An other shock for our local warmist, did Sun cause liitle ice age?

..

It's one more theory. Since the little ice age was more of a northern hemisphere event - there were colder periods in places in the southern hemisphere around the same broad period, but since they don't correlate with the low points of the Northern European cooling, it's difficult to see what Jan is getting excited about.

The fact that sun's output varies by some tiny amount from time to time doesn't invalidate the point that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that our jacking up the level in the atmosphere from 270ppm - before the Industrial Revolution - to the current 390 ppm, have made the world warmer, or that our burning fossil carbon at an ever-increasing rate is going to make it warmer still.

The people who make a lot of money out of digging up and selling that fossil carbon don't like people going around saying that burning fossil carbon is bad for your planet's health, and nit-wits who can't do critical thinking - like Jan - are susceptible to the propaganda Exxon-Mobil and its friends spread to keep their market growing for a few more years.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 May 2011 08:22:20 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

I gues not even if you froze to death would you admit it.

Blah blah blah, Bill the para-noia-

Bullshit, they sell heating oil.

Same regurgitated bullsh1t again Bill.

The only bit in those three paragraphs that is accurate is "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" because the planet would be colder without it than with it, but more hotter.

Southern hemisphere had MWP and little ice age....

(you'll say this is only in some places, but of course they can't do core samples of the entire southern hemisphere).

References for big oil money being poured into the Realist side please (as before)?

Have you ever done a Myers Briggs personality test? I did one recently and was surprised at how accurately it described me. One of the attributes I supposedly possess is a lack of respect of authority, I wonder if you are the opposite?

Nial

man

=3D

There's nothing paranoid about the proposition that Exxon-Mobil spends money on spreading denialist propaganda - their published accounts list the money they spend

There is something distinctly odd about your irrational rejection of this information. I can't imagine that they'd be bribing you directly, but you wouldn't be stupid enough to fall for that kind of propaganda it it wasn't tied up with one of your other silly enthusiasms.

So? In fact what they sell is energy - heating oil is just one aspect of that larger market. Air-conditioning cosumes energy too, but the biggest single market seems to be transportation.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Neither bullshit nor regurgitated - the message is scarcely original, but I challenge you to find anything copied and pasted.

More CO2 isn't going to make the planet warmer? There's a lively debate about how much warmer, but we are already experiencing demonstrable warming, though not much more than the cnetury to century noise level so far, and business as usual is a decidedly risky strategy.

It's a bit of stretch from the Peruvian Alps to the entire southern hemisphere.

does muster evidence from a rather larger region.

I've posted this one before. It's scarcely unique. Exxon-Mobil's unfortunate antics have been deplored by the British Royal Society amongst others. If you think that it is bullshit, you've been- brainwashed into a very compliant and uncritical state.

"The Merchants of Doubt"

gives a fairly detailed history of the people and organisations that Exxon-Mobil (amongst others) has been subsidising - following the tobacco companies who set up most of the organisations in the first place. Why some right-wing physicists have this enthusiasm about misleading the public for the benefit of the excessively unrestrained free market still escapes me, but the book makes crystal clear what has been going on.

I certainly don't have much respect for the authority of personality tests, and I've been making up my own mind since I was twelve, which hasn't always gone down well with senior idiots who think that their place in the hierachy grants them immunity from scepticism - John Larkin is a fair example of the type, and "The Merchants of Doubt" lists a few non-idiotic physics who seem to have misused their perceived authority.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 May 2011 10:29:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Look, they support lots of things, even you. And you are completly and absolutely a warmist.

So? they have an interest to keep it cool.

Or is that too complicated for you?

man

Jan doesn't to have mastered the are of snipping, let alone marking his snips.

What might I be failing to admit? Not that I could admit anything after I'd frozen to death - the dead are notoriously inarticulate.

I'm looking, and I can't see any support from Exxon-Mobil. They may sell petrol somewhere around Nijmegen, but not under the Exxon-Mobil name, but that would normally be seen as the exploitation of a commercial opportunity, rather than any kind of support.

By which you mean that I can remember the physics I was taught at university and can consequently recognise a coherent scientific case when I see it. I have similar delusions about Newton's gravitional hypothesis and Darwin's ideas about evolution.

They are equally happy to sell oil that's burned to drive air- conditioner's, which means - by the same logic - that they have an interest in keeping it warm.

Far from it. Do keep in mind that you are the simple-minded idiot in this discussion. You are too dim to realise exactly how pathetic denialist propaganda is - dim enough to think that the irrelevant claim that Exxon-Mobil sells heating oil (amongst many other products) offers some kind of proof that they aren't subsidising pseudo- scientific propaganda organisation to delude the public (and you, specifically) about the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

See if you can find a ten-year-old that you trust and get him to read what SourceWatch has to say on the subject

It's not all that complicated, though obviously too complicated for your to process without help.

If your reading age was a decade or two higher than you've demonstrated so far, I'd recommend

but it is obviously a more demanding text than you could be expected to cope with.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

loman

solutely a warmist.

Warmer weather makes cars more efficient, reducing consumption. Another negative feedback.

Ever seen life on a tropical island? Hot, lazy, and easy. Paradise (except for the bugs).

-- Cheers,

James Arthur

loman

absolutely a warmist.

Not so you'd notice - and anything you'd win on the fuel efficiency, you'd loose on powering teh air-conditioning. When we've done long drives down into France, miles per gallon drops appreciably if it is warm enough for us to turn the air-conditioning on.

And the parasites. And one of the eventual side effects of anthropogenic global warming is going to be to melt the Greenland ice cap, raising the sea level by about six metres, so there won't be all that many tropical islands left.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 May 2011 15:14:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

I thought about it for a moment this morning, and came up with this reply, one with which I will end this 'discussion':

I say: Since you are about to crap out to Sydney (Kangaroo land), IIRC to pester Phil, I would like you to calculate how much CO2 you generate by flying back and forth there.

Just look up 747 fuel consumption for that range, and divide by number of passengers, and, as you did chemistry, also calculate the amount of CO2 that produces. Compare that to staying here in summer and making true on you high heeled words.

Then I will give you a honest score between 99 and 100 on a scale of 0 to 1000 for hypocrisy.

Bye

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 May 2011 15:14:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Correction, should be on a scale of 0-100

man

d forth there.

James Arthur asked the same question a few months ago, and the answer

- available on a web-site near you - is about three tons for the return trip.

words.

As has also been discussed here, I could delay the consequences of anthoropogenic global warming by some three milliseconds by going in for quixotic and inconvenient economies.

The only way we are going to delay or or reverse the consequences of anthropogeneic global warming is going to be by reworking our entire economy so we get most of our energy from sustainable sources - essentially from solar power. In the short term that would double the price of energy. In the US, where energy accounts for 8% of the GDP, doing this overnight would wipe out about three years of economic growth but nobody is going to do it overnight - doing it over a decade would still require massive investment in new - sustainable - power sources. By the time we've tooled up to produce sustainable energy generators in the number we will need, the capital cost per kilowatt hour will be at least halved - as tends to happen when you increase production volume by a factor of ten - and generating sustainable energy won't be any more expensive than getting it by burning fossil carbon, and we won't need to keep on paying for "defence" forces stationed in Saudi Arabia and Libya to ensure the supply of fossil carbon.

Trivial economies in private life aren't worth the effort.

There's nothing hypocritical about my attitude - which I've spelled out here earlier.

I don't feel any need to impugn your honesty - you are just exhibiting foolish ignorance, spiced up by some fatuous personal abuse, which youseem to have recycled from James Arthur, who is just as igorant as you are, in his case because his preceptions are blinkered by rather foolish right-wing political ideas.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Little Billy Slowman, exhibition of ignorance at its finest ;-) ...Jim Thompson

We are going to run out of sunlight?

But leaves enough left over to invest in denialist propaganda.

If the whole business was so marginal, Exxon-Mobil would be following Shell and an investing in alternative energy generation scheme

That's exactly what Germany did by subsidising its alternative power generation market - they increased the market by a factor of ten and halved the price per installed kilowatt. Getting the next factor of ten requires a rather larger capital injection, and Exxon-Mobil and its buddies have spent a lot of money on denialist propaganda designed to reduce the political support for that kind of investment.

Really? What's "inefficient" about building a solar plant in a desert near the equator and hooking it up to places that need the power with super-conducting transmission lines? Letting the sunshine just heat the sand is a whole lot more "inefficient".

Back before the Germans had done their boost, standard economic projections based on business as usual were making wind-power competitive with fossil-carbon based power in 2030 and solar power competitive in 2045, without figuring in the increased costs associated with extracting the less accessible fossil carbon that the Chinese and the Indians would need if they played simple-minded catch- up with the west.

Anybody who doesn't know anything about the subject.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 May 2011 09:43:43 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Yea, well in my view you lost your brain in uni.

Maybe you should read your own crap, I merely hit you back. As you deserve.

There is an old saying, that overrules all your silly text: Live an example.

"Sustainability" is a contradiction in terms. If something works, it isn't "sustainable".

There's no money *to* invest in this. What was invested would in essence be wasted. The "unsustainable" oil bidness runs on 6% margins. That's a maintenance revenue model at best.

This paragraph is prima facie false. If it were that cheap, we'd see it in play. it isn't and we don't.

There isn't some coordination problem behind green energy that can be solved by marshalling resources. It is *inherently* inefficient.

Oh yes they are. That's all anybody has left.

-- Les Cargill

Is that an intentional non-sequiteur? If you do a simple energy density calculation on "green" technology, it ain't gonna replace non-green at this writing. If it has the density, it costs far too much.

If one could design the perfect R&D programme to improve things, this might improve faster, but I rather doubt that will happen.

Energy is just one place where market forces tell us more truth than we need to make good decisions.

That's not even interesting. Has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Exxon-Mobil cannot change the fundamental economic realities of the situation.

Subsidizing alternative power represents a sunk cost, full stop. They will have to halve it a few more times to make it competitive with fossil fuels.

Obviously, there is a day when this makes sense, but that day is not today. And Germany is not the US.

It is inefficient ( no scare quotes needed ) because the finance basis is too long. This investment will not return the cost of its capital.

That is inefficient.

They can make up all the stories they want to.

Here are the figures:

Hydro, wind and geothermal are site-constrained. Solar is roughly

-- Les Cargill

Jim-way-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson reminding us - once again - that he doesn't have opinions, merely prejudices.

Jim accusing other people of ignorance ought to be ironic. but it's just sad.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ce

owatt-Hour

I'm sure that - somewhere on that incoherent web-site - you can find an example of a solar power generator that currently delivers electricity at three times the cost of a current coal- or gas-fired generating station.

suggests that the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility will deliver electricity in 2013 for roughly the same cost as generating it by burning natural gas, so the estimate that we were going to have to wait until 2045 for break-even seems to have been a trifle pessimistic.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen