Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

So, your argument is that you're a poor judge of source code when you see it, and that it's all over your head anyhow. And, you can say this without reading the code, or trying to see if it makes sense. Therefore, the code is reliable.

You argue from faith: blind faith, sight unseen, in people you don't know, their measurements, their adjustments, their understanding of the processes, their integrity, and their code. All these are necessary.

I've seen the code I critique; you say it's pure, though you've never looked. That's faith.

I argue from knowledge, confirmed and supported by an expert with impeccable recommendations from someone I know, trust, and respect.

I've linked to the code zillions of times before. Here's a starting vector:

.php

From there you can get descriptions of each model, FROM its AUTHORS, see the obvious limitations in summary form, and access source code where it's available.

d

You'll notice that I pointed that shortcoming out years ago, here? And you, with no knowledge, denied it.

You're leaping to a conclusion. I never said or intended that.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

has

corrected by

by

presume

that

SOL James, but it doesn't, at least if you use the same model the AGW group does. Even others that contain any of the canonical presumptions of AGW fail to reconcile with well documented history.=20

=46ortunately, there are a few disparaged models that do reconcile with history.

I think i will buy another book of Menken quotes. Some did not age very well though.

a

weather

did.=20

future

they

advance.=20

are

to

positive

Ain't going to happen. It will be a real problem for historians 300 years from now.

the

and S

than raw

called

Kind of a scaled up garlic press.

which

Similar=20

op-scientist/

Well after having read it, adjusting the natural data with data from an airport (an obvious hot spot) seems to be beyond injudicious.

?.

it=20

As reasonable as that is, it is still not done. WHY?

r

here

that

t

ere

n d

That's some 300 years after the Vikings abandoned the colony. Glaciers, like rivers, dig out new channels from time to time. This isn't a farm that is now buried under the ice sheet, or anything like it.

Except that he had moved on some 300 years earlier, so the glacier didn't contribute materially to his decision (unless he was remarkably prescient, and somebody who was that prescient wouldn't have moved in in the first place).

And I like the image of the famer fleeing from the on-coming glacier with all his possessions loaded onto sledges being dragged away by his team of snails.

But the ice sheet wasn't growing directly on top of the farm, was it ...

-- Bill Soman, Nijmegen

oman

cle=3D

mponent is insignificant in the view of the > big climate cycles.

Sorry Jan. Your kind of thinking may tend that way, but only because it is insensible of the scientific evidence.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Most fraudulent scientists are smart enough to slink quietly away when their fraud is discovered. Slowman has no such IQ. ...Jim Thompson

As far as I know it was.

What does that matter? Fact is, temperatures became colder and colder until the settlers simply could not stick it out anymore because the land would not sustain them anymore. This is evidenced by numerous archaeological finds, such as farm dogs that were slaughtered and then eaten. Then some areas of theirs were taken over by ice. When you see a tsunami coming would you just wait there and see, in hopes that it might go away on its own?

Since the remnants of those farms have been found under the ice it is proven that there was no ice back then. And today there is. Same at Schnidljoch. Do you have any other explanation how Roman coins got there?

No, but obviously the growing ice pack caused it, didn't it? I have the feeling you will not accept any proof and will try to find all sorts of excuses and hair in the soup. What's next? Their language wasn't Norwegian enough anymore so they don't count?

hold

..

Right. I'd got my Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry in 1970, which made me dangerously vulnerable to scientific evidence. Al Gore has only just finished his undergraduate studies in 1969, so he really can't be blamed.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Sloman

t &...

Only to those who don't have some understanding of the issues involved.

Ignorance may be bliss, but - like most drugs of addiction - it can seriously damage your health. In this instance, it can also damage the health of your off-spring.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Sloman

t &... t

the =3D

gs that are bad for the world,

Unfortunately, real life is less accomodating.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to instability.

The currently accepted explanation of the regular oscillation between ice ages and interglacials over the past few million years requires a limited amount of positive feedback to amplify the Milankovitch forcing up to a level where they could create the temperature swings we can deduce from the historical record.

The last time I heard about an electronic engineer making an equally ridiculous claim was when I was being told about a guy who had taken a circuit of mine which used a smidgin of positive feedback to linearise a platinum resistance thermometer, and ripped out the positve feedback "because it would make the circuit oscillate". Someone at Honeywell had the same idea at the same time, and it didn't make their circuit oscillate.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

.

resources=20

required=20

most=20

Joel, please reset your quoting to default. It is easier to read.

alt.politics.british,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,us.politics,soc.culture.irish

Why don't the likes of Raveninghorde & yourself ever check the material you find and post.

Ian Wishart is not a professor. A google or wikipedia search would have quickly revealed that. He is a journalist/publisher who inhabits the conspiracy theory end of the publishing world.

A review of Air Con is at

That review led in part to

the threatened legal action has not eventuated.

I took a stab in the middle of that youtube video. After referring to claims of melting icecaps, he's talking about possible sea level rise and how the landscape behind him used to be at the bottom of the ocean and is now 100m above, and CO2 has had nothing to do with that. That's entirely correct, what he doesn't mention is that the landscape is in New Zealand and it has uplifted due to tectonic plate movement, nothing to do with sea level change due to changing amounts of water stored as ice.

Perhaps the conspiracy is coming from your favoured sources, but I've always preferred the saying about not atributing to conspiracy that which can more simply be explained by stupidity.

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

Sloman

energy=3D

the=3D

man=3D

isl=3D

faster internet

Netherlands too.

works.

(high) energy price,

more further on.

probably be Nijmegen.

will

guess.

movies where all those

the climate cycles

the climate, maybe it will happen one day.

Jan, a government is a real omnivore. It will consume anything, including that or those who established it to stay alive.

America,

I don't buy this, at all. Sorry.

Yes, the world has been warmer. Yes, glaciers have been much less in abundance. Yes, oceans have been much higher. Etc., etc.

None of this means these are directions we want to head. Nor does it say there isn't an historically unique rate of change in evidence today. Nor does it say humans aren't having a pervasive impact that contributes strongly to both the sign (+ or -) and the magnitude of recent rates.

You simply are placing yourself against what the current state of science theory and result says. And that's not a very smart place to put yourself unless you are in a position to claim a comprehensive exposure to it. The scientists active in these areas make it their business.

You've done nothing to convince me that you are in a better position to be able to say "this is quite normal," Joerg. It may sting a little to realize that I would take their word over yours. But in this case, I do. It's as basic as that.

Here's some quotes from last week's report:

"Has global warming recently slowed down or paused?

"No. There is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the human-caused climatic warming trend. The observed global temperature changes are entirely consistent with the climatic warming trend of ~0.2 °C per decade predicted by IPCC, plus superimposed short-term variability (see Figure 4). The latter has always been ? and will always be ? present in the climate system. Most of these short-term variations are due to internal oscillations like El Niño ? Southern Oscillation, solar variability (predominantly the 11-year Schwabe cycle) and volcanic eruptions (which, like Pinatubo in 1991, can cause a cooling lasting a few years).

"If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming trend. For example, El Niño events typically come with global-mean temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind

2008). However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest trend line they show in the global temperature records, and over this time period the observed trend agrees very well with the expected anthropogenic warming.

"Nevertheless global cooling has not occurred even over the past ten years, contrary to claims promoted by lobby groups and picked up in some media. In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between

0.17 and 0.34 °C warming per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 °C per decade. The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller warming trends (0.11 °C per decade for 1999-2008) primarily due to the fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves out the Arctic, which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years.

"It is perhaps noteworthy that despite the extremely low brightness of the sun over the past three years (see next page); temperature records have been broken during this time (see NOAA, State of the Climate,

2009). For example, March 2008 saw the warmest global land temperature of any March ever measured in the instrumental record. June and August 2009 saw the warmest land and ocean temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere ever recorded for those months. The global ocean surface temperatures in 2009 broke all previous records for three consecutive months: June, July and August. The years 2007, 2008 and 2009 had the lowest summer Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, and in 2008 for the first time in living memory the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage were simultaneously ice-free. This feat was repeated in 2009. Every single year of this century (2001-2008) has been among the top ten warmest years since instrumental records began.

"...

"Can solar activity or other natural processes explain global warming?

"No. The incoming solar radiation has been almost constant over the past 50 years, apart from the well-known 11-year solar cycle (Figure

5). In fact it has slightly decreased over this period. In addition, over the past three years the brightness of the sun has reached an all-time low since the beginning of satellite measurements in the 1970s (Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007, 2008). But this natural cooling effect was more than a factor of ten smaller than the effect of increasing greenhouse gases, so it has not noticeably slowed down global warming. Also, winters are warming more rapidly than summers, and overnight minimum temperatures have warmed more rapidly than the daytime maxima ? exactly the opposite of what would be the case if the sun were causing the warming.

"Other natural factors, like volcanic eruptions or El Niño events, have only caused short-term temperature variations over time spans of a few years, but cannot explain any longer-term climatic trends (e.g., Lean and Rind 2008)."

"...

"Isn?t climate always changing, even without human interference?

"Of course. But past climate changes are no cause for complacency; indeed, they tell us that the Earth?s climate is very sensitive to changes in forcing. Two main conclusions can be drawn from climate history:

Climate has always responded strongly if the radiation balance of the Earth was disturbed. That suggests the same will happen again, now that humans are altering the radiation balance by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. In fact, data from climate changes in the Earth?s history have been used to quantify how strongly a given change in the radiation balance alters the global temperature (i.e., to determine the climate sensitivity). The data confirm that our climate system is as sensitive as our climate models suggest, perhaps even more so.

"Impacts of past climate changes have been severe. The last great Ice Age, when it was globally 4-7 °C colder than now, completely transformed the Earth?s surface and its ecosystems, and sea level was

120 meters lower. When the Earth last was 2-3 °C warmer than now, during the Pliocene 3 million years ago, sea level was 25-35 meters higher due to the smaller ice sheets present in the warmer climate.

"Despite the large natural climate changes, the recent global warming does stick out already. Climate reconstructions suggest that over the past two millennia, global temperature has never changed by more than

0.5 °C in a century (e.g. Mann et al. 2008; and references therein)."

hehe. Well, I wasted my time already. So there.

Of course that's an important question. It's been answered, to a sufficient degree to be useful.

In other words, you don't want to spend the time needed to gain a comprehensive view. I can accept that. But realize what it means as far as my taking your opinion on any of this.

My feeling here is that climate science is huge. Really huge. No one masters all of it. But if you can't even be bothered to take a point you are making -- not something someone else decides to say or write, but something you decide on your own is true enough that you are willing to place yourself in a position of making claims about it -- and follow through with even that single thing long enough to find out where it takes you when you gain a fuller view of even that tiny corner of things....

Well, why should I care, then?

Yeah. It takes work. So what? Spend it, or don't. But if you don't, even in cases where you feel comfortable talking strongly about it... then it undermines (to me) what you say. You either care about your opinion or you don't. And if you don't, why should I? (On this subject, obviously. On many others, I'm all ears.)

Jon