OT: something for Sloman to think about :-)

OT: something for Sloman to think about :-)

formatting link

Reply to
Jan Panteltje
Loading thread data ...

..

It does provide food for thought - why would anybody go to the trouble of producing drivel?

It does start off more or less rationally, but loses it when it claims that "The IPCC's reports are based on results from a collection of climate computer models; they have nothing else." which is total rubbish - the IPC's reports are based on all the climatology research papers published in the peer-reviewed literature, of which computer- modelling of the atmosphere is merely a small part.

From there on in, it is all denialist invention.

There was a time when the satellite observations of the temperature gradient up through the atmosphere were proving difficult to reconcile with the computer models, but the problem turned out to be in the analysis of the satellite data, which depended on another set of computer models ....

As usual, some denialist has exhumed a long dead argument and reanimated it - as some kind of zombie - in the hope of converting an unsophisticated nitwit or two.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

On a sunny day (Sat, 1 Aug 2009 07:27:09 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Mmm could be that your definition of "scientific" is 'those who agree with me'. Yes I was under the impression that it was directed at the average joe, had some simple graphics added, and then published to start a life of its own. OTOH the political crap from the warmist is doing the same, and gets the other half, those are impressed by papers.

It is true that all predictions are based on assumptions, many of which are bogus (to use a kind expression), while the simple cycles that we know exist due to earth and sun, are conveniently ignored, so as counterweight I let them get away with it.

Climate *change* will happen, we know precisely when, glaciers will melt some, then they will grow again, if the earth axis will flip I dunno, but things will change.

In Germany there is now formed a commission to investigate how we can *adapt* to climate change, as opposed to how we can *change* the climate by silly things like producing less CO2 to reduce the blanket that is not there so to speak. Economics learns that you can also make money by selling power and heaters, aircos, etc etc. So Gore's is dead, his is an old silly tune for those who believe in fairy tales.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

If compared to actual data of temperatures in the atmosphere vs the ones predicted by the IPCC's models, all will be clear.

I think realclimate.org may have the same article plus the temp data. I found it only the other day. Will see if I can find it again.

Meanwhile, I'll leave you with this thought.

" Al Gore and the UN's IPCC "consensus scientists" are keen to draw a distinction (legitimate, by the way ? when used legitimately) between local, short-term weather and global, long-term climate, when it suits their agenda. However, the same folks who invoke this point to convince us to pay no attention to global cooling trends are the same ones who pounce on every local weather (and non-weather) anomaly ? drought, rain, hurricanes, tornadoes, hail storms, toenail fungus, tooth decay, male pattern balding, stray cats, genocide in Sudan ? as "proof" that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global warming. "

formatting link

The AGW gravy train is slowing to a hault under the weight of pure lies.

Graham

-- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address

Reply to
Eeyore

On a sunny day (Sun, 02 Aug 2009 10:37:18 +0100) it happened Eeyore wrote in :

"

You forgot the fat happy white ice bear on the ice shelf, subtitled: "the little poor almost dying ice bear who floats all alone on the last ice shelf in the arctic."

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

man

ma.=3D

h me'.

I can see how it would suit you to think that.

ad some simple graphics

other

There's a small but subtle difference between denialist propaganda and popular science articles aied at informing the public about anthropogenic global warming; the former cites scientific research that has since been proved to be invalid, the latter relies on scientific research that hasn't been falsified yet. Since your grasp of the science involved isn't noticeably better than Eeyore's, you may not be aware of this.

re bogus (to use a kind expression),

Scientific predictions rely on assumptions that haven't yet been proved to be bogus; Even the University of Alabama in Huntsville finally got around to correcting the errors in the satellite-based measurements of the temperatures of the various layers of the atmosphere - though Roy Spencer seems to have fought a valiant rearguard action to delay it. Denialists revel in bogus data - check out the off-topi rubbish that Eeyore exhibits jhere from time to time.

eniently

What on earth do you think you are talking about?

some,

s

You don't know, haven't tried to find out if anybody else has any kind of clue and deny that anybody else could.

apt* to climate change,

ing less CO2

formatting link

If there was no greenhouse effect, the surface of the earth would be

32C colder than it is now. CO2 is only one of the greenhouse gases - water vapour is more potent - but if we took about the CO2 the temperature would drop enough to lower the partial pressure of water vapour in the atmosphere to the point where the planet would be quite a bit cooler.

As stupid claims go, that's almost as good as some of Eeyore's efforts.

s, aircos, etc etc.

y tales.

Your belief that there is no CO2 blanket is definitely a fairy tale, and your denial of anthropogenic global warming is pure wishful thinking. Grow up.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

ima...

So dig out the figures and post them, or point us to a real comparison (and not one you've foudn on one of your denialist web-sites).

ound

Graham is always good for a laugh.

ocal,

nda.

local

s, hail

nocide

warming.

It isn't Al Gore and the UN's IPCC who post silly newspaper stories blaming every episode of unseasonable warmth on anthropogenic global warming, it is dim journalists looking for hook on which to hang their stories.

The story you quote is from another dim journalist who doesn't have the sense to recognise denialist propaganda as deceitful rubbish and has used it to put together yet another daft conspiracy theory article.

These appeal to the stupidly ignorant, who like to think that they know more than everybody else, though they aren't equipped to know much at all - just your kind of reading matter.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

local,

enda.

local

es, hail

enocide

l warming."

ce shelf in the arctic."

Jan Pantelje does share the denialist tendency to improve on history."Amost dying"? "The last ice shelf in the artic"? He's over- egging the pudding.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

On a sunny day (Sun, 2 Aug 2009 19:49:43 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

You barking up the wrong tree.

You should really look into politics. This is all politics, nothing to do with science. It *is* related to finding yet an other way to create new taxes (CO2 tax).

The 'proof' used, seems to be that it was within the statistical noise that the warming above the tropics was not observed.... So no proof at all.

You can assume elves exists, and since not one has been detected yet, say that is withing the statistical probabilities, but really, you are looking for elves still.

You are weaselling away from the subject, attacking a person, in fact it is YOU who always comes up with global heating are are of topic most of the time. As it has nothing to do with electronics. Eeyore has his qualities I am sure, there is always something one can learn.

Recently Alzheimer was discussed here, I suggest you check for it, or perhaps it is not sufficient oxygen to the brain due to insufficient blood flow, or just the result of electroshocks... but we had this discussion before and I provided links to it:

formatting link
formatting link

Sorry that sentence does not parse :-) Missing a comma?

He must have hit you really hard now ;-)??

Somebody already pointed out, but perhaps you have forgotten due to your brain condition, that your use of the expression 'anthropogenic global warming' is sort of a self-endorsing mistake.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

local

hail

genocide

warming."

shelf in the arctic."

formatting link

Billions of tonnes of water droplets vanish from the atmosphere, as if by magic, in events that reveal in detail how the Sun and the stars control our everyday clouds. Researchers of the National Space Institute in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) have traced the consequences of eruptions on the Sun that screen the Earth from some of the cosmic rays - the energetic particles raining down on our planet from exploded stars.

"The Sun makes fantastic natural experiments that allow us to test our ideas about its effects on the climate," says Prof. Henrik Svensmark, lead author of a report newly published in Geophysical Research Letters. When solar explosions interfere with the cosmic rays there is a temporary shortage of small aerosols, chemical specks in the air that normally grow until water vapour can condense on them, so seeding the liquid water droplets of low-level clouds. Because of the shortage, clouds over the ocean can lose as much as 7 per cent of their liquid water within seven or eight days of the cosmic-ray minimum.

"A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale," the report concludes. This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change. In particular, it connects observable variations in the world's cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols.

Other investigators have reported difficulty in finding significant effects of the solar eruptions on clouds, and Henrik Svensmark understands their problem. "It's like trying to see tigers hidden in the jungle, because clouds change a lot from day to day whatever the cosmic rays are doing," he says. The first task for a successful hunt was to work out when "tigers" were most likely to show themselves, by identifying the most promising instances of sudden drops in the count of cosmic rays, called Forbush decreases. Previous research in Copenhagen predicted that the effects should be most notice-able in the lowest 3000 metres of the atmosphere. The team identified 26 Forbush decreases since

1987 that caused the biggest reductions in cosmic rays at low altitudes, and set about looking for the consequences.

Forgetting to sow the seeds

The first global impact of the shortage of cosmic rays is a subtle change in the colour of sunlight, as seen by ground stations of the aerosol robotic network AERONET. By analysing its records during and after the reductions in cosmic rays, the DTU team found that violet light from the Sun looked brighter than usual. A shortage of small aerosols, which normally scatter violet light as it passes through the air, was the most likely reason. The colour change was greatest about five days after the minimum counts of cosmic rays.

Why the delay? Henrik Svensmark and his team were not surprised by it, because the immediate ac-tion of cosmic rays, seen in laboratory experiments, creates micro-clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules that are too small to affect the AERONET observations. Only when they have spent a few days growing in size should they begin to show up, or else be noticeable by their absence. The evidence from the aftermath of the Forbush decreases, as scrutinized by the Danish team, gives aerosol experts valuable information about the formation and fate of small aerosols in the Earth's atmosphere.

Although capable of affecting sunlight after five days, the growing aerosols would not yet be large enough to collect water droplets. The full impact on clouds only becomes evident two or three days later. It takes the form of a loss of low-altitude clouds, because of the earlier loss of small aerosols that would normally have grown into "cloud condensation nuclei" capable of seeding the clouds. "Then it's like noticing bare patches in a field, where a farmer forgot to sow the seeds," Svensmark explains. "Three independent sets of satellite observations all tell a similar story of clouds disappearing, about a week after the minimum of cosmic rays."

Huge effects on cloudiness

Averaging satellite data on the liquid-water content of clouds over the oceans, for the five strongest Forbush decreases from 2001 to 2005, the DTU team found a 7 per cent decrease, as mentioned earlier. That translates into 3 billion tonnes of liquid water vanishing from the sky. The water remains the-re in vapour form, but unlike cloud droplets it does not get in the way of sunlight trying to warm the ocean. After the same five Forbush decreases, satellites measuring the extent of liquid-water clouds revealed an average reduction of 4 per cent. Other satellites showed a similar 5 per cent reduction in clouds below 3200 metres over the ocean.

"The effect of the solar explosions on the Earth's cloudiness is huge," Henrik Svensmark comments. "A loss of clouds of 4 or 5 per cent may not sound very much, but it briefly increases the sunlight rea-ching the oceans by about 2 watt per square metre, and that's equivalent to all the global warming dur-ing the 20th Century."

The Forbush decreases are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, but they dramatize the mechanism that works more patiently during the 11-year solar cycle. When the Sun becomes more active, the decline in low-altitude cosmic radiation is greater than that seen in most Forbush events, and the loss of low cloud cover persists for long enough to warm the world. That explains, according to the DTU team, the alternations of warming and cooling seen in the lower atmosphere and in the oceans during solar cycles.

The director of the Danish National Space Institute, DTU, Eigil Friis-Christensen, was co-author with Svensmark of an early report on the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, back in 1996. Commenting on the latest paper he says, "The evidence has piled up, first for the link between cosmic rays and low-level clouds and then, by experiment and observation, for the mechanism involving aerosols. All these consistent scientific results illustrate that the current climate models used to predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics".

More information: The full reference to the new paper is: Henrik Svensmark, Torsten Bondo, and Jacob Svensmark, "Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds," Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2009GL038429, Vol. 36, L15101, 2009. ________________________________

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Sloman errs in saying the predictions are "scientific" but in fact they are not. The predictions are NOT testable and therefore can NOT be called scientific. Predictions must be testable against a control.

It is impossible to test the anthropogenic component. There is no possible control. The anthropogenic CO2 lies on top of a variable natural CO2 flux. Anyway, the radiation budget is well regulated by cloud albedo feedbacks, oeanic feedbacks (slower but larger) and biological feedbacks (slow but large) and geological feedbacks which are very slow but enourmous. The Earth is in a 5 million year ice age with brief interglacials. The interglacial temperature can never get substantially higher than it is today, as proven by the presence of the holocene climate optimum

Reply to
bw

Faith is impervious to facts.

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Richard the Dreaded Libertaria

In , Jan Panteltje wrote in small part:

Have a look at who are the main starters of the AGW threads in sci.electronics.design

I find Eeyore to be the 1st-place individual, and the denialists to be the main "camp"/"side" starting such non-electronic AGW threads.

- Don Klipstein (Jr) ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

True - Eeyore has some reasonable technical input but his obsessive OT ramblings let him down big time.

I'm not sure what the problem is with denialists, they are like the evangelists that doorknock our suburb or the Chinese sport shoe / handbag / watch spammers we also suffer.

Reply to
Polyp

And Klipstein is the principle fairy ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

In article , bw wrote in part:

Meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 uptake is well enough known, represented by Mauna Loa Observatory data. And, anthropogenic CO2 contribution is well enough known via knowledge of fossil fuel consumption, to show that atmospheric CO2 is rising sharply despite nature removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

How? I find IPCC to merely overestimate the degree of *positive* feedback from cloud albedo. By being one who has been around long enough to be an "old fart" while being a "weather nut", while knowing plenty of atmospheric physics, I find warming to slightly make the skies more clear by intensifying updrafts in cumuliform clouds, meaning a slightly smaller percentage of the world gets covered by clouds.

And, warming does not mean increase of percentage of the atmosphere by either volume or land coverage having relative humidity 100-plus %.

Achieved with atmospheric CO2 concentration mostly-then via a positive feedback mechanism to something like 280-290 PPMV at warmer times.

The CO2 positive feedback mechanism is one of a few that applied well during the advancements and retreats of the "Ice Age Glaciations" over the past 400,00 or so years. Meanwhile, we have atmospheric CO2 content achieving man-made levels much above those of "interglacial levels" of the past 400,000 years, despite nature removing CO2 from the atmosphere in recent years and decades.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

As if sexual orientation or allowance of such to be known should have any weight in scientific and technical debates in other matters?

Why should a major political party push a significant (despite somewhat small) percentage of Americans to the other on basis of inborne natural inclination to fall in love with and enter into romantic relationships with fellow Americans of the same gender?

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

Again, I can see how it would suit you to think that.

Much as you would like to believe this, the science is good, and has been for quite a while now, since long before the politicians started to get serious about finding ways to do something about it.

Denialist web-sites cite a number of papers that were subsequently falsified. I can't work out which one you might be refering to - and I doubt if you can either - so your claim to have disproved the falsification looks remarkably like a lie.

for elves still.

Postulating the existence of elves doesn't help you explain anything that we can observe and measure in the real world. Mach regarded atoms as useful elves, but when once Einstein had used discrete molecules to explain Brownian motion, subsequent scientists seemed happy to agree that atoms and molecules are real as well as useful aids to calculation.

Some time ago I promised John Larkin not to initiate any more off- topic threads on global warming, and I've kept my word. I reserved the right criticise the kind of nonsense that Eeyore and other post.

Even Eeyore has been known to post sensible comments about electronics.

Milankovitch cycles - well-known and not ignored

Again, well known stuff. Tony Hallam's "Cataclysms and Lesser Calamities" ISBN-10: 0198524978 ISBN-13: 978-0198524977 - which I've referred to here before - is a full bottle on the subject.

My memory is fine. The google groups search machine can't find either URL in the archives of this user group, so your own memory seems to be playing you false.

Sorry, your English is good enough that I forget that you aren't a native speaker. I'll paraphrase

You haven't actually got a clue about climate change, and when it might happen, and you haven't tried to find out if anybody else can make any kind of useful prediction, and in fact go on to deny that any such prediction is possible.

Eeyore hitting hard? You've got to be joking. The best he can manage is to drag in a pile of tedious and recycled lies from his collection of denialist web-sites, then complain about ad hominem arguments when remind him that we discredited his "authority" a couple of months ago.

It may look that way to you, but a little more education could cure your problem. Meanwhile, where's your proof of the non-existence of the CO2 blanket? It's still a perfectly nonsensical claim, and you are stuck with it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

Sloman

re

All predictions are testable, if you wait long enough to see if they come true. In the meantime, the phrase "scientific prediction" simply means a prediction that is grounded in scientific knowledge, The predictions that follow from the existence of anthropogenic global warming aren't all that precise, because the situation being modelled is complex, but they are based on good science.

r
e
.

But the anthropogenic contribution to the natural CO2 comes from fossil carbon which is low in carbon-13 and contains no carbon-14. Check out the Suess Effect.

th

n

Cloud albedo feedback doesn't seem to regulate anything; Lindzen thought that it might, but was proved to be wrong. The solubility of CO2 in the oceans decreases as the oceans get warmer, so it provides postive feedback, not negative - its one of the reasons why the tiny Milankovitch forcings used to switch us between inter-glacials and ice ages.

Geological feedback will eventually undo the damage we are doing at the moment, but nowhere near fast enough. If we keep on burning fossli carbon athe present rate (or faster) we will duplicate the Paleocene- Eocene Thermal Maximum, which would not be a good idea.

I'm afraid that you have just proved yourself to be depressingly ignorant about the subject.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

As Rich goes out of his way to demonstrate.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.