Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Threatening journal editors is "quality control"?

John

That's fine, if you like it. But at 6400 feet, after an hour boiling they are still *raw*.

What's a potato ricer?

John

..

And has not done his due diligence. If he'd asked anybody who knew anything about the subject he'd have learned that his

"The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it's that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the "peer- review" process."

is talking about the process of cleaning up the peer-review process after a rogue editor had corrupted it by publishing a scandalously inept paper that happened to be wrong in a way that suited the denialists.

Mark Steyn may just be inept, but Exxon-Mobil has been known to pay good money for exactly this kind of "ineptitude".

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

e:

ers-in...

us

ly

rg

I've been suspecting for some time that Ravinghorde is even further out of touch with reality than even Jim Thompson, and this does tend to confirm it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Chuckle. Just a slight problem with that claim.

The photo (& link) they show is of the NIWA building in Auckland. That's 400 miles away from the Kelburn site where the Wellington measurements (about which they're referring) are taken :-) Actually, VBG.

The Kelburn (Wellington) site is part of the Metservice system. NIWA is a fairly new organisation (est 1992) and so use the Metservice historical data. For consistency and because the network of measuring sites already existed, the current data is also still provided by Metservice.

I can assure you the Kelburn instruments are in a grassed area above the Botanical Gardens, well away from buildings.

Likewise, the Auckland measurements used for the historical record do not come from the NIWA building shown in that story. From memory the site is in The Domain, a park like area of 75 hectares.

I hope you might regard your favoured information sources with a bit more cynicism in future.

-- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

I don't have to grant you anything. This saga shows you're the proven fuzzy writer.

So you both have comprehension problems. I understand Jan is not a native english speaker so he deserves some leeway. I say that with admiration because I am sadly monolingual.

I'm glad you now agree they can talk freely.

There was no answer because there was no question. Bill made a correct claim in response to Jan's correct claim.

-- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

oman

l S=3D

pi=3D

Eat kangeroo? They produce much less methane than cows. Genetically engineer new bacteria to live in cow guts to digest the cellulose for them without turning some of it into methane?

And why do we need to stop cows emitting methane? Methane is responsible for from 4% to 9% of the current greenhouse warming, about half the current contribution of CO2, but it doesn't last that long in the atmosphere, and it's a lot easier to reduce our CO2 emissions without messing up our life-style.

UGH ENERGY*.

Even better, stop making the climate worse by burning fossil carbon.

hing ...... nothing... windmills, > solar.

We can get away with burning oil for a decade or so and natural gas for a little longer, but we need to use that time wean ourselves off fossil carbon.

observation.

I'm afraid that you are the one who is denying reality and rejecting objective observation.

It is a risk. A rerun of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is a more likely scenario, and that didn't cause a global extinction, though it obviously made life difficult for a lot of organisms. It would certainly lead to a crash in the human population and completely dismatle our current civilisation.

and not invest in more nuclear power plants,

You have told me a lot of things - that the greens want us to stop using energy and to rehouse us in unheated grass huts, for example - and I'm afraid that you don't check your sources all that carefully.

e solar panels [and a windmill] on the

Roof-top windmills are too small to be cost-effective.

ills will be taxed extra then.

Perhaps. They are generally subsidised a the moment

ld be just as expensive as a petrol

The first car we bought in the Netherlands was modified to run on natural gas, but we didn't expect to drive anywhere near far enough to recover the extra road tax, so we had it modified back.

It certainly was back in 1993. One of the ways of reigning in fossil carbon combustion would be to push up the tax on fossil fuel to a level that would compensate the next generation for the damage that our CO2 will be doing to their environment, inmuch the same way we tax other sources of pollution.

Nonsense. Money is meaningless in itself - it is the trick we use to match production to consumption, and taxing fossil fuel to encourage people to move to investing in windmills and solar power plants is just another way of using that trick.

Silly idea. If I "accepted nature" I wouldn't be doing what my cardiologist tells me to do to qualify for a new aortic valve in a couple of months, but sit back and let the old valve kill me in a couple of years.

Accepting nature's "plan" for the earth to move another ice age over the next few thousand years - your "natural cycle" - would be equally silly to the point of being downright stupid.

The anthropogenic global warming that you choose not to beleive in - against all the evidence that you can't be bothered to understand - has probably saved us from that, but we do need to make sure that we don't jump out of the freezing pan into the fire.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The unfortunate thing for your happy delusion was that Jones and Mann were getting upset over a real failure of peer-review, sufficiently flagrant to prompt three members of the editorial board of the journal to resign.

The scandal cost the editor his job, and he was replaced by one of the board members who had resigned.

Granting your enthusiasm for comicla conspiracy theories, you will probably see this as the scientific mafia suppressing dissent, but the reality was that it was the scientific community imposing a spot of quality control.

They have always showed up on some temperature records, as I have pointed out to your before on a number of occasions. They just don't show up at the same time all over the world, so they aren't excursions in global temperature, just redistributions of the heat flux flowing from the equator to the poles.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

This is fairly sensible stuff, if a little unrealistic.

The denialism industry - which is distinct from climate sceptiicism - does quite a lot to foster the "tribalism" that Mike Hulme complains about.

Unfortuately, if you look at the way top-level science is organised you get to realise that the top of any speciality is a tribe-sized group - around 150 people who know one another and trust one another. This isn't somethig that is dictated by the organisations involved, it is a consequence of the fact that human beings have spent most of their evolutionary history in tribe-sized groups, and collaborate most effectively when organised into groups of this size.

When a specialty gets too big or too successful, it splits into sub- specialities that can be run by tribe-szed groups.

The behaviour within such groups is tribal because they - for all practical purposes - tribes and that is the way that tribes work best.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Sure you can pick a church near the coast which was always free of ice but other areas weren't. But heck, you can find similar proof much easier and you can quickly get there from your place by rail and bus, or by car: The Schnidejoch in the Swiss Alps, just as one example. A few thousand years ago it was mostly ice free and heavily used as a passage way. Consequently, a lot of stuff was dropped. Bows, arrows, quivers, parts of clothing, shoes, Roman coins. Seems like it wasn't much different from littered road sides today, people lost stuff, threw worn things aside. Then it all iced over, became a big glacier. Now it's thawing again and all this ancient stuff shows up.

America,

I'm not sure what you are saying.

USA Today is just the news article I had imagined you'd glimpsed before. I thought maybe it would be good to read it more fully, if so. Thanks for clarifying your point.

Climate is averages, not noise. Not weather. And no one I know of, least of all climate scientists, are stating that there will be absolutely no cases where some particular glacier won't increase. Cripes, if that were exactly true we'd be in a lot worse mess!

There is an increased hydrologic cycle. In some cases, precipitation (in terms of annual averages) may not even change, but the distribution over the year may.

For example, in my area (which, by the way, is where Andrew Fountain is .. or was .. located... who is a primary contact regarding Mt. Shasta's glaciers), the precipitation is remaining similar on an annual basis, but is shifting away from summer/fall precipitation (which used to be a near constant complaint I'd hear from California transplants) and towards winter/spring. Larger annual amplitude, similar average value. It does have a real impact, though. We will have to create more summer-time storage to supply the 1.5 million people who depend upon the glaciers now for their fresh water supply during late summer. Glaciers, normally quite decently sized here in Portland and northward, are receding quite rapidly. We've lost almost

That aside, some places, due to the increased cycle will experience increases and some decreases. The total global precipitation will slightly increase.

From the Copenhagen Diagnosis, recently released:

"Post IPCC AR4 research has also found that rains become more intense in already-rainy areas as atmospheric water vapor content increases (Pall et al. 2007; Wentz et al. 2007; Allan and Soden 2008). These conclusions strengthen those of earlier studies and are expected from considerations of atmospheric thermodynamics. However, recent changes have occurred faster than predicted by some climate models, raising the possibility that future changes will be more severe than predicted.

"...

"In addition to the increases in heavy precipitation, there have also been observed increases in drought since the 1970s (Sheffield and Wood 2008), consistent with the decreases in mean precipitation over land in some latitude bands that have been attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Zhang et al.

"The intensification of the global hydrological cycle with anthropogenic climate change is expected to lead to further increases in precipitation extremes, both increases in very heavy precipitation in wet areas and increases in drought in dry areas. While precise figures cannot yet be given, current studies suggest that heavy precipitation rates may increase by 5% - 10% per °C of warming, similar to the rate of increase of atmospheric water vapor."

On a separate topic, I thought you might be interested in the GLIMS numbers for the glaciers on Mt. Shasta:

(Unnamed, I think) G237813E41427N 1950-07-01 58849 G237815E41410N 1950-07-01 58850 Konwakiton Glacier G237805E41400N 1950-07-01 58851 Watkins Glacier G237821E41403N 1950-07-01 58852 Whitney Glacier G237787E41415N 1950-07-01 58853 G237804E41420N 1950-07-01 58854 Bolam Glacier G237799E41421N 1950-07-01 58855 G237803E41424N 1950-07-01 58856 G237813E41422N 1950-07-01 58857 Hotlum Glacier G237814E41418N 1950-07-01 58858 G237818E41416N 1950-07-01 58859

You can use those to secure data on those from the GLIMS dataset. Not that it probably matters. But there it is because I wasted my time looking for them. Oh, well.

Not the point when talking about averages, is it?

Accepted.

Understood. It is the __attribution__ that you are questioning. In many cases, it's worth keeping that in view. Not __everything__ in the world is 100% due to humans. ;)

Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point, I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious criticism.

Of course. But I am not always sure the vein in which it was made. I may understand better now.

Jon

You said it all right. You seem to have - very wisely - requested that your post was not to be archived, and have managed to contain your outrage at being caught making a fool of yourself until the original evidence had evaporated.

James Arthur doesn't know the difference between a global climate model, which predicts over a span of year and a global weather model which falls to pieces in about two weeks.

James Arthur "improving" what he remembers.

It was a few weeks on the 22nd November. Marvellous how getting caught with your pants down "improves" your memory.

Not having spent years working on the models, I doubt very much that I could see anything of the sort. I had enough trouble with the much simpler simulation I wrote in 1968 to model the chemical reaction in the reaction cell I used in my Ph.D. work.

If James Arthur can produce this model which he claims to know so much about we could - of course - test this hypothesis, but since neither of us has spent our professional careers improving climate models our opinions are unlikely to be even useful, let alone decisive.

The models aren't precise, and they aren't designed to to produce accurate predictions over periods of a few years. They failed to predict the current slowing in the rate of global warming because didn't allow for the movement in the ocean circulation that the Argo project is only now beginning to telling us about.

The excursion away from the smooth and continuous heating strawman prediction that James Arthur is trying to set up is small, of the order of a tenth of a degree or so, and of the order of the noise on the global temperature record over the last century.

This degree of deviation from reality doesn't make them wrong, merely less precise than than the denialist press would like, and it certainly doesn't invalid the longer term prediction.

It might be if it had been offered by someone who knew what they were talking about. These are the sorts of numbers that Christopher Monckton comes up with

More reliable sources seem to be able to come up with a narrower range.

gives a figure of 1.66 W/m=B2, with a range between 1.49 and 1.83 W/m=B2.

This ties up with

They don't give nice simple numbers, but they do derive their numbers from the measured behaviour of the atmosphere which does constrain the numbers to within about +/-10%.

And you have to keep in mind that forcing depends on the other gases in the atmosphere. Some IR absorbtion lines overlap, and pressure broadening makes individual absorbtion lines wider. It is all predictable but it means that total forcing is averaged over a lot of rather different situations.

Says who? Another one of these people whose advice you seem to have trouble remembering with any precision?

And I'd be right. Your capacity for creative scepticism verges on denialism, and you can't - or won't - identify your sources, so your credibility is totally shot.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

As usual, you miss the point. Climate may just be the integral of weather, but trying to predict weather for more than a fortnight doesn't work, and it seems unlikely that anybody will ever be able to do it.

Climate is more tightly constrained than weather, and correspondingly more predictable, if you are careful about what you chose to predict.

You still need massive computers to do it right, and a recent IEEE Specrum had an article on a planned "Cloud Computer" powerful enough to work with cell sizes of a kilometre or so, small enough to let the models handle clouds on a cell by cell basis, rather than treating them as an average parameter smeared across a rather larger cell.

You can assert anything you like. In this case it make you look like an idiot, but that is your problem.

There's been plenty of evidence around for quite some time now

I'm not surprised that you don't know about it - you do seem to be a renaissance man when it comes to ignorance.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

In article , Joerg wrote in part:

It was a claim of Eeyore that thick ice now covers where the vikings settled. I have yet to see this actually established, and I have dug up photos of at least part of the settlement areas being green in the summer in recent decades. Nearly all of the settlement areas are ice-free in the summer lately according to maps of snow/ice cover.

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

In , Bill Sloman wrote in part:

There are other processes that will be affected by global warming. For one thing, the warming has been predicted by much of the models so far to warm the Arctic more than elsewhere, and so far the Arctic has warmed more than the world as a whole has.

This will decrease temperature contrast between the Arctic and the tropics, and that temperature contrast is the main driving force in extratropical cyclones of the kind shown on weather maps. Rainfall other than either convective in nature or from tropical weather systems may not increase much in the Northern Hemisphere, and could become spottier or shift from an area used to the rain to an area that is not.

However, I see precipitation pattern shifts so far being mostly from periodic factors, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (roughly

I would rather suspect that someone having fuel consumption double is either getting out of a rut of a few warm winters or into a rut of a few cold ones, or got more sensitive to cold due to advancing age or need to cut calorie intake to avoid clogging of arteries.

Maybe something reminding me of location where home heating fuel needed such an increase would be useful - I can dig up weather records for the nearest similar-altitude official weather station similarly situated as far as major mountain ranges go, or a few stations of wunderground.com. That would tell us what temperature trend has been - at that specific little region of Northern California.

(I have a bit of impression that the location in question is east rim of the Central Valley ENE of Sacramento - any correction/clarification? How about elevation? - that may matter in local or regional weather and climate issues.)

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

Sloman

energy=

the=

man=

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:13:26 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Well, you need to understand human nature, psychology. 'Leaders' as chosen by a group, are some individuals who, even if they have no clue to the subject at hand, will lead the way (to hell if it so happens), and the greed for power, and money (and money often equals power), is very strong in those. Anything else will be compromised. That is not to say there are no good, well informed leaders, but the leaders cook the data so it suits their purposes.

They control the press, the scientific publications you get to see, the media, they chose what movies will be played, what the news reader says, who is the bad guy of the day, and who is the good guy of the day, etc etc, and in that way control you. And *you* think you are free and have your own opinion.

Hey, for a moment it thought you wrote 'arctic valve' hehehe.

That ice age will come, and not much sooner or later if you store CO2 under your bed. We need to have the energy sources to be able to cope with climate change else our civilisation will collapse. Global warming crap diverts money from that to useless things.

Well,, some professors and scientists see this very differently. Did you read that other posting I forwarded quoting that Australian professor, who is a *real* climate expert? ?

Rhetoric worth a con man like Gore.

Here is some more, grabbed from us.politics today:

From: Eunometic Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,us.politics,soc.culture.irish Subject: Proff Bob Carter Torpedoes Climate Hoax Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:39:38 -0800 (PST)

Below find some videos for those too busy to read a book.

Professor Bob Carter

Dr Tim Ball on Climate Gate, how peer review and the IPCC was corrupted.

Proffesor Ian Wishart, author of "Air Con"

Original Climate Gate E-mails:

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled! (Part 1 of 5)

Note Hadley are custodians of the worlds climate data, they produce papers that feed much of the IPCC reports. (Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank)