulate circuits, they usually follow up by actually
building them and making them work. A few years of doing this gives
some serious loop-closing to our judgement of how far to trust
simulation. Climatologists can't do this; all they can say is that
their simulations are practically useless over observable time
frames... which somehow gives some of them confidence that their sims
are accurate over non-observable time frames.
Lots of opamp and voltage regulators and such have behavioral models
that are OK for the obvious stuff and truly terrible for things like
PSRR, clamping/saturation, ESD diodes, power rail currents, all sorts
of things. One learns about such limitations mostly by experience with
real parts. Fortunately, the time lag between simulation and
experiment can be literally minutes, and we can compare numbers and
waveforms between sim and circuit to many digits of precision. The
feedback is unforgiving of bad simulation.
Pardon the thread drift in the direction of on-topic.
John
Michael A. Terrell
John Larkin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:58:23 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 9, 1:16 am, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple,
> >> > isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required
> >> > to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me.
> >>
> >> > Thanks for the entertainment.
> >>
> >> > --
> >> >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> >>
> >> Yes, as a matter of fact...
> >>
> >> my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough
> >> knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the
> >> global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that
> >> the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions.
> >
> >Right. And you'd take a climatologist's word on the effectiveness of
> >Spice in simulating electronic circuits.
>
> When engineers simulate circuits, they usually follow up by actually
> building them and making them work. A few years of doing this gives
> some serious loop-closing to our judgement of how far to trust
> simulation. Climatologists can't do this; all they can say is that
> their simulations are practically useless over observable time
> frames... which somehow gives some of them confidence that their sims
> are accurate over non-observable time frames.
There is more data availible to predict the path of a hurricane, and
they are rarely even close. They have worked on those models for
decades.
> Lots of opamp and voltage regulators and such have behavioral models
> that are OK for the obvious stuff and truly terrible for things like
> PSRR, clamping/saturation, ESD diodes, power rail currents, all sorts
> of things. One learns about such limitations mostly by experience with
> real parts. Fortunately, the time lag between simulation and
> experiment can be literally minutes, and we can compare numbers and
> waveforms between sim and circuit to many digits of precision. The
> feedback is unforgiving of bad simulation.
>
> Pardon the thread drift in the direction of on-topic.
>
> John
inv...@invalid.invalid
--
THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS
WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
Raveninghorde
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/a-frozen-britain-turns-the-hea.shtml
/quote
One long range forecaster I spoke to this autumn was convinced that
this winter was going to be cold. His name is Joe Bastardi at
Accuweather.com. Joe has a common sense approach to long range
forecasting, an old fashioned style that has almost gone out of
fashion in a meteorological world so dominated by powerful computers.
He has an analytical mind second to none, and when I spoke to him he
told me he was convinced that the weather patterns that we were having
at the time reminded him of those which in the past had been followed
by cold winters. He even went on to say that not only could this
winter be cold across the USA and Europe, but it could be similar to
those we used to experience in the 1970's. And this was way back in
September.
/end quote
>> What does he know that the Met Office doesn't? It's the sun stupid.
>
>An attractive theory. Serious scientific investigation suggests that
>there is less there than meets the eye.
>
>> Other forecasters as well such as The Weather Outlook, Accuweather,
>> netweather.
>
>Out of how many?
It appears that the profit making private sector got it right and the
alarmist state controlled government forecasters such as the Met
Office and NOAA got it wrong.
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
/quote
But hopefully this winter will wake people up to the EXTREME position
that has been taken by climate scientists on the global warming issue.
For I must point out to you that the forecasts for cold winters came
from people that A) are predominately private forecasters and b) have
been at this competitive situation so long, that they are well aware
of the practical aspects of the climate. I am not talking about ivory
tower dictating from above, but instead the ditchdiggers that do this
every day of their life out of love of subject. The goal is not to
"save the planet" but to nail the forecast.
/end quote
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:24:32 -0500, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:27:45 -0500, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:08:09 -0500, Hammy <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> Bill Slomansaid
>
> >That claim is silly enough that you could be an economist.
>
> Your right or GDP is currently 1.4 Trillion US dollars I doubt we even
> do 100 billion dollars trade with the EU. In the scheme of things
> chump change.
That wasn't the point. The exchange rates between every major curency
interact - via the world trade system and the international money
markets - and it simply isn't sensible to ignore this interaction.
> >Since Canada started off as French and British colonies, it wouldn't
> >exist without the EU. I can see how some Canadians might harbour
> >resentment under the circumstances.
>
> Yes we did if you read your history we defeated the French
A British army (under General Wolfe), captured Quebec and defeated the
French in 1759. If there was a Canadian contingent in the victorious
army, it's exploits aren't celebrated in non-Canadian history books.
> and became independent from the UK after WW1.
This isn't true. Canada achieved dominion status within the British
Empire in 1867, on the basis of laws enacted, and voted on, in the UK
Parliament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_North_America_Act
It couldn't agree on a procedure for amending its own constitution
until 1949, so until that date it was dependent on the U.K. parliament
to enact constituional amendments.
>The UK gave us independence as a
> reward for bailing them out from the Kaiser in WW1 we would have took
> it anyways.
As an Australian I was taught about Canada's progression to self-
government to illuminate Australia's progression through the same
trajectory. I seemed to have learned more about Canada in the process
than you managed to absorb.
It took you until 1949 to agree on how to manage the last step to
independence - not exactly evidence of massive popular pressure.
>This trend continued for WW2. We had no reliance on either
> though if that's what your insinuating quite the contrary they both
> had dependence on us for our natural resources this continues to this
> day. You have nothing we need but I guarantee we have things you need.
> The EU never existed at this time so your point is moot.
Granting your feeble grasp of history, you probably find any number of
points moot.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
inv...@invalid.invalid
--
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 18:15:05 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Jan 9, 2:25 am, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:37:59 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> of day for an extended period.
>
> >> >So what?
>
> >> about it this time around?
>
> >If the Greenland ice cap disappears, the sea level rises by 7.2
> >metres. If you live in a coastal city, this woukd be rather
> >melodramatic.
>
> I'm at 300m AMSL so I won't even be a beachside area. Sad, there's a
> killing to be made in real estate.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> Some events that could skew there data just off the top of my head the
>
> >> >> >Mere short term perturbations.
>
> >> >> and you think/believe that ramping over say 100 years ISN'T short
> >> >> term?
>
> >Mount St. Helens and the El Nino/ La Nina alternation are good for a
> >couple of years at most - even shorter term.
>
> >> >> >> The climate will change whether we are here or not as it always has.
>
> >> >> >To some extent, but injecting 37.5% more of a greenhouse gas into the
> >> >> >atmosphere adds a new and apparently significant perturbation.
>
> >> >> We - and certainly you - don't know what it was like at the same point
> >> >> the story, any more than two or three brush strokes let you describe
> >> >> what the finished canvas will look like.
>
> >> >We do have a pretty good idea. The ice core data does give us a
> >> >reasonable handle on temperature and CO2 levels, and the arctic lake
> >> >sediments are also informative.
>
> >> Do they indicate to you that ice ages come and go, and that the polar
> >> ice caps do likewise?
>
> >The polar caps have been tolerably stable for the last couple of
> >million years. The alternation of ice ages and interglacials is
> >explained by the Milankovitch cycles, and a fair bit of positive
> >feedback; some of the same positive feedbacks that make adding extra
> >CO2 to the atmosphere are rather bad idea.
>
> >> >> >> All this paranoid shit does is make some people rich by taking
> >> >> >> advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.
>
> >> >> >It isn't actually paranoid shit
>
> >> >> There are a LOT of intellignet thinking people who disagree with that
> >> >> out when it comes to the doom and destruction bit.
>
> >> >There are a lot of people who claim to be intelligent who still
> >> >haven't got the wit to recognise denialist propaganda for what it is.
> >> >You would seem to be one of them.
>
> >> many like you can't see the forest for the trees.
>
> >Sure. But denying a well-established scientific case because some
> >greedy fossil-carbon extraction company has paid money to the
> >propaganda machine that the tobacco industry set up to cast doubt on
> >another well-established scientific case is evidence that you don't
> >have a particularly firm grasp of reality.
>
> You seem to have a fixation that anyone who doesn't agree with your
> view has been hoodwinked by big oil. You really do need to get a
> grip. Any "conspiracy" here is by the AGW alarmists, including Gore.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >though Exxon-Mobil and like-minded
> >> >> >organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and
> >> >> >selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible
> >> >> >idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.
>
> >> >> >http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
>
> >> >> >> For the record its regularly minus 30C here over night so I hope it
>
> >> >> >Wait until summer.
>
> >> >> >Until then, it might be worth your while to learn a little bit more
> >> >> >about the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming.
>
> >> >> >The American Institute of Physics has a useful web-site which lays out
> >> >> >the history of the development of the idea.
>
> >> >> >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
>
> >> >> >You'd be better off spending you spare time reading that than
> >> >> >adverising that you haven't got a clue about the subject.
>
> >> >> You need to go back to Statistics 101 and look at what constitutes
> >> >> sufficient data to validate forecasts.
>
> >> >You'd like to think so. Since my Ph.D. thesis involved wrestling with
> >> >that kind of question, I'd probably find that exposure to Statistics
> >> >101 wouldn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
>
> >> It might tell you things that you seem to choose to ignore when it
> >> suits your AGW argument.
>
> >Such as?
>
> Quote: "You need to go back to Statistics 101 and look at what
> constitutes sufficient data to validate forecasts." At risk of
> repeating myself, 100 years of data - which is what most of your
> fellow AGW alarmists are hanging their collective hats on - is pretty
> much insignificant in relation to the natural ice age oscillation
> period.
If you think that the case for anthropogenic global warming primarily
depends on weather records from 1850, you don't understand the case,
and need to plow through something like the American Institute of
Physics web-site on the subject
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
> I don't think anyone with their head screwed on right would disagree
> that AGW is real. The question is whether it is any more than man
> accelerating the ramp to the next peak.
What "next peak"? If we didn't have anthropogenic global warming we'd
be expecting the current slow decline in temperature - over the last
8000 years - to accelerate into a decline into the next ice age, as it
has for all the preceding inter-glacials for the last 400,000 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
> The alarmists have decided
> that this means the end of the world as we know it. Anyone to dares
> to disagree with them is immediately labelled as in denial or having
> been conned by big oil. Ain't so.
Big oil - and big coal - have certainly spent a lot of money on
weakening the public inpact of teh scie tific case. They seem to have
spent a lot of the moeny with the organisations set up by the tobacco
companies to mitigate the impact of the scientific evidence on the
dangers of smoking
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Since the "alarmists" don't present anthropogenic global warming as
meaning the end of life as we know it, you do seem to have been
influenced by denialist propaganda.
For the record, the appropriate response to anthropogenic global
warming is a progressive reduction in our use of fossil carbon as an
energy source, which will probably double the cost of energy vis-a-vis
labour and capital. This won't mean "the end of life as we know it"
but rather a more gradual version of the economic adjustment that
followed the 1973 oil crisis, when the price of oil went up by a
factor of four in a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:58:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Jan 9, 1:16 am, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple,
> >> > isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required
> >> > to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me.
>
> >> > Thanks for the entertainment.
>
> >> > --
> >> >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> >> Yes, as a matter of fact...
>
> >> my experience simulating "simple" electronic systems gives me enough
> >> knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the
> >> global climate cannot be trusted with sufficient confidence that
> >> the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions.
>
> >Right. And you'd take a climatologist's word on the effectiveness of
> >Spice in simulating electronic circuits.
>
> When engineers simulate circuits, they usually follow up by actually
> building them and making them work. A few years of doing this gives
> some serious loop-closing to our judgement of how far to trust
> simulation.
Which works for you in your area of expertise.
> Climatologists can't do this; all they can say is that
> their simulations are practically useless over observable time
> frames... which somehow gives some of them confidence that their sims
> are accurate over non-observable time frames.
And your evidence for this claim is? Climatologists in fact claim that
their simulations model the gross behaviour of the atmosphere pretty
accurately. Cell sizes are pretty large - around 100km a side - which
makes fine detail impossible.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/climate_modeling.html
> Lots of opamp and voltage regulators and such have behavioral models
> that are OK for the obvious stuff and truly terrible for things like
> PSRR, clamping/saturation, ESD diodes, power rail currents, all sorts
> of things. One learns about such limitations mostly by experience with
> real parts. Fortunately, the time lag between simulation and
> experiment can be literally minutes, and we can compare numbers and
> waveforms between sim and circuit to many digits of precision. The
> feedback is unforgiving of bad simulation.
Which does make life easier for people like Mike Engelhardt of LTSpice
fame. It doesn't say a thing about the way climatologists tackle their
problems.
> Pardon the thread drift in the direction of on-topic.
I'm all in favour of it - when you talk about stuff you know something
about, it is actually informative, though if irrelevant to the off-
topic of climate simulations that you think you are talking about.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
If cell sizes were 1 cubic meter the weather models wouldn't be much
better, ie, still useless over two weeks.
Nor would the climate models.
John
inv...@invalid.invalid
--
who where
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
(more of the usual)
I'll leave you talking to yourself. That way you can be ensured of
having the last word, as is always your want.
inv...@invalid.invalid
--
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:02:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
>
> (more of the usual)
>
> I'll leave you talking to yourself. That way you can be ensured of
> having the last word, as is always your want.
Actually, it is "always your wont" where "wont" is a low frequency
word meaning much the same as "habit".
Since you can't defend your point of view, your retreat is entirely
sensible. It would have been even more sensible to learn something
about the subject before posting you ill-founded opinion.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
>
> /quote
>
> One long range forecaster I spoke to this autumn was convinced that
> this winter was going to be cold. His name is Joe Bastardi at
> Accuweather.com. Joe has a common sense approach to long range
> forecasting, an old fashioned style that has almost gone out of
> fashion in a meteorological world so dominated by powerful computers.
> He has an analytical mind second to none, and when I spoke to him he
> told me he was convinced that the weather patterns that we were having
> at the time reminded him of those which in the past had been followed
> by cold winters. He even went on to say that not only could this
> winter be cold across the USA and Europe, but it could be similar to
> those we used to experience in the 1970's. And this was way back in
> September.
>
> /end quote
You can always find a forecaster who happend to have predicted the
right weather, after the event. Doing it while the prediction is still
predicting a future event is a little more difficult.
> >> What does he know that the Met Office doesn't? It's the sun stupid.
>
> >An attractive theory. Serious scientific investigation suggests that
> >there is less there than meets the eye.
>
> >> Other forecasters as well such as The Weather Outlook, Accuweather,
> >> netweather.
>
> >Out of how many?
>
> It appears that the profit making private sector got it right and the
> alarmist state controlled government forecasters such as the Met
> Office and NOAA got it wrong.
>
> http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accu...
>
> /quote
Some of the profit making private sector got it right, this time. Big
deal.
One of the better scams for making money out of random events is to
send out different random predictions to a large number of customers,
keep track of the predictions, and only send out follow-ups where the
random predictions happen to have been right.
The customers that survive a couple of rounds of this are quite
impressed by the accuracy of the predictions that they got, and may
well be willing to pay for more of the same.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> If cell sizes were 1 cubic meter the weather models wouldn't be much
> better, ie, still useless over two weeks.
This is probably true.
> Nor would the climate models.
This is probably wrong, if this IEEE Spectrum article is anything to
go by
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/a-computer-for-the-clouds
Admittedly, this is merely the opinion of someone working in the
field, rather than the omniscient opinion of the owner of Highland
Technology.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
wrote:
> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are too generous. You'd mastered stupid long before I'd completed
my Ph.D.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Michael A. Terrell
inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
> THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS
> WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
None of yours doe either so 'Bite me, jackass'.
Don Klipstein
Sorry to upset you here, but my experience suggests that the solar
cycles are less "irregular" than most of the terrestrial oceanic or
atmospheric (or combined) phenomena whose "last names" are "oscillation".
I expect to be alive and "reasonably sane" long enough to see if UK gets
another spectacularly severe winter in the early 2030's.
Not that I expect a 22-23 year cycle achieves more than a fraction as
much effect on the world or northern hemisphere as Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation achieves, but in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere there
may be some bit of truth to this bit of a severe winter or a couple of
severe winters notably having positive correlation with every-other solar
minimum.
If Northern Hemisphere regions having these "Hale winters" have
"persistence-based forecast" failing half the time after now, then that
merely gets those regions getting cold in 11-year-solar-cycle minima but
also having such cold winters more irregularly and randomly.
If these regions all maintain "frequency division" much-above-50%
(preferably above 70%) through early 2030's or well-above-25% (preferably
above 50%) through mid-2050's (when A.M.O. is likely to be on next
upswing), then 22-23 year cycle for those regions advances via a test
according to "scientific method".
Not that I give world-class weight in favor of or against existence or
extent of AGW by having this supported or countered by observational
evidence to be gained from after now to mid-2050's - I am expecting this
to show up strongly only in regions of the globe so small as to make this
less significant for periodic components of global temperature than A.M.O.
is.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Sorry to upset you here, but Joe Bestardi appears to me to be an "old
fart" from the outright-subregion of USA 2nd-worst to do weather
forecasting for.
That would be the metropolitan area giving USA its first major private
weather forecasting company managing to sell to major notable extent
by-name-in-weather-forecasts in broadcast news media. The private weather
forecasting firm here is "Accu-Weather". IIRC, founded in Philadelphia,
notably 2nd-worst "small-region" (almost as small as "metropolitan area")
for winter weather forecasting.
An earlier big-name in "Accu-Weather" was a major founder of the
meteorology club at Philadelphia's "Central High School", the
most-academic "high school" in Philadelphia's public education district.
I had a bit of membership there shortly following its major contribution
to the existence of "Accu-Weather".
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Bill Sloman wrote:
<SNIP to here, heavily including stuff said so many times that it would
be a big chore to get it requoted as-best-as-possible>
>If you think that the case for anthropogenic global warming primarily
>depends on weather records from 1850, you don't understand the case,
I have noted how you liked to say what happened after 1880. Only one of
the "Big 5" global temperature indices goes farther back, and that one
goes back to 1850.
Keep in mind what atmospheric concentration was in 1850 or 1880,
according to youer favored sources - hardly above the "holocene-usual" of
280 PPMV, likely 280-290 or so.
>and need to plow through something like the American Institute of
>Physics web-site on the subject
>
>http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
>
>> I don't think anyone with their head screwed on right would disagree
>> that AGW is real. The question is whether it is any more than man
>> accelerating the ramp to the next peak.
>
>What "next peak"? If we didn't have anthropogenic global warming we'd
>be expecting the current slow decline in temperature - over the last
>8000 years - to accelerate into a decline into the next ice age, as it
>has for all the preceding inter-glacials for the last 400,000 years
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
I see that as true - we managed to avert the upcoming ice age, and I
expect that in the next couple centuries we well by a small margin set a
new global high termperature for Holocene.
>> The alarmists have decided
>> that this means the end of the world as we know it. Anyone to dares
>> to disagree with them is immediately labelled as in denial or having
>> been conned by big oil. Ain't so.
>
>Big oil - and big coal - have certainly spent a lot of money on
>weakening the public inpact of teh scie tific case. They seem to have
>spent a lot of the moeny with the organisations set up by the tobacco
>companies to mitigate the impact of the scientific evidence on the
>dangers of smoking
>
>http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
>
>Since the "alarmists" don't present anthropogenic global warming as
>meaning the end of life as we know it, you do seem to have been
>influenced by denialist propaganda.
However, many on the "warmingist side" appear to me to be overblowing
the warming to an extent requiring economy-denting solutions that "rogue
nations" will violate to their advantage.
I only expect their violations to be large factor of global temperature
increasing by 2-3 degrees C in the next 2 centuries - and who is more
prepared for sea level to rise a meter or two?
For that matter, who is in better shape for competitive advantage among
nations should we manage to melt Greenlan's icecap and raise sea level by
6-7 meters? (a major upheaval)
>For the record, the appropriate response to anthropogenic global
>warming is a progressive reduction in our use of fossil carbon as an
>energy source, which will probably double the cost of energy vis-a-vis
>labour and capital. This won't mean "the end of life as we know it"
>but rather a more gradual version of the economic adjustment that
>followed the 1973 oil crisis, when the price of oil went up by a
>factor of four in a year.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
That part I agree with - but it appears to me that "Hubbert Peak Oil"
is very few years from now, and natural gas is 1.5 decades behind oil in
peaking, and energy prices will take only a few years from now on their
own to force demand to adapt to suplies showing themselves to be limited
even without any government intervention.
>Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
--
Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
<SNIP from here>
As it turns out, I have been quite impressed with hurricane forecasts
from 2003 and onward, starting with forecasts for Isabelle of September
2003.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
I would like to mention...
As a "representative-oversimplified" model to be an analogue to both
a "weather model" and a "climate model":
A Class D amplifier with all component values modulated to
mildly-somewhat significant extent by "white noise". Input is some DC
signal changing according to whatever is supposed to change
according to whatever is supposed to change global climate.
"Weather forecast" here: Prediction of schedule of output switching
transistor stage being high or low, or prediction of a schedule of
short-term peaks and dips in outputafter the output filter (as well as how
far high and low they go should they be on-schedule).
"Climate forecast" here: Is the gain of this amplifier correct or how
far is it incorrect for changes in signals of change in global climate?
That is questionable, but is not credibly questioned much by pointing
out how quickly (as expected at Time Zero) the state of the output
switching transistors deviates from the "forecast schedule" - that is
where this is an analogue of a "weather model". The forecast for duty
cycle over millions-plus or billions-plus or trillions-plus cycles of
output stage switching is the "climate model".
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Bill Sloman
> In <882c11a0-a68d-4e7e-873b-fd9edf957...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Bill Slomanwrote:
Unfortunately, there is still loads of coal. It is a cheaper - if less
convenient - energy source than oil or natural gas, and the Fischer-
Tropsch process can be used to turn it into oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
At least the static plant can run with CO2 sequestration and eventual
burial, if the "rogue nations" can be coerced into spending the extra
money.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> In <1a1f3856-e9c5-4a54-a990-28caef7d6...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Slomanwrote:
>
> >It's a pity that the Solar cyces are sufficiently irregular that the
> >correlation is only obvious after the event. And it is still just a
> >correlation - attempts to postulate causation don't seem to do well.
> >--
> >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> Sorry to upset you here, but my experience suggests that the solar
> cycles are less "irregular" than most of the terrestrial oceanic or
> atmospheric (or combined) phenomena whose "last names" are "oscillation".
>
> I expect to be alive and "reasonably sane" long enough to see if UK gets
> another spectacularly severe winter in the early 2030's.
>
> Not that I expect a 22-23 year cycle achieves more than a fraction as
> much effect on the world or northern hemisphere as Atlantic Multidecadal
> Oscillation achieves, but in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere there
> may be some bit of truth to this bit of a severe winter or a couple of
> severe winters notably having positive correlation with every-other solar
> minimum.
According to the Wikipedia article, the actual solar cycle is around
22 years - we see a sunspot number cycle of 11 uears in the same way
the we see fluorescent tubes flickering at 100Hz (in Europe) and 120Hz
(in the USA) even though the exciting current is actually oscillating
at 50/60Hz.
> If Northern Hemisphere regions having these "Hale winters" have
> "persistence-based forecast" failing half the time after now, then that
> merely gets those regions getting cold in 11-year-solar-cycle minima but
> also having such cold winters more irregularly and randomly.
>
> If these regions all maintain "frequency division" much-above-50%
> (preferably above 70%) through early 2030's or well-above-25% (preferably
> above 50%) through mid-2050's (when A.M.O. is likely to be on next
> upswing), then 22-23 year cycle for those regions advances via a test
> according to "scientific method".
>
> Not that I give world-class weight in favor of or against existence or
> extent of AGW by having this supported or countered by observational
> evidence to be gained from after now to mid-2050's - I am expecting this
> to show up strongly only in regions of the globe so small as to make this
> less significant for periodic components of global temperature than A.M.O.
> is.
If the severe winters in the U.K. do show a strong correlation with
the Hale cycle, this interesting questions have to be why and how. It
is a sufficiently interesting question that the absence of any
published research suggests that when you dig into it deeper, the
correlation probably goes away - academics do like researching topics
that get good newpaper coverage, and this must have been a tempting
target for some time now.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Nobody
>> It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
>> forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
>> spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
>>
>>
>
> I made 3 three-point shots while playing basketball today out of the 4 I
> attempted. With a three point shot percentage of 75% I am therefore the
> greatest basketball player who ever lived.
>
> One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data
> points.
Or, more glibly: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
The people claiming that isolated weather measurements are evidence for or
against climate change (but note: it's only ever the deniers who do this)
*know* that the argument is nonsense. It's essentially a "shibboleth", a
means by which members of the tribe can identify themselves to each other.
Jim Thompson
[snip]
>
>Or, more glibly: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
>
Marvelous statement!
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Mark
well now finally we get to the point
due to "peak oil," the use of oil will reduce no matter AWG or not
nat gas will also peak realtivly soon
the real question is what we do with coal
is the AWG hypothesis firm enough that we should regulate the use of
coal creating economic hardship?
Nobody is against developing "alternative energy" sources such as wind
or solar and having them compete... the question is should we
penalize coal for the sake of AWG?
should we develop nuclear energy or coal for electricity in the US?
this is really the bottom line of AWG..
Mark
Raveninghorde
wrote:
SNIP
>well now finally we get to the point
>
>due to "peak oil," the use of oil will reduce no matter AWG or not
>
>nat gas will also peak realtivly soon
>
>the real question is what we do with coal
>
>is the AWG hypothesis firm enough that we should regulate the use of
>coal creating economic hardship?
>
>Nobody is against developing "alternative energy" sources such as wind
I am against wind because it is worse than useless.
During cold spell last winter and again this winter there has been no
wind. So at the time of peak demand wind doesn't contribute. And I
have seen data that shows this has happened in the US as well as the
UK.
This failure means that coventional power stations must be up and
running and ready to supply the demand.
>or solar and having them compete... the question is should we
>penalize coal for the sake of AWG?
Tidal is another good source.
John Larkin
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>No damn way!
>
>It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
>forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
>spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
Get used to it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
John