OT: How to profit from AGW?

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:23:02 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

It would be a lot more 'scientific' if you actually provided some evidence, after all A in AGW is *your* claim.

Anyways it will all be moot when the big comet in 2028 or 2038 or so tears of most of the atmosphere when making a close pass by earth... and kills almost all lifeforms that use a lot of oxygen, causes a huge temperature drop, and all that will live on earth after that are insects. Spiders rule! They are cool!

A scenario like that is much more likely then the .0000000000000001 degree K extra temp rise because of your farting.

So, where is your 'proof' of A in AGW? Nowhere!

SNIP

Sometimes you are a total idiot.

It is not cherry picking to use the hottest year as a referance point if talking about a decline in temperatures. Ignoring the peak temperature is like ignoring the value of a sine wave at 90 degrees because it is cheery picking.

Another wooly ill defined point. Long term is a meaningless phrase.

No a decline since the peak.

A useless graph as it is an average of several unrelated curves.

As I have posted before look at central Greenland icecore reconstructions. Note the temperature has been declining from a peak

3300 or so years ago. A temperature drop of 3C.

The data here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

is plotted here:

/quotes

In fact for the entire Holocene ? the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization ? the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline. From this perspective, it?s the LIA that was unusual, and the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean. If it lasts.

For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists? insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.

/end quotes

oman

e,

It isn't "my claim", but the claim of the scientific establishment, going back for quite some time.

s of most of the

t are insects.

e K extra temp

I'm sure that you would like to think so.

Wrong. You really should read the hostiry and see how the proof was built up, stage by stage. It may take more presistence than you can manage, but the time would be better spent than in inventing implausible comet impacts. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle did it better in "Lucifer's Hammer".

's_Hammer

For the real stuff try

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:47:43 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

'Scientific establishment' is exactly what called the earth flat, had the sun orbit the earth, stated that earth fire and water where the basic elements, and a whole lot of other nonsense too.

What we need is common sense, and we know about the cycles that earth went through, we know about past ice ages, and know those will come again, human influence was zero in past ice ages, so the conclusion is obvious to the clear of mind. Only the extensively manipulated and clouded brains fall for the green media songs by Al Gore & Friends. More info here:

I am not familiar with 'hostiry', but as shown in the links above, history tells a different tale.

So, sci fi, Hollywood, movies, that is all it is, The Romans used Bread and Games to control the masses. these days TV and Radio, and bread of course, to make you think what you think.

Once you learn to judge for yourself you will see through the scam. The big comet impact may well happen before that though :-)

g from

ing

t -

as

Nowhere near as often as you'd like to think, and certainly not here.

A sine wave is periodic function. Random noise is less perdictable.

In this context, the meaning is clear. The atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing progressively faster since the start of the industrial revolution, around 1750, and are now higher than they have been for the past 20 million years. Before then it had sat at about 280ppm since the start of the current interglacial.

When we first started monitoring in 1958 it had risen to 315ppm, and it is now at about 385ppm.

Long term in this context is about a century.

he

Which is obviously an improbable outlier. Obviously exceptional events don't make good reference poitns for establishing a trend.

That doesn't make it useless, merely information that has to be used with care.

odd

e

that

This purports to be a single quote, but Ravinghorde has edited it, removing a largeish chunk of text from between the two paragraphs that he presents as if they follow one another.

Part of the missong text is

/quote

Does this mean that CO2 isn=92t a greenhouse gas? No.

Does it mean that it isn=92t warming? No.

Does it mean that we shouldn=92t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not. We should do all those things for many reasons =97 but there=92s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech. (There=92s plenty of money, too, but it=92s all going to climate science at the moment. ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.

/end quote

Which is to say that Ravinghorde has been practicing text-chopping again.

The argument that the author was advancing is sily enough to appeal to Ravinghorde, but it was not quite a silly as Ravinghorde wanted, so he pepped it up by a bit of judicious text-chopping.

This is cheating in anybody's book.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

rom

-

So you have to wait for another anomalously intense El Nino before you can recognise that the underlying trend is still going up. A very Nelsonian attitude, though dishonest is probably a more accurate characterisation, granting your enthusiasm for cherry-picking and text- chopping.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

from

I did say quotes, note plural, and I did leave extra lines between them. And I did link to the original so anyone could read the full article for themselves.

Which is not controversial and I also agree with.

The argument the author was advancing is clearly supported by the data and is that the current 100 year warming trend is nothing unusual and current temperatures aren't particularly high.

You of course wish to belittle these simple facts because then AGW is just irrelvent if the global temperature is behaving normally.

If you wish to argue about the interpretation of the data fine. If you wish to carry on your paranoid religious delusion the go f*ck yourself.

most of the atmosphere when

of oxygen,

insects.

extra temp

Farting? Are you telling us that Bill is just another "Always Gassy Windbag'? :(

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

Sloman

nce,

ars of most of the atmosphere when

a lot of oxygen,

hat are insects.

ree K extra temp

assy

so how does one profit from all this hogwash?

For starters....I think I should be entitled to a carbon offset credit check each time I ride my motorcycle to work instead of the car.....

WE need to ensure that the carbon taxes imposed by the US gov are RETURNED TO THE PUBLIC as they do in France....

Unless the taxation system is set up to be revenue neutral, you will never convince me that the motive is not money.

Mark

Larkin

home automation

control

last night in comp.os.linux.development.apps

needs a timing,

use any light

Probably not AM, the 200 m to 600 m wavelengths just do not reflect=20 all that well off of airplanes. The FM band however is quite usable.

I disagree with you about the A in AGW, but i agree with you finding = better=20 way to extract the currently uneconomic to recover resources. Of course, insulation and other energy efficiency methods will remain good sources = of=20 income as well.

too

ials/article6945991.ece

But more would be used for air conditioning.

I have no problem with being frugal with our resources, and seeking alternate energy sources. But it all has to make economic sense. We humans ARE more important, and should be able to use whatever we like, in spite of the green nuts and PETA (or is PITA, I can never remember which ;-) ...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     |
             
                    Help save the environment!
             Please dispose of socialism responsibly!

And Diesel for ice cream trucks :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

AM = Amplitude Modulation

There is some US specific convention which equates AM with the medium wave band used for domestic broadcasts.

In the rest of the world, amplitude modulation is also used for broadcasting in the long and short wave bands.

In recent years there have been several claims that the stealth planes are visible, when illuminated by short wave energy from behind. The illumination source could be a SW transmitter behind the horizon, since the SW power is reflected from the ionosphere.

The Woodpecker over the horizon radar

used frequencies in the 7-19 MHz range to detect intercontinental missiles, used a special waveform, but apparently with improved signal processing, other illumination sources could be used to detect objects in the electromagnetic field.

oman

Sl=3D

u e

enc=3D

e basic elements,

It wasn't actually a scientific establishment back then, unless you call theology a science. It was the development of the scientific method that managed to free us of those particular delusions, and might free you from yours if you ever got around to descovering it.

t through,

nce was

dia

ear=3D

tha=3D

gre=3D

Not to those who understand it, which you clearly don't.

think.

They do seem to have gained control over what litle brain you have. There are other sources of information, if you have the wit to use them.

I've not had any trouble seeing through the Exxon-Mobil funded scam that has given you the silly ideas that you post here, but I probably got a better scientific education than you did

I'll mostly likely have died before then, and several hundreds of generations after me - though if you silly ideas are more widely adopted, there may not be that many generations of humans to come.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Sloman

nce,

ars of most of the atmosphere when

a lot of oxygen,

hat are insects.

ree K extra temp

assy

Jan would like to think so. It isn't only Americans who go in for wishful thinking.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ming from

ooling

ew

text-

nce

uch as

ing

png

ts

ate

act

png

by

d

it

ice

s e g .

Nice try. Next time use two separate /quote .. /end quote segments rather than encouraging the reader to think that the two chunks of text formed a coherent whole.

Even the bit about CO2 being a greenhouse gas?

You seem to have been having trouble with the concept for a while.

Which is silly, and hardly supported by the data he advances.

The argument for anthropogenic global warming is that the climate is displaying the normal reaction to a marked increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. That the climate can shift because of other changes in the environment (which aren't happening at the moment) doesn't undermine the physics that dictate that the earth has to get warmer if we inject more CO2 into the atmosphere.

The paranoid delusions about a conspiracy of the world's climatologists to delude the rest of us for their own benefit - a benefit that hasn't made any of them either rich or powerful - is entirely yours. Your manipulative ways with the "evidence" that you dig up and misinterpret does remind me of some of the more unscrupulous preachers that I've come across.

Sweet reasonableness personified.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Billy the Sloman wrote in reply to what I wrote below:

Actually that *was* the scientific establishment, a more recent example, that you also will try to play down I am sure, is the Club of Rome. Although in Rome, it has nothing to do with religion, as you in error, assume!

All your twisting and insinuation about the intelligence of others cannot replace the required proof. Where is it? Your (not even yours, some wannabee scientists) models are incomplete and wrong. And politically steered, to state it friendly.

Like Usenet? Your postings? This is sed, what is your warmed global doing here? Why not post to the many climate related groups? Because your ideas would be ripped apart in seconds?

As I pointed out to you, the oil companies want t stop global warming so they can sell more heating fuel. You have been unable to counter that, and still sing the greenies song 'the oil companies are bad'. You have no brain but a replay machine. It lacks originality, science, and fun :-)

Well, now, my idea was to have enough energy sources to cope with climate change that will come. Come not because your farting etc, but because of natural cycles. You cannot find fault with that, you, you belittle other's postings. get a life, while you can. I just wrote a nice piece of software to connect ethernet to RS232. It works! So I can read / write my PIC RS232 sensor stuff remotely. So, what, once you wake up, are you going to do?

PS How about using a spell sjeker?