OT: How to profit from AGW?

But there would be more need for air-conditioning. My car does fewer kilometres to the litre if I turn the air-condtioning on ...

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:31:16 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

That argument does not hold, airco is a luxury, while heating is a basic need. Large parts of the world where it is hot, have no airco. In parts of the world where it is cold _everybody_ uses heating of some sort.

In hot areas, factory and office productivity is a lot greater with airco than without.

In Philadelphia before airco was common, factories with only 1 shift had the shift working awfully bleeping early hours in the summer, and still slowed down on summer days worse than average Philadelphia summer days.

Birmingham, AL had to be even worse, especially in terms of duration of summer.

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

oman

too

g

...

n

need.

ort.

The oil companies don't care whether it is a necessity or a luxury, as long as it sells them more oil.

And mortality inceases as temperatures move away from the local average, either up or down, so air-conditioning is no less a necessity than heating; cold kills poor people everywhere, but the rich can afford to heat their houses, and - nowadays - to cool them.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Dec 2009 00:41:50 +0000 (UTC)) it happened snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in :

Yes it can make a difference. OTOH when I worked in the old TV studios in the sixties, recording setup, Ampex video machines with racks full of tubes, 30°C was normal there, >10 hour shifts.. started at 9 in the morning to end of transmission at night, sometimes past 1 o'clock. Well there were quiet times too, but it never bothered me, you just did sweat a lot. No real airco! Got free time as compensation, plus money for overtime ..

2 days up, 3 days off, 3 days up, 2 days off.

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Dec 2009 02:47:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

LOL, well, I hope by now you have noticed that I do not take all that climate modelling serious, and neither the blaming of oil companies for, or against, warming or cooling... So I provided a counter argument, that may actually well be true. How many in Africa have aircos? How many (percentage of population) in South America have aircos? India? Arab countries? The whole third world? Here is some more food for thought on 'warming' (apart from the freezing in Montana): Science has so many opinions on climate, this one is also fun: FIVE DECADES OF COOLING AHEAD:

oman

mea=3D

ic =3D

e s=3D

st,

in Montana):

..

I went and found what seems to be the original paper as published in Physical Review Letters on March 19, 2009

It concentrates on the ozone hole formation within the Arctic and Antarctic circles, and to this extent supports the ideas of H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen, but says absolutely nothing about Svensmark et al's daft ideas about the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation, and certainly says nothing that could be interpreted as predicting five decades of cooling to come.

Are you trying to compete with Ravinghorde for the honour of offering the usegroup the least convincing evidence ever?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:37:42 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

I think that 'honour' is still yours on the subject of A in AGW.

Montana):

Bill grabs an unrelated paper then says it doesn't include Jan's point. And he accuses me of not reading things properly.

The press release for Lu's paper was 21st December:

/quote

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from

1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

/end quote

loman

mea=3D

ic =3D

e s=3D

st,

in Montana):

..

Jai Maharaj has a long history of mangling science. Even his "copyright notice" is bogus.

Sloman

ld mea=3D

er

basic =3D

some s=3D

s y

te

ainst,

ng in Montana):

re...

Since 2005 aand 2007 were two of the hottest years ever, and since

2009 includes some of the hottest data for individual months (such as November), I fail to see how there could have been "glocal cooling since 2002'.

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Dec 2009 07:39:36 -0800 (PST)) it happened Richard Henry wrote in :

I was just pestering Bil :-)

Sloman

basic =

s=

against,

in Montana):

Global temperatures peaked in 1998.

Since the last 11 years are cooler than the peak it is not an unreasonable statement.

Sloman

ld mea=3D

er

basic =3D

some s=3D

s y

te

ainst,

ng in Montana):

re...

How was I to know that it was an unrelated paper? Jan actually cites an unspecific reference from a Jai Maharaj, which links to an equally unspecific article in

in the Investor's Business Daily which gave only the name of the investigator. The paper you choose to refer to is so new that it doesn't show up on his web-site, and it is in an Elsevier journal that wants $31.50 for access to the full text

Science journalists mostly don't read the primary literature, but write up on stuff that has been pointed out to them by people in the area, or denialist propaganda peddlers. One would have expected them to get onto a March 2009 paper before December, but in the absence of anything more recent on Qing Bin-Lu's web-site, I didn't have any reason to suspect the existence of a more recent paper.

Since the guy is primarily interested in the electron-driven reactions of halogenated moelcues adsorbed on ice surfaces, rather than the physics of cloud formation, I'd take his prognostications on the colling trends over the next fifty years with a grain of salt.

The abstract concentrates on ozone destruction, and only the last sentence in the abstract

/quote

Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.

/end quote

suggests that it contains any speculation on climate change. Since ozone and CFCs are both minor greenhouse gases, it is difficult to see how variations in their levels are going to dominate the climate over the next fifty years.

This kind of minor difficulty with facts hasn't stopped the denialist propaganda machine in the past, and I'd counsel a more sceptical approach than you and Jan seem to fancy.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

oman

Sl=3D

ld =3D

er

bas=3D

som=3D

s y

te

ain=3D

ng =3D

re.=3D

I know that you aren't convinced by the evidence for anthropogenic component in global warming, but there's no reason to believe that you know enough physics to understand the evidence, so your opinion on the subject is less than decisive.

-- Bil Sloman, Nijmegen

:

ill Sloman

:

would mea=3D

!!!

fewer

a basic =3D

of some s=3D

, as

sity

imate

against,

ezing in Montana):

/thre...

The satellite temperature measurements

do show 1998 as as the hottest year so far - as Don Klipstein points out, this was due to an exceptionally intense El Nino - but the trend line is still going up, which does make your statement a trifle irrational, in that you are focussing on what is obviously a freak event, and ignoring the undlying trend.

More broadly based temperature measurments don't show 1998 was the hottest year ever

which is perhaps why you don't fancy that particular record, since it doesn't lend itself to your cherry-picking habits.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Sloman

mea=

basic =

some s=

against,

freezing in Montana):

 

Yes temperature is affected by weather. What else is new?

1998 was an intense El Nino and a reflection of global weather/climate conditions at the time. El Nino is part of the climate cycle unlike volcanoes or the solar cycle for example which are external but impact on the global temperature.

If you want to use a smoothed curve use one of the recognised ones such as hadcrut3:

Note it is declining.

Not that I thnik hadcrut3 is reliable. As you know I prefer the satellite record RSS or UAH.

Which aslo shows a decline.

Graph created by this guy:

/quote

This site was founded by Robert A. Rohde as an extension of his hobby for playing with climate data

/end quote

Certainly not peer reviewed, corruptly or otherwise.

It is not cherry picking to cite the hottest year since the little ice age. A decline is from a peak. 1998 was the peak. End of storey.

:

ill Sloman

:

would mea=3D

!!!

fewer

a basic =3D

of some s=3D

, as

sity

imate

against,

ezing in Montana):

/thre...

"Global temperatures peaked in 1998" was true once, but stopped being true in 2005.

e:

edBill Sloman

would mea=3D

!!!

es fewer

is a basic =3D

ng of some s=3D

ury, as

cessity

an

ing

rom

-

So what. An unusually intense El Nino isn't a sensible place to start claiming as the start of cooling trend - this is popularly known as cherry-picking, and hand-waving comparisons with volcanoes and solar cycles doesn't provide you with a useful fig-leaf.

For the moment. The long term trend is up.

Not since 1979. Since Roy Spencer is professionally interested in satellite recordings, he can be forgiven for starting his series in

1979. Other records do go back further.

It comes from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, as is mentioned in the figure. Robert A. Rhode is a PhD student at UC Berkeley in the Physics Department, working on Earth sciences and climate change, and his opinions on the subject are likely to be better informed than yours. Since his hobby is fairly directly related to his research interests, your description doesn't exactly do him justice - no surprises there.

A distinctly anomalous peak, which vanishes as soon as you low pass filter the data to any extent. You are cherry-picking, and are too regretably ignorant to realise how transparently obvious this is.

And what has the little ice age got to do with anything? Why not pick the highest temperature reached earlier in this interglacial, some

8000 years ago?

The techniques used to establish the temperature back then are no less direct than those being used to work out how warm the little ice age actually was for the earth as a whole, and the longer record does make nonsense of your attempts to paint the current bout of global warnming (over the last century or so) as a "rebound" from the little ice age.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen